Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1841
All i typed there was at school without any source at all, so yeah, i think i must have mixed up the Canon T90 and EOS 650 with eachother. But thanks for the heads up
The EOS 650 really looks simmilar to the T90 if you put them next to each other, just look:
New meets Old by Leevmeister, on Flickr
Because it's a film SLR you won't be using the burst rate a lot i guess, so it's nice to know, but i wouldn't use it anyway.
It does not feature a split prism focusing screen, as it's meant as a AF camera, so they didn't bother to put in the split prism anymore. The screen is not replaceable too AFAIK.
-
-
Film still blows digital out of the water 9/10 times, but it's so difficult to accommodate. My old highschool got rid of their photolab and now does digital only, most photolabs only do digital, and a home dev lab is expensive.
-
[MY OPINION]
Well now, each format has it's place, at least fullframe DSLRs have a similar if not slightly better (in some the newest cameras) dynamic range compared to negative film. (slide/positive has a narrower dynamic range of course)
Digital has ISO capabilities that film can't even dream of even in cropped sensor camera nowadays.
Convenience and a faster workflow are also usually an advantage of digital cameras.
Honestly film today is more for the look and the romantic aspect than performance, unless you go to large format for huge prints to have the most resolution possible but even then I'm not sure how they will compare to an high end digital MF camera.
It's like a car, an old classic car is beautiful, sounds nice and makes you smile while driving it, a modern car can do the same while being more refined, practical and safe.
Sure most newer cars are boring compared to older cars but you can still find some that are exciting.
My point is let's not generalize, film or digital are neither the end all be all, it's just a preference.
[/MY OPINION]
Doesn't matter if you are shooting B&W, C41 or E6, unless you want to print at home (which will require an enlarger) developing 135 and MF at home is not very expensive at all, actually if you shoot regularly it will probably cost you less than having a lab do it for you.
-
you forgot about medium format, that gets better-than-full-frame performance at a tiny fraction of the cost.
also B&W is easy at home, but C41 / E6 is quite difficult and also rather dangerous, I wouldn't recommend someone to try those unless they have a real reason to.
-
Not really.
Medium format can give more resolution (if the lens is good enough) but what other performance are you talking about? Dynamic range may be a bit more and ISO is about the same as 135.
It might have more detail (that depends too) and smoother tones because of the larger negative but will you notice the difference in standard prints? If you scan it's even less useful because you can't even look at an entire 6mp at 100% zoom on a monitor.
If you do plenty of huge prints chances are you are a professional so the cost becomes less of an issue anyway. (or you could go for large format)
Not that any of this would make better photos either way, film or digital as I said it's more a matter of preference than anything else.
As for C41 and E6 dev what are you talking about? You just have to be more careful with the temperatures and times compared to B&W. What would make it more dangerous in your opinion?
-
Some of the chemicals for C41/E6 are (I think) more hazardous than those for B&W. Really not that dangerous still so long as you have proper ventilation and such, the bigger problem is actually disposing of them.
-
Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves.
Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it.
But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry!
-
I had a friend who tried to develop c41 this one time and DIED.Well as with anything I think that just threating them with proper respect and the necessary precautions would make them as safe as anything. I know of people who developed color film at home for decades and never had any problem with fumes or the chemicals themselves.
Of course C41 and E6 have less if none post processing options in the developing so you might as well have them developed by a lab while with B&W if you do it yourself you have more control over the negative with times etc. while a lab will just develop it one way and that's it.
But yeah I realize I'm being a bit too "anal" with my posts here so... ehrm sorry!
not even once.
-
Some recent-ish stuff:
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
-
Got three rolls of film to get developed all 800 iso, two of them were shot with a Chinon CM-3 and the other I have no idea what it was shot in, I believe it may have been my Zenit TTL
2 of the rolls are mainly Urbex and the other one I have no idea about.
-
Just learned that film could go bad.
I'm an idiot.
Things that were on those three rolls
1. My first Civil war Reenactment 2. Vintage car show 3. A lot of practice shots in which I wrote down what I did so I could see the effect 4. Pictures for a biology project (presenting tomorrow) 5. Some pictures of the moon(on that night something was special in the heavens and it was very clear or something).
-
I've heard of 20 year old film being used and developed without any major issues...
-
Apparently mine went bad, and if it didn't, then I hate CVS with a burning passion. They didn't say it went bad, but that's the conclusion I went with. Looked fine when I fed it into the camera, but what they gave back to me was very transparent film with no visible pictures. It was violet if that means anything.
-
some kodak portra 400, I've been switching between that and superia 200 alternatively. Also Been enjoying taking landscapes when i've got the opportunity.
-
I really like how solid the shadow is that the car casts. Also stars.
-
Im sorry to disappoint you but they aren't stars, they're dust particles in my scanner
-
what type of film was it
because if it wasn't C-41 (color negatives, including kodak's black and white BW400cn film which you sometimes find at CVS/walgreens), then it probably had zero business going through the color process machine they had there.
-
Kodak 400 tx film.
-
you mean tri-x? or t-max? (both would get fucked at your average C41 lab)
-
Tri-x.
Also fuck.
-
Ordered 10 rolls of Ektar 100 (£38.99) and 5 rolls of Portra 800 (£36.99). Wile sting, Portra 800 is crazy expensive. Taking a Nikon F-801S out over Easter and that amount of film should keep me going a couple of months. My uni store only stocks Fuji Superia for 35mm, interested to see how it performs. The guy in the store said I was the first person to ask for 35mm Ektar in 3 years, since major projects are usually shot in medium/large format.
