1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Film curious ...

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by EightBitTony, Aug 31, 2018.

  1. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Some kind of punishment, Pete? :D
     
    David Loxley likes this.
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Not for loading development tanks. It got a bit unpleasant when printing. I built a shelf into the under-stair slope which I could tuck a chair under and the shelf was just big enough to take a Gnome enlarger and 3 A4 trays. The air supply was a bit limited with the door shut and it got quite hot and the air quality somewhat questionable. It was a matter of doing one print then dashing to the kitchen to get some oxygen whilst washing the print. Slight tendency to under-develop and under-fix based on need to breathe.
     
    peterba likes this.
  3. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Prakticas [the M42's] are cheap and reliable. 50mm 1.8 lens very good, other lenses available cheaply and generally good.

    My house is tiny so I blacked out the bog window and door, load the tank sitting on the bog and dev in the kitchen. It's a lot cheaper than sending them off. At least it would be if bloody DPD could get organised and actually deliver the fresh developer I need. Chuffing useless bunch.

    The results are rubbish, but that's me, not the system.

    S
     
    Lindsay Pennell and peterba like this.
  4. David Loxley

    David Loxley Well-Known Member

    So did I. Tight squeeze innit?
    I was very young, about 12 - 13 dish developing 2,1/2 by 3,1/2 glass plates and contact prints.

    D.Lox.
     
    peterba likes this.
  5. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Oi! I resemble that remark! 72.7%, thank you. Collection is currently circa 85 as the Canon G10 and Nokin D200 are both ancient by digital standards.

    I'm yet another one who does his in the kitchen in a changing bag. If you get a tank that will take 120 as well as 35mm the world will be your mollusc camera-wise - it's a bit more awkward fitting a larger tank in a changing bag, but on the other hand you don't have yards and yards of 35mm in it to handle. It's amazing what you can get a half-decent image out of at 120 scale even with a home scanner, see my love of box cameras for details. There's a huge range of 120 boxes and folders out there at reasonable prices if you are prepared to risk various age-related woes.

    Roger's suggestion of a Nikkormat isn't bad - build that makes Zenits look lightweight, and lots of lenses. Speaking of which, my 55mm Micro-Nikkor is suffering from oil migration - anyone got one they don't use anymore? Though TBH I think if you are after an SLR any reasonable name will do the job, pick one you feel comfy with.

    You can always poke through my Flickr albums - I'll happily answer questions on any camera you like the look of!

    Adrian

    (Steve - please tell me you don't "multi-task" while you are loading your film!)
     
    steveandthedogs and peterba like this.
  6. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    :D:D
     
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    peterba likes this.
  8. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    I do - I can load the film and swear like a trooper with ease.

    S
     
    peterba likes this.
  9. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    One for me and one for the dogs?

    Being single has some great advantages. Apart from getting away from SWMBO and her three thousand assorted offspring.

    S
     
    peterba likes this.
  10. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    peterba and steveandthedogs like this.
  11. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Now my fairly logical mind would suggest that you try an autofocus film camera of the brand that you currently use, which iirc is Canon. You will already have some suitable lenses and most film camera bodies from that era are sold at low prices now. The EOS 30 & 33 were rather nice, light and compact.
     
  12. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Far too sensible! He should find a piece of hard-to-use masichistic crap - I have an Argus C3 that is just the thing!

    Adrian
     
  13. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Only for extremely idiosyncratic values of "nice, light and compact". I don't think Canon has made a "nice, light and compact" SLR since they changed mounts (I have an FTQL and an F1).

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Adrian,

    Wimp! What's wrong with 620 and 127?

    Well, apart from the fact that they're bloody useless?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  15. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Somehow I can't imagine you will be surprised, Roger, to discover, that I have on occasion rolled my own 620 and currently have several rolls of 127 in the fridge.

    Annoyingly I don't seem to have a photo of my Vest Pocket Certo Dolly to hand - maybe it was on Photofucket? - so you'll have to make do wth this. If you think 127 is useless, try half-frame on 127-size plates! Mine doesn't have the plate attachment this one does but otherwise is similar.

    https://flic.kr/p/4gABf7

    Adrian
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  16. londonbackpackr

    londonbackpackr Well-Known Member

    This is were it can start to get expensive, I had a new local snappy snaps want to charge me £19 for a c-41 process and 6x4 prints. Jessops seems to process on a 1 hour service, develop only around £5-6 and around £8-9 for 6x4 prints.

    For black & white, I'm currently using AG Photographic in Birmingham and they charge £3.99 a roll be it, 35mm or 120, obviously it will cost more to have them scanned too. I usually have the negatives back in a week.

    I do all my own scanning either with an Epson scanner or lightbox and digital camera with macro lens.

    DSC05610_edited.jpeg

    I am thinking about processing my own b&w, especially after seeing this on youtube
    but that developer isn't in the UK yet.
     
  17. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Later K1000s are cheap Chinese rubbish. Personally, I never liked the camera; the Spotmatic it was based on is much nicer, as is the Canon FTb IMHO.
    I love the MX, K2 and LX.
    Not all that keen on the AE-1, but the A-1 is superb.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    And the pre-1967 SV on which the Spotmatic was even nicer: the closest I've ever encountered in the realm of SLRs to the feel of a screw-mount Leica. Trouble is, they're wearing out now.

    The last seriously good film Pentax (which was lovely) was indeed the LX.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  19. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Monobaths need to be carefully matched to individual films, and even at their best are rarely if ever as good as separate dev/fix. Everything is sub-optimal: speed, grain, sharpness... That's not just my opinion: I've discussed it with people like Geoffrey Crawley and Grant Haist (author Modern Photographic Processing, generally regarded as the ultimate book on silver halide chemistry).

    Nor are they really much easier: how hard is it to develop at a set time and temperature; tip out the dev; and tip in the fix?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    londonbackpackr likes this.
  20. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Roger, cant say I'm more fond of the SV than any of my Spotties, although I'm no less fond of it either. I know what you mean, though.
     

Share This Page