I've been using Lucky 100, it's ok. Only developed one roll so far, survived being pushed a couple of stops in D76.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:47 (seven years ago) link
pro tip for lucky 100 is to not use an acid stop, rinse with only water between dev and fix
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:48 (seven years ago) link
Ok. Any reason?
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:11 (seven years ago) link
My method, rightly or wrongly, is currently dev > quick rinse in water > stop > quick rinse > fix > full rinse.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:12 (seven years ago) link
the emulsion on lucky (or was it shanghai gp3? either wya) is p fragile... acid stop mottled my emulsion and gave me bad results
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:19 (seven years ago) link
if youre using stop you prob dont need to rinse w/ water first, stop is p impervious to dev iirc
i can't recall what you can replace the stop bath with, something like 30 seconds of water, or maybe 2 changes of water with a few inversions, or something
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:21 (seven years ago) link
May try that. Had thrown in the quick rinses just to try and avoid cross contamination of the solutions i re-use, though it likely makes little difference.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:40 (seven years ago) link
you reuse dev?
it's okay to get a lil stop bath into your fixer iirc, i don't think fixer is too ph-sensitive
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:42 (seven years ago) link
i just re-use stop and fix. Though i have re-used dev once or twice when experimenting with developing colour films in b&w chems, though the re-use was straight after initial use.
Like i say, no real reason i do the extra water washes.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:52 (seven years ago) link
not really an emulsion thing but a film-specific query i think
i was wonderingas somebody who has always outsourced printing to the labwhat are the options for really printing photographs. i have photographs i like that i have taken, & i wonder sometimes whether if, if i wanted a good quality print of one, something comparable to a lovingly framed silver gelatin- gallery print, what would i do? is that entirely in the realm of people printing their own photographs on good paper, &c, or is it outsourced? i am not exactly keen to live in an apartment cluttered with memorials to my photographic talent or anything but there are some that i would like to nicely print rather than have on matte drugstore paper, or just curled up in a box of negatives.
did you guys ever elevate your photos to this level?
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Friday, 7 June 2013 19:40 (seven years ago) link
look like a foam seal issue to you guys, or something that happened at the lab? It looks like it's come from the sprockets, right? I've had three or four colour films come out fine, and the tail end of this roll of HP5 is the first I've seen it happen..
― sktsh, Saturday, 26 April 2014 22:22 (six years ago) link
Yeah could definitely be a light leak? Is it on multiple frames? Did you leave that frame in the chamber for a long time?
Way to be sure would be to shine a flashlight around the camera on your next roll, possibly towards the end
― 龜, Saturday, 26 April 2014 23:52 (six years ago) link
Could maybe be due to rushed processing, poorly drying chemicals maybe? I've had some b&w processing come back w splotches. But yeah try the flashlight test.
Xpost: I've gotten pretty nice prints from adorama! I think if you go to a professional lab in your area they can provide nice and large prints that aren't too pricey... You should try!
― chinavision!, Sunday, 27 April 2014 00:25 (six years ago) link
Better than the drugstore
Yep, multiple frames with different patterns but all variations on a theme (ie bands of light coming up from the bottom) - only starts about halfway through the roll. I shot the whole lot in one afternoon, so it wasn't sitting in the camera for a long time. Will try the flashlight tip. Thanks!
― sktsh, Sunday, 27 April 2014 00:50 (six years ago) link
people on RFF have used this (forum sponsor) before and have reported on the results: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98700
― 乒乓, Friday, March 15, 2013 1:24 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
so i did in fact finally do this, after a lot of false starts and tests. it's not 100% the smoothest procedure in the world, and i imagine if you're willing to go a little more expensive with one of the super-duper professional type places (like the ones hyped by Ken Rockwell here http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/labs.htm) you might get slightly more attentive customer care. Not that anyone's been rude or anything, just that thing where you can perceive that the system isn't really set up to smoothly serve this type of customer or this type of need. In any case, though, and more to the point of the thread, it's thrilling to have the film back and developed and, most of it, looking pretty good. It's also daunting as hell, and of course I'm making it worse for myself since, while I was waiting for the dozens of rolls to come back to me, I finally got the needed adapter for my film scanner and started laying into some developed-and-never-scanned negatives and, oh, lord, I just see the future ratcheting out ahead of me, soundtracked by the whirring of the scanner and the click of the mouse as I futz with stuff in Lightroom.