-
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Edited:
Film from pound-land.
-
good results from that actually mate, i've never wanted to risk it.
-
Mate, I really don't know what there is to risk.
Especially today with photoshop, you really can get really pull an okay image into something nice. Not absolutely stunning stuff, but enough to capture a moment well.
And if it's candid stuff, the fact that it's so cheap really can give you a little room to manoeuvre.
These are all from the same roll:
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
Untitled by edwin.quast, on Flickr
-
I'm curious to see how my Holga brand film comes out, hopefully not too ugly lomo
-
Well risk taking a good shot and then the film ruining it because its cheaper, however your results are actually pretty good! I'll think twice next time. :)
-
i've just started using pound shop film as well, it's actually pretty decent, especially at the price
these two shots were taken with it:
-
That second photo is magazine worthy.
-
Found out a Costco about 20 minutes away still develops film, so I got two rolls developed today :)
Shot from an AE-1P using 400 Superia Xtra (super cheap at walmart) Might have to get my camera repaired to fix the light leaks or do it myself soon.
Cute Couple by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
Buddies by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
Hello! by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
Deep Thought by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
-
They sell foam seal replacements on ebay for AE-1P's for cheap. Or just get a leather case that covers seals
-
First roll i have ever got developed, i'm pretty sure its fujicolor 400iso or its Polaroid 800iso it's been in my camera for so long and i was really excited to get it developed
they are a little over exposed :(
dump
9A by street-wizard, on Flickr
7A by street-wizard, on Flickr
27A by street-wizard, on Flickr
26A by street-wizard, on Flickr
25A by street-wizard, on Flickr
24A by street-wizard, on Flickr
23A by street-wizard, on Flickr
22A by street-wizard, on Flickr
21A by street-wizard, on Flickr
19A by street-wizard, on Flickr
18A by street-wizard, on Flickr
17A by street-wizard, on Flickr
16A by street-wizard, on Flickr
14A by street-wizard, on Flickr
12A by street-wizard, on Flickr
11A by street-wizard, on Flickr
annnnddd heres the rest
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7789628...7629259276464/
Edited:
oh and they were shot on my minolta maxxum 7000
-
sorry man
it seems they don't even train them to double check, the only reason I was saved from the same fate back when I first shot some good film was because the guy doing the developing double-checked rolls because he had already ruined someone else's before, mentioning the roll turning solid pink and him getting yelled at for 'doing it wrong' by the guy who took the pics.
-
It's a shame that nobody cares enough to take 5 seconds to look at the film, or care\know what they're doing anymore. It's not like anyone old enough to be using the equipment hasn't used a film camera in their life, we haven't been in the digital age that long...
-
Worked out in the end, I went back an explained in the kindest way possible that they should have checked/known (read several stories of people having the same problem), asked if they could reimburse me by giving any three rolls of black and white and they said okay. I'll be working their this summer as a photolab person and hopefully will prevent anything like this happening.
And if any film lover could point me in the direction for a tutorial on how to develop film, along with a site as to where I can purchase the chemicals that'd be great. I believe I've found a tutorial teaching me how to scan negatives, and now I just to learn the process to get the negatives.
-
So the other day, I came into a lovely little Mamiya C22. I didn't/don't know anything at all about TLRs, so I played with it for about an hour. Today, I went into my favorite camera shop to get 220 film.
They don't have 220 film, and told me it'd be better to find a 120 back. They don't have a 120 back. :saddowns: Even if I find 220 film and use the back I have now, I'll have light leaks.
My aperture is fixed at f4 (60mm), instead of the widest possible 2.8. That's alright with me.
I don't know how likely I am to find a broken C22 that I can buy just for parts... Since, you know, the camera has no parts that can really be broken.
-
Got another roll developed, will scan some more later.
Homeless Bikeman by Kristian Carreon, on Flickr
-
Are you sure it's a 220 back? Those are pretty damn rare as far as I know, since that was the optional back (and film) for that series, until the C220 and C330, with their rotating backs. You won't have light leaks with the back you have now, but the focus will be off, since the film sits closer (220 film doesn't have backing paper, pressure plate compensates for it.) And if the aperture is stuck, well, get a new lens eventually. Beauty of the C series TLRs, interchangeable lenses.
If you use ebay, check around every once in a while. Broken Mamiyas pop up now and again, that's how I picked up my C3. Unfortunately, I didn't completely fix it, and until I finish this roll I can't go back in and do it proper...
-
i don't think he means that the aperture is stuck, just that it doesn't go as wide as 2.8
-
You're probably right, though a lot of things seem weird about his lens. There's no 60mm for the series, but there's 55mm and 65mm, the 55 having its max at f/4.5, and the 65 at f/3.5. I'm probably over thinking this, trying to help seeing as I have two of (essentially) the same camera as that.
-
You're right, the lens is an 80mm. I don't know where I got 60mm from.
I think it's a 220 back.
This is unnecessary backstory, but I like that my cameras have a history: This was my great-grandfather's and he died 50(?) years ago, and a few years ago, his wife moved from their house. His sons (my grandpa & great-uncle) went through the photography stuff and split it (I guess.). The sons have passed, and now my grandma has all of my grandpa's stuff, as well as some from the great-uncle. There could be a 120 back lying around. [/ramble]
Its passed through a lot of hands, so things could have gone missing. However, the material that usually blocked the hinges at the bottom of the door has worn away.
The aperture will not move from f4. Not towards 2.8 or 5.6.
Disagree x 1
Agree x 1
Funny x 4
Artistic x 1
Friendly x 1
Winner x 1
Informative x 1