• Film! Who still uses it?
    2,511 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bopie;30444671]I actually do that on purpose. If I have 160 ISO film, I set the camera's meter to 100. that way i get a plus '60' exposure. Makes it easier to control the shutter and aperture without having to calculate what kind of increases I'd need.[/QUOTE] Doing that kind of overexposure would also complement your style imo, overexposing increases saturation and reduces contrast (slightly), so when you're overexposing by 2/3 of a stop everything comes out all nice. Of course if you want the best possible results, metering at the stock ISO of the film will almost always give you the best results, kodak / fuji / ilford / whoever know their stuff, and if they say 'this film is ISO 125', they're saying it for a reason.
it's literally how older cameras handle manual EV override, where you set your ASA with the thin outer ring then you rotate the dial to accompany the change in exposure value, basically just turning your ASA setting up or down. [img]http://gyazo.com/c87bd844dc3366c9ffbc8b8c5e443fa6.png[/img]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;30444627]it comes out over/underexposed if you're letting the metering judge your shutter speed for the wrong ISO. If you're using manual controls and know what your shutter/aperture should be at anyways, it doesn't affect the film at all.[/QUOTE] I guess I spoke without considering newer cameras. I've only ever used full manual film cameras which only have a meter for your reference. My camera's meter doesn't have batteries, and I don't really use it anyway.
[QUOTE=The Un-Men;30440940]Actually, with film's exposure latitude, and depending on the type of film you are using, under/overexposing by a stop or two but developing normally causes effects like saturation increase/decrease, different colors, contrast etc. [editline]13th June 2011[/editline] Experiment a bit, google it and see if you can try it on something not too cheap like Kodak Gold afterwards.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah I assumed he was talking about black and white I don't know anything about color film
Has anyone of you ever tried using a normal flatbed scanner to scan some negatives?
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;30458675]Has anyone of you ever tried using a normal flatbed scanner to scan some negatives?[/QUOTE] An old scanner I used to have came with special inserts for different kinds of film/slides. It worked very well. I think it was a HP scanner. Dark grey and curvy. I'm sorry but that's all I know about it. :v:
I just got some new antiques, $60 for the lot, and their combined worth is minimum 150, but one of them came with a surprise- a roll of 50 year old kodak type 47 film (reeeeally old form of instant film), only half used. Feels like I just found DNA in a dinosaur bone :holy:
There's an awesome photo store nearby called Pardee's Camera. [img]http://i.imgur.com/lpvpL.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/ZsLZJ.jpg[/img] (Photos from their website) They have everything I'd need to develop my own film, so I'm gonna start doing that. I finally decided on a scanner now. Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (scans at 4000 dpi). Getting it for $60 in a few days.
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;30484047]I finally decided on a scanner now. Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (scans at 4000 dpi). Getting it for $60 in a few days.[/QUOTE] if I mailed you a handful of film strips and like five dollars would you scan everything up for me? :buddy:
[QUOTE=daijitsu;30487142]if I mailed you a handful of film strips and like five dollars would you scan everything up for me? :buddy:[/QUOTE] As long as the $5 covers return shipping. Also, it connects through scsi, and I don't really want to spend $120 or higher just to connect it to my computer. I can't find a scsi to usb connector online, because apparently they aren't made anymore. Anyone have one they are willing to part with?
I got my 10 rolls of Portra 400 and 10 rolls of Ektar 100 in the mail yesterday :smile: (120 size). I was literally down to my last roll before these came in the mail.
What was that? like $100 USD? Reminds me to stock up, I have a few rolls of Fuji 800 and some portra 160 for 120. 2 rolls of Portra 160 and 2 Ektar 100 in 35. My local developer is scaling back, resulting in price increases and super long delays for 35, let alone 120, so ive been mostly digital the last few weeks.
[img]http://s.hzy.im/0460.png[/img]
ouch @ shipping
US to Australia, it's normally much worse. I did a bulk order of $900 worth of film earlier in the yeear and shipping was something like $150
Ah. Were you the one that said something about those 'mass-orders' between you and a few friends?
probably. It's the only efficient way to do it in Australia. They are a pain to get together though and I needed film fast, so I just found the best ebay seller with the cheapest shipping and went with them.
That's harsh. Film is on its way out for sure. We need someone to develop better color-handling (vs resolution) sensors ASAP or else photography will be forever handicapped. Is it hard/expensive to get stuff developed down there?
yeah, I have a lab that I go to that does develop only for $2.50/roll
I've came up with a short description for Ektar 100: HUGE bias towards red.
it's very saturated, and I would say more inclined to orange than red.