I stopped shooting film at the end of 2011 - god, time flies - so it's kinda just nice to be back in this look-and-feel. Lots of fairly grainy and not that sexy consumer-grade Fuji 400 and stuff. And it turns out some of the stuff I was shooting in early 2010 wasn't that attractive or well-lit in the first place. But still, some of these are making me happy.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 20:59 (four years ago) link
Top one there also an experiment in applying Lightroom's like-magic "vertical" tool, which naturally plays wayyyy better with RAW files from cameras where it knows the lens, to film shots. Wish I could figure out how to get it correct lens profiles for the film lenses I did have. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way those work, but just for it to know what transformation it should apply to fix barrel distortion would be pretty cool; I use those all the time for digital stuff.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 21:01 (four years ago) link
Also, there really should be a word for the nagging, but unprovable, feeling that you must have lost a roll of film in a drawer somewhere. I really can't have taken so little in the way of personal/party candid shots between Fall 2010 and June 2011, I just can't have. Adding further confusion: one roll that I apparently developed at Target (!?!?!) somewhere in that time, where half the roll appears to be replaced with somebody else's pictures. I have no idea why I was getting film developed at Target, but I'm trying to comfort myself with the logic that, at the time, I would have noticed this strange development and taken action, unless I had some reason not to care (like it was a short roll anyway). But why wouldn't I have tried to return the other person's negatives? It makes no sense.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 21:06 (four years ago) link
that's awesome, dr cthose are happy-making, esp <3 3rd oneincomparable experience to get old rolls developed, to scan old negsyou remind me, have some v v old disposable camera rolls inexplicably never developed; prob ruined by now but obv worth processing anywayalso many negs from middle/high school (!!!), most prints long lost, never scanneddon’t know why i keep postponing likely proustian experience
there really should be a word for the nagging, but unprovable, feeling that you must have lost a roll of film in a drawer somewhereso otm
one roll that I apparently developed at Target (!?!?!) somewhere in that time, where half the roll appears to be replaced with somebody else's picturesthat reminds me of roll i once took to be developed, which lab lost or mixed up with someone else’s roll (b&w, so lab outsourced to another lab)anyway, roll was never foundthis happened like decade ago; i’m still haunted by that lost rollvividly remember when/where i took those pictures— long rambling walk on melancholy overcast late afternoon in place with fraught associations when i was in v particular/inarticulable state of mindmaybe the vividness of the memory is due to (& worth) the loss of the photographs
― drash, Sunday, 23 August 2015 14:37 (four years ago) link
aww, thanks a bunch. much more to come on flickr of course. btw i realized i may have been confusing above - none of these are from the big batch i got developed/scanned through those people (just me with my buddy the coolscan), so don't take them as samples of their work.
do the disposable cameras sooner rather than later! you seriously never know. IMO if there's one precious memory great shot buried in there it's so worth it.
i scanned a big bunch of high school negs the other week, not sure when i'll get around to processing them or what i'll do with them. i think all i had then was disposables. they're none of them "great photos" but definitely the kind of thing that folks on facebook may get a kick out of, might bring a smile to some people's faces, etc. that's a worthy thing. but only so many hours in the day. maybe i'll save them for twenty years out from graduation or something.
my other great "lost roll" - only one that's ever come back blank, crushingly - was from the end of summer 2008, mostly goofing around at coney island with a couple of good pals. i would love, love to see what was on that. sigh. really interesting to think that the memories of the day are heightened by taking but not having the photos. normally i think of photos as memory-prompts, gradually the days that were photographed come to call up (but also to stand in for) many other days and times. but perhaps a day that one THINKS about having photographed can actually work the same way. that's really interesting.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 23 August 2015 16:00 (four years ago) link
cool stuff doctor casino
― tender is the late-night daypart (schlump), Sunday, 23 August 2015 16:15 (four years ago) link
Man, that makes me want to get a film camera and shoot. Are they still doing $12 all in plus shipping for the scans?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 24 August 2015 03:02 (four years ago) link
Yeah! I think you do have to be a registered RFF member and click through from their ad there, otherwise you won't find that item to add to your cart.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Monday, 24 August 2015 15:14 (four years ago) link
i've realized i should probably use a service like precision.
i had some developed negatives and went to a semiserious developing place today and got a price of 99 cents per frame for scanning to cd at "good" resolution, a buck something per exposure for "excellent" resolution ???? it's considerably cheaper if a develop/scan package for whatever reason (maybe there's a good reason that i'm unaware of).
― dylannn, Saturday, 29 August 2015 06:24 (four years ago) link
Well, it's a LOT simpler to feed film into a scanner before it's been cut and sleeved. That's probably the biggest reason, assuming it's not like a drug store deal where the sacns happen (as I understand it) in the same machine as developing (?).
I should revise up my Precision comments a bit - in the end they came through, clearly tried hard to unravel some crossed wires, and insisted on a partial refund even when I was like ahhh, whatever, it's fine.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 29 August 2015 12:22 (four years ago) link