ant_nio_marques

<p>Hi,<br> I wanted to start doing C41 at home, but after reading a bit I'm confused as to what kit I should get.</p> <p>(The reason for C41 is that I'd like to do colour. I'd also like to try B/W, but colour would be first. I'd also like to try E6, but all accounts I see say it isn't worthwhile doing at home. I'd also like to do prints, but that's a step to take later on.)</p> <p>The reason I'm confused is that, when I started reading about this, every source said C41 was actually easy, and there seemed to be novice-oriented kits readily available (namely, Tetenal). But upon reading a little more, some doubts began to creep in:</p> <p>- some say C41 is actually very hard to do properly because of the temperature control</p> <p>- some say blix will result in quickly-fading negatives</p> <p>- I don't quite get how to choose between stabiliser and 'final rinse'</p> <p>This matters because I want more than just develop film. I want the negatives to last! I'm not into this just so I can get some funny images to feed my scanner and post somewhere, rather what I want is to produce things I can archive, even if that takes more work. But I'm looking at a very minute amount of film - maybe 20 rolls per year, mixed 135/120 and APS (why not, I do have the thingy to de/reattach it, and everyone says they can modify a reel for 24mm).</p> <p>I'd love to get an automatic film processor but the few references I find are either too expensive or out of production or both. I wouldn't mind investing a bit on some piece of equipment, but it would have to be really useful and not break if one stares at it in a way it doesn't like. I'm afraid I can't make any sense of the Jobo product line, even tho I've looked at it. It appears to be moot, anyway, since I'd have a very hard time getting one of those things here, and then it would be broken. I could get a Fuji fp232b quite more easily and 'for a song', as they say, but my understanding is that I wouldn't be able to keep it functional. I don't know, it's just what I get from reading online.</p> <p>So, to go back to the beginning, is there an ultimate do-your-own-stable-negatives kit out there? I'm not saying the Tetenal doesn't fit, I'm saying I don't know and can't tell by myself.</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>It's entirely up to you. With most scanners, the holders will take strips up to 6 frames. That only means you should not cut them into strips of more than 6, otherwise they won't fit.</p>

<p>Algae?</p>

<p>The OP has a 5D MkIII and is looking for a deal on a camera? And this is the modern film camera forum, not the classic film camera forum. Given that, I'd suggest visiting an online store specialised on film cameras, which gives a rating to each camera it sells. That way you can know if the camera is working or not, and they have to stand by their rating. Otherwise, it takes a non-beginner with hands on the camera to evaluate its condition. Looking aesthetically fine means little in terms of mechanics.</p>

Have you tried resetting Vuescan and calibrating the scanner? At first sight, the CCD isn't capturing anything. But if it were damaged I'd sooner expect an electrical crash than just returning a blank image. Try it on another computer, just in case, and with a different, small, cable. Try switching between using FireWire and USB.

This may be a very dumb comment on my part, but I think it bears clarifying that despite the increase in number the 5D is on a category above the 6D. The only reason the 6D may be considered an upgrade is that it is of a much newer generation. Of course, being in a category above doesn't mean it's better for everyone. I think the OP understands all of the above, but some casual reader might get confused. Canon's current dslr naming follows this pattern: - 1 is the top of the line, formerly with two series, now coalesced - 5 is next and newer generations have 'mk' numbers - 6 is next - 7 is next, it was supposed to be a new generation of the 6, but it isn't FF... - x0 is next with x standing for the generation - x00. x50 is next

Did you change software? Are all frames filled? Obs I think this subforum is for cameras. Your question may get more attention on the Diigital Darkroom subforum.

<p>I've usually trusted camera meters, not always to my content. Now that I have a couple of cameras without, I'll have to learn what to do. I find it especially interesting that even the most seasoned don't trust their intuition implicitly. While averaging also seems to have more currency than I suspected.<br> Thank you all for sharing your technique.</p>

<p>Thank you all very much for your suggestions. Yes, this is a very personal thing, but I find it useful to know what works for others, and this is no exception.</p> <p>I have had good experiences with camera bags on ebay. I've been able to get things like new at a fraction of the price. One needs to know how to look, of course.</p> <p>A striking, for me, feature of DSLRs is that the lens sits noticeably more off-centre than in film SLRs, which tend to be wider, albeit often thinner. To me, that does make a difference when it comes to packing