[QUOTE=bopie;30510755]That's harsh. Film is on its way out for sure. We need someone to develop better color-handling (vs resolution) sensors ASAP or else photography will be forever handicapped. Is it hard/expensive to get stuff developed down there?[/QUOTE] To be honest that's compensated for by the amount of PP you can do with digital compared to how much you can do with film.
When using film you effectively have 2 layers of editing. 1) You have massive control over how you process the film, the darkroom process. You can choose how long to keep it in the chemicals, what temperature, etc. All of these things control how the final result will look. 2) The 'lightroom' process where you scan the film, and then do any photoshop editing, etc. This step is what you do to any digital photo. Digital by nature can't have the first darkroom step, meaning that it's editing capabilities will be comparatively limited. The other massive advantage of film is the cheap access to medium / large format. A medium format system SLR will set you back at most $1000 for a damn fine Haselblad, while a Digital Haselblad will set you back $40,000.
I can see your point, but you get the massive dynamic range, post-exposure white balance, etc, with digital raw. Once scanned, you lose the huge dynamic range and the same white balance effectiveness. [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] I'm not certain though, school me.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;30541012]I can see your point, but you get the massive dynamic range, post-exposure white balance, etc, with digital raw. Once scanned, you lose the huge dynamic range and the same white balance effectiveness. [editline]18th June 2011[/editline] I'm not certain though, school me.[/QUOTE] Film has an average dynamic range of 9 stops, the average digital camera only has 5. If you have a 'professional grade' scanner you can scan what are effectively digital negative files off of your film negatives, preserving all of this detail.* Your white balance is set in stone with the type of film you choose, film was a white balance of 5600K or sunlight, so people who want to get 'perfect' negatives have to use white balance correcting filters, although I've never had much trouble fixing that in the scanning / editing process. * When I do my scanning I just scan each frame in as a jpeg, however I set the white point to the brightest part of the neg and the black point to the darkest point. That gives me the full dynamic range, however it has very little contrast, I punch in the extra contrast later in lightroom.
I got finally got a film scanner, it was only about $100. I'll probably get a higher quality one sometime later.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;30540790]When using film you effectively have 2 layers of editing. 1) You have massive control over how you process the film, the darkroom process. You can choose how long to keep it in the chemicals, what temperature, etc. All of these things control how the final result will look. 2) The 'lightroom' process where you scan the film, and then do any photoshop editing, etc. This step is what you do to any digital photo. Digital by nature can't have the first darkroom step, meaning that it's editing capabilities will be comparatively limited. [/QUOTE] If I were to start shooting film, would it be best for me to start out by just sending the film to a lab to be processed or should I pick up developing chemicals and a scanner so I can handle it myself? [QUOTE=bopie;30510755]That's harsh. Film is on its way out for sure. We need someone to develop better color-handling (vs resolution) sensors ASAP or else photography will be forever handicapped. Is it hard/expensive to get stuff developed down there?[/QUOTE] check out foveon sensors for dslrs
[QUOTE=Roswell34;30597591]If I were to start shooting film, would it be best for me to start out by just sending the film to a lab to be processed or should I pick up developing chemicals and a scanner so I can handle it myself?[/QUOTE] My advice would be to get a quality scanner that allows you to have full control over how your scans turn out, and probably has a high capacity so you can scan a whole heap in one go. That would probably set you back about $200, and i know I keep saying it, but the Epson V500 seems to be the way to go. For developing doing it yourself for black and white is very fun and you can mess around and get some cool effects (I've pushed some film from iso 400 to iso 1600 and pulled some from iso 125 to iso 50). On the other hand colour film is incredibly precise and if you don't get it absolutely perfect it will fuck up, so I would suggest finding a good lab to do that for you, I got to one that does it at $2.50/roll.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;30444455]Alternatively setting up some sort of lightbox + macro lens rig with your DSLR could work, Dai posted some photos of his setup a few pages back.[/QUOTE] gonna totally use this to justify buying a nice manual focus macro lens i saw on ebay yesterday plus it'll fit my om-1 v:v:v
The developing equipment at my local Jessops was broken today, and wouldn't be fixed for 5 days so I went to Snappy Snaps instead. The my film wouldn't rewind so the guy put it in the darkbox and got the film back in the canister :buddy:. I also had a lengthy chat with the store dude about my Zenit and general photography. Shame about the prices though, costs twice as much as Jessops, but then the service is much better. They also seem to process 120 for cheap. Can't wait to see the results for this weeks 365.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.