austin_luse

<p>I once found a free darkroom sink off cl, and when i went to pick it up, the guy turned out to be a really cool guy who was an avid leica user. He not only gave me a free sink ( a pretty nice plastic one), but then gave me 2 rolls of double-x, which is a movie film. It was an interesting film to use, and funnily enough, it is only available in 500 ft. rolls. </p>

<p>I am in highschool, and i am in a photo class. we use freestyle's arista film. in photo 1, it was the arista edu 400 film. now for photo 2, he gives us arista premium iso 100 film. we use a laughter chemicals version of d76. </p>

 

<p>Honestly, I get great results from d76. its cheap, easy to find, and really is a nice developer. i dont do pushing or pulling typically, so i cant comment on its ability with either. Personally, i stick with the box speeds. it keeps me out of trouble, and all my questions for processing have already been answered by the company. besides that, i like low speed films. <br>

anyways, good luck!<br>

-Austin</p>

<p>I think its safe to say that pushing anything that far is going to have results that aren't even going to be printable. Buy some 1600 film, as was already said. Unless you've already shot it at 1600. If so, then I have no further advice. </p>

<p>Ok, theres a few things you haven't told us.</p>

<p>First: what kind of enlarger are you using?<br>

Second: what kind of easel?<br>

Third: what film format (120, 35mm, 4x5, 16mm, etc.)?<br>

Fourth: what enlarger lens?<br>

and Fifth: tell us your procedure for focusing/sizing the projected image.</p>

<p>then, we can help you out. Im not quite sure if the white is there do to the easel, or do to the enlarger not being able to project up to 8x10, so that's where we need to start. </p>

<p>you should definatley get a new camera. look into a pentax k1000 (awesome beginner camera), but make sure the light meter works, as these like to fail. Maybe look for an olympus om-1 or a nikon f (any of them) if you want a really nice camera. i dont know where your out of, but check on craigslist, ive gotten so many free things of craigslist, its not even funny. But ya, new camera, and id recomend some arista premium or edu iso 400, or tri-x/ tmax 400 as stated above. once you get used to getting the correct exposure, maybe drop down to a lower iso for higher resolution (well, less grainy anyways) prints. Also, look into taking a beginners photography course, maybe at a local junior college, or something like that. That will definatley get you learning.</p>

<p>But most important of all, is have fun with it, after all, photography should be about having fun!</p>

<p>best of luck,<br /> Austin</p>

<p>I was able to get a box of about 75 sheets of kodak ektapan 4x5 film. This is a black and white film, correct? and what is the iso of it? the iso is not indicated on the box, and im not sure what the iso is, is it an infinite iso rating?</p>

<p>In my opinion, there is nothing more beautiful than a nice film photograph printed onto some nice paper, save maybe for a fresson or carbon transfer process print, but those are rare. If for some reason, digital photography was the only form of photography, then id most likely not really be into it. Ive used both film and digital, and i do have to say, there are benefits to both. If i was interested in taking pictures of sports, or hard news, or even in the studio, id probably be on the digital side of things. But, i am not too interested in these, i am interested in fine art photography, and just the joy of photography. Digital, while easy, isn't joyfull to me, Film, is. Film is not for the impatient or un-passionate, you have to be very patient, passionate, and romantic with your work. Digital, in my opinion, takes the fun, the romantacism, and the over all emotion out of photography. I realize that some of you may feel differently than i do, but when i shoot digital, i feel no joy, no emotion, and really, i dont feel the photo to be mine, because all i really did, was press a button and turn a dial on the lens. And its not like im using some cheap point and shoot when i do shoot digital, the digital camera that i generally shoot with (it belongs to my dad), is a canon mark 3 1ds, with a set of about 10 L-series (yes, they are all L-series) lenses. The honest truth, in my opinion, is that film photography gives me the feeling of ownership, because with all of my film work, i not only take the picture, but i also process the film, but i also process the print, all on my own. And, i also have a ton of fun doing it! Digital, to me, just gets too complicated. There's TOO much editing you can do, especially when you try and photoshop your images, it takes forever to edit it well. The only other benefit i see with digital, is that you can change the resolution, so if your making an enlarged 35mm, taking it to 11x14, your likely to have some graininess. However, if you take your digital image, and have it printed on a really nice printer (lets say you go to kinko's or something like that), and you are able to get the good resolution, your probably going to find it to be of fairly high qaulity. This means that the need for large format cameras becomes less, which is not good, although some may find it good because an slr is far easier to live with, and tote around. That said, id take my cambo LF over any dslr any day, even on a long hike.<br>

Just my thoughts, but it really doesnt matter, choose the medium you want to use most, Ive chosen film.<br>

