Images from Polaroid 150 converted to 120 film.

Well these arnt the greatest of prints... pretty dusty and I think im

going to have my negatives processed elsewhere. Ill get enlargements

made soon to see how much detail their really is.... the negatives

look pretty crisp though. <br>

<br>

<img

src="http://artdorks.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10170/pumpkinflower.jpg"><br>

Pumpkin Blossoms. Ilford FP4, Deep Yellow Filter: 14G, EV 12 (f8.8

1/50s)<br>

<br>

<img

src="http://artdorks.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10170/sunflowerssmall.jpg"><br>

Sunflower Feild. Ilford FP4, Deep Yellow Filter: 14G, EV 14 (f12.5

1/100s)<br>

<br>

<img

src="http://artdorks.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10170/patrickbathroomsmall.jpg"><br>

Self Portrait in Bathroom. Ilford FP4, EV 15 on Bulb (f17.5 4s)<br>

<br>

You can see the first and last image were overlapped on the contact

sheet. I really need to get my own darkroom setup! I understand he

probably isnt used to such a long format with negatives... but he also

lost the first 3 exposures on the roll... thats a third of the roll,

and I really cant afford over $7 for 5 exposures, and dusty;

overlapped contact print! Anyway, Im pretty happy with the camera,

the lens is a little narrow which means you have to stand pretty far

back to get your shot... im so used to 50mm or wider! But the images

look pretty crisp, and NO lightleaks! I just covered the holes from

the rivets and screws from the Polaroid junk with black electrical

tape. Also, i dropped my $30 Deep Yellow filter in poison ivy after

taking the sunflowers shot and spent over and hour getting sunburned

looking for it.... so if anyone has some 55mm filters they are tired

of, let me know ;)<br>

Looks like a pretty nice lens, and well worth the effort you put into th e conversion. You really don't need a darkroom to develop film. Just a metal or plastic tank will do. You can load it in a dark room at night, but a changing bag is really a good investment.

Yeah but i dont have a neg scanner... if they even make an affordable on e that would handle 120s. so making prints and contact sheets takes a little more... oh well, one of these days!

I scan all my 120 stuff with an Epson 2450 flatbed. I probably paid about $250 for it, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't find one now for under $75.

Good job! I have a Polarhoid 95 that I converted to 6X9 on 120. The lenses on some of these cameras are pretty good. My 95 has a thoroughly coated triplet that does pretty well. I have read a lot on Edwin Land. He was an optical engineer, among other things. An amazing fellow that few really know about. I can't post any pics of my conversion, as my scanner refuses to work. Again!

Nice shots. I send my exposed rolls to the lab and get them processed for $3.00 each. Use the film frame counter hole, you will get 12 for 6x6, 8 for 6x9, 6 for 6x12 and save money by scanning them. Good luck, I will post some 6x12 as soon as I made a 6x12 film holder, because Epson scanner doesn't have 6x12 holder.

Patrick, nice shots... can you share some of the details of you conversion? I'd love to see some pictures of the camera.

Patrick:

 

Great shots. The proof is in the pudding ! The system works ! This lens is not too bad, not bad at all, actually.

 

Thanks for posting the results. You definitely need to get a changing bag and a developing tank. The cost almost nothing. And the developer is really cheap, I mean, cheap, stuff. A little goes a long way... You will see that the quality of your negatives dramatically improves if you do it yourself.

 

As to the scanner, try a used or new Epson 3170, this model has an adapter for 6x9 and 35mm. Last that I saw them, they were around $120. I have one and it is quite good for what it is.

 

Contact sheets on 6x9 are very viewable also. You could try that. If you buy printing paper by the big box, it is so much cheaper that getting the thing printed. You can do that in the bathroom.

 

Congratulations. Results are definitely very satisfactory.

Steve: I posted all the details of the conversion a couple weeks ago:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CpsA" target="_blank"> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CpsA</a><br><Br>

 

Thanks guys! Im definitly looking into doing my own processing. I do have tanks and changing bags... and all kinds of fun stuff. We live in an area without sewer, so im researching friendly alternatives to developers so I wont turn the septic tank into a toxic cesspool. Ive got some leads, which im going to try soon. <br>

Patrick, I saw that right after I posted my question... Thanks anyways... You shouldn't worry too much about the septic system, unless you are developing all the time. The reason it's not much of a problem is through dilution. Another alternative is to dump your used chemical into gallon milk jugs and take them to someone that is on a sewer system and have them dump them down their drain...

Yeah, but.... grossssss. I figure if for free i can pick plants to develop my film and make nontoxic developer... im on that. Im a hippie, what can i say?

Developers for the most part are pretty non-toxic... it's the fixers that mostly contain the nasty chemicals...

cool stuff man.