i dunno i thought that yellow/orange filters were kinda std ish for BW photography?
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:46 (twelve years ago) link
i've got a UV filter on my rollei sl35 that i just threw on my M6. apparently this is useful only for protecting the lens, but that's what i was after so
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:47 (twelve years ago) link
yeah uv filters are for lens protecting only
color filters change the tonality/contrast on B&W film. I think a lot of people prefer a yellow filter for B&W. maybe somebody else here would be more knowledgeable. caveat: I think using a filter results in a 1 stop decrease in light..
― dayo, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:53 (twelve years ago) link
color filter, that is
not for leicas with ttl metering
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:58 (twelve years ago) link
or so I read
yellow makes the sky more contrasty iirc
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 23:59 (twelve years ago) link
IIRC, color filters block their color - so a green filter makes greens lighter, etc.
In B&W this increases contrast depending on the scene - yellow makes skies more dramatic and increases overall contrast, red is good for (white and Asian) skin tones, blue/green/etc. are more specialized.I think there are levels of each color filter - light, standard, heavy - that will block different amounts of light, but I haven't used filters in years.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:00 (twelve years ago) link
ansel adams was a pretty heavy user of filters. there are probably lots of websites that will show you the effects of filters. or you could probably do the same in lightroom/aperture in using the (digital) filters - run one of your color photos through it to see how different 'color' filters affect the result
― dayo, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 00:30 (twelve years ago) link
hey soooo:what happens to kodachrome, now that it can't be processed as kodachrome? is it cross-processed to any interesting/unusual effect, or is it just a write off, bleached and dulled by regular chemicals?
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:25 (twelve years ago) link
well this was interesting: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0027zU
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 10:47 (twelve years ago) link
you can process kodachrome with B&W chemicals to get B&W images, but there's this nasty chemical called 'rem jet' that can't be removed without hassle from the negs
― dayo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:12 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, b&w seemed to be what everyone was recommending, with a smaller fringe of photo-moonshine makers preparing to frankenstein some colour prints. interesting. from elsewhere in the expired film community, i hadn't realised agfa scala 200 was (long) expired, i like that a lot, & used to be able to get it cheaply.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:17 (twelve years ago) link
I saw a Facebook link recently to someone in Australia who managed to develop Kodachrome at home. Looked like a one-off, though.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:47 (twelve years ago) link
that person is probably dying of cancer right now
― dayo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 13:58 (twelve years ago) link
i think there is an ilx thread in which a few filmmakers discuss the dangers of home developing, in enclosed spaces, i found it pretty alarming
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:08 (twelve years ago) link
no joke I wear one of these
http://i.imgur.com/MZN2F.jpg
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:29 (twelve years ago) link
it's like one of those foam dome hats, but instead of having beer near your head you can easily access your vaseline and your concealer as they are stuck to your face
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 11:38 (twelve years ago) link
Got back that c41 bw film from cvs yesterday
results were...interesting. horrifically over-processed, so contrasty, highlights blown everywhere, but I might be able to salvage some stuff
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 16:25 (twelve years ago) link
hmm I dunno if c41 can be overprocessed if it was ran through a machine. might be your light meter?
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:26 (twelve years ago) link
do the negs just look really ... thick? in comparison to the clear sprocket hole parts
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:28 (twelve years ago) link
I meant digitlly processed really
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:41 (twelve years ago) link
o so the scanning you mean
― dayo, Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:42 (twelve years ago) link
yes :-/
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 17:43 (twelve years ago) link
Highly unlikely it's a problem with your negs. That sounds like standard bad minilab scan issues.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 4 April 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
gbx i use that kodak bw400cn. my mom mails it to me.
this is what it looks like corner store scan untouched
ex 1ex 2
― dylannn, Friday, 6 April 2012 02:16 (twelve years ago) link
I'll put up some samples from my rolls later today.
― catbus otm (gbx), Friday, 6 April 2012 13:11 (twelve years ago) link
Rumor is that Ultramax 400 (Kodak's current cheapie) is consumer-grade Portra. Should be very nice at 200, I need to visit a Wal-mart soon.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 16 April 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
consumer-grade? what's that mean?
― dayo, Monday, 16 April 2012 22:54 (twelve years ago) link
where's the rumor from? I use ultra max 400 from time to time and don't see much similarity.I'm guessing consumer grade means same chemistry or something, but lower quality control/no refrigeration etc.?
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 16 April 2012 23:03 (twelve years ago) link
in the old days it was assumed that a lot pro and consumer grade films were similar or identical formulations but pro had higher quality control and more stringent expiration datescould all be BS, but Ultramax does seem to look more muted than Gold 400 did
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 16 April 2012 23:07 (twelve years ago) link
I'd like to reassure you that I am manically rescanning ultramax 400 negatives with my portra setting now. will report on results.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 16 April 2012 23:25 (twelve years ago) link
got 8 rolls of 24-exposure Superia 400 @ Wal-mart. I've got to find a local place that develops cheap without shitting all over the negatives, paying mail-order prices for 24-exposure rolls would eat up the savings
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 17 April 2012 02:02 (twelve years ago) link
wal-mart! they subcontract it out to fuji, at least on the east coast.
― dayo, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 02:07 (twelve years ago) link
got back a few rolls of film, not feeling any of it
Starting to think that I should sell my stores of traditional B&W and shoot all C-41. I'm not feeling gung-ho about developing myself, sounds like Wal-Mart is good processing+cheap, I'm probably never setting foot in a darkroom again and I can convert to B&W when I want to...
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:17 (twelve years ago) link
hating an entire 'roll' is less depressing with digital
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:19 (twelve years ago) link
haha I feel the opposite
― dayo, Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:20 (twelve years ago) link
I'm wired for sunk costs. Since I already own the camera, it doesn't feel like it cost me anything when a bunch of shots don't work out. Whereas (with the current system) I've got a $2.50 roll of Arista 400 Premium, plus $10 developing/shipping. Totally irrational looking at the overall cost, I know.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:23 (twelve years ago) link
kinda sad that it's going to take at least a week to get back my first rolls from the Pentax 645N. For some reason (maybe the big THWACK mirror sound and motor drive combined) it's the most fun camera I've ever owned.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:24 (twelve years ago) link
moving into an apartment with a bathroom by myself, maybe I'll wait and develop my own B&W for a while and see if the extra control bucks me up
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:25 (twelve years ago) link
haha - I've mentioned before how I view film costs like groceries or something. it's healthier for my mind that way.
my experience with digital used to be - oh man, it looks totally great when I chimp at it - or when I chimp, I take 500 photos of a scene and chimp and think they all look great - and when I go home and put them on the computer, none of them look that great and I realized that I probably missed the angle that I really wanted or maybe there was some imperceptible motion blur that I couldn't see on the camera screen.
― dayo, Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:26 (twelve years ago) link
highly recommended to all: Polaroid Pro-Pack camera (packfilm camera that looks like a plastic version of an old press camera, complete with big flashgun) and Fuji FP-100C and FP-3000B. I paid $25 apiece for two and keep one kind of film in each.
Let my friend's daughters (~5 and 8) play with the 100C and they thought Polaroid peel-apart film was magic. I wish I had the portraits they took of each other, but they took them back to Louisiana to show their friends.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Thursday, 19 April 2012 01:32 (twelve years ago) link
― dayo, Thursday, 19 April 2012 02:26 (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
i think when i first read that eggleston thing about just taking one shot of something, because it's easier/prevents confusion, it seemed like some sort of zen master challenge, but it's way more practical than that, & makes a lot of sense. getting a bad roll back makes me want to hang up my camera or go digital or stop goofing around with newly invented theories about what will make photos good, but that's fortunately a different impulse from the feeling-compelled-to-take-a-camera-out-&-photograph-stuff, so.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:55 (twelve years ago) link
also i found a new (old) camera store in my town. i squinted through the window & saw that they sold extra colour film, which I like, & so maybe also sell a bunch of other stuff (like portra) that I can't get here. excited. some inevitable new old musky camera guy to tolerate my questions.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Thursday, 19 April 2012 09:56 (twelve years ago) link
got film back from Wal-Mart:e-6 120 - $5/roll, came back in plastic rolled inside of a tubec-41 120 - $1/roll!!!!!, came back cut inside of plasticc-41 35mm - guess they couldn't do dev only, $10 for developing and 4x6 prints, negs are loose in the paper envelope
makes me want to shoot a lot more medium format color neg
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 23:44 (twelve years ago) link
yeah I've tried to write DEVELOP ONLY on 35mm rolls I get developed at wal-mart, they just ignore it (on one, they put the price sticker over my instructions)
― dayo, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 23:53 (twelve years ago) link
http://news.doddleme.com/news-room/and-so-it-begins-20th-century-fox-to-end-film-distribution/
you gotta think that this was a big source of revenue for film copmanies. yuk
― dayo, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 19:34 (twelve years ago) link
hey so look at this:
http://varial-artworks.com/projects/view/?page=12
finding it v useful - like i am making mental notes to buy some Ilford PAN 400 to push to 800 - but pretty beguiling at the same time
― blossom smulch (schlump), Friday, 11 May 2012 10:07 (twelve years ago) link
http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad215/jiaoqu/scannnnnn1.jpghttp://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad215/jiaoqu/scannnnnn2.jpg
― dylannn, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 05:35 (twelve years ago) link
http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad215/jiaoqu/scannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnner333.jpg
sorry. i just thought it looked cool.
― dylannn, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 07:08 (twelve years ago) link
looks cool
― spextor vs bextor (contenderizer), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 08:18 (twelve years ago) link