-Austin</p>

<p>Im interested in this as well. I havent done any lf yet, but i have a cambo lf, with a speed graphic lens, and a schneider lens, and 42 film holders. Everything in great condition, and i somehow managed to get all of it for free... I live in marin.</p>

<p>I see film coming back, personally. Im 16, and grew up as my dads assistant. He worked at the san francisco chronicle for 30 years, and various other newspapers for another 7 or so. now, hes a freelance photographer, using all digital equipment. In photojournalism, and other commercial photgraphy, digital will stay the ruler, but when it comes to art photography, nothing beats film. I mean, im 16, and i have my own darkroom, with 2 enlargers, and tons of stuff. I have a cambo 4x5, and a couple 35mm slr's. The most fun thing for me to do is to do film photography. Those of you that feel that film photography is dying, or dead, are greatly mistaken. Yes, its not as common, but thats what makes it so cool! its become a thing that only the premier, good photographers can or are willing to do. Only those with passion are able to do film, and i dont care what you think or say. The film prints are miles better than any digital photo, end of story. You can debate as much as you want, but film is far superior, except when it comes to journalism, and other commercial photographies. I plan to continue using film for the rest of my life. </p>

<p>that sounds awesome, especially since i just got a watson bulk loader for free ( along with a ton of other stuff, check out my thread: what is this enlarger?, for full list). so looks like im set to do this, once i get a roll of film, and some cassettes. ya, doing it manually is no big deal. so can you load them in the daylight? it looks like you can on the loader, but that doesn't seem right... and id be fine with the adorama brand plastic reusable cassettes, correct? Also, what film rolls would you all recommend (im sure that gets covered a bunch, but im just wondering) i like to shoot fine-art type stuff, so id want a slow speed (400 or under, preferably under that). the only modern film i use is the arista edu as i talked about earlier, does this come in bulk? the negatives always come out very clear, straighten easily, process easily, and tend to enlarge well. </p>

<p>I think i might start doing that this summer, thanks for the help. so earlier in the thread, it said 17 36 exp. rolls per 100ft roll? how do i know when ive reached the 36 exp. mark?</p>

<p>I find adorama to be awesome. I bought $200.00 worth of darkroom equipment about a month ago, and i am pretty happy with it. the paper i got is the adorama paper, of various varieties, and i am very pleased with it, it work great, and the fiber based paper washed well, just in a water bath. great service, and fairly fast mailing, except for the developer, which went on backorder, but thats not their fault. I saved hundreds from going to my local store, so im happy. </p>

<p>I personally feel that film is going to start coming back. The fact is that you just can't get the same depth out of a digital camera. Also, large format photographers will find film LF equipment and cameras to be vastly cheaper than digital ones, new digital LF cameras were going for upwards of 30 grand last time i checked. you can get a decent film 4x5 for probably 100 bucks on ebay now a days. (i got my cambo LF for free, with 2 bellows, 2 lenses (schneider and graphlex optar), 2 lens boards, and 7 double sided film holders. But, in fine art photograpy, film will always be there, and im hoping, and thinking, that it will become a sort of prestige thing. I mean, sally mann still uses glass plates, so i think film will stick for a while, as long as there is a market for it. <br>

just my thoughts, but i probably don't know what im talking about. </p>

<p>I had about 10 rolls of tmax 400 from the 80's that i used. they sat in and out of freezers for the 20 somethin years in which they were never used. I took pictures with these, and developed them all in the past few months. they came out great, there is no fog whatsoever, the only thing i noticed is that the film seems to be a bit too dark, maybe thats just because my only comparison is brand new arista edu film (what the california gov't gives highschool photo classes), which is some really high qaulity stuff. Also, it wont straighten no matter what i try, but you shouldnt have this being as much of a problem, seeing as how you have the larger rolls. Im considering buying a 100ft roll from adorama, what does loading your own film entail? is it a pain in the rear, or would it be worth it?<br>

-Austin</p>

You should go with the 40d. this may seem kinda wierd, but if you want to use telephotos, you'll be undoubtedly trying to move the lens, following the birds, right? have you ever held a 1d? they are heavy!Also i agree with however wrote that if you buy a 1d, itll be a pros old one, probably. pros practically throw their cameras on the ground, especially if they are a newspaper photographers:the company will give them their cameras. also, the 40d is a mutch better choice, in general. good luck, and happy buying.

 

-Auzzie

hi, im new, i couldnt help but say that a 200-400 f 2.8-f3.5 would be AWESOME!!!!!!! pentax really needs some new teles, there longest current focal lenght is 250, if they had the 200-400, that would give them the edge over canons and nikons glass!! you should start a petition or somthin to get pentax to make that lens...i would sign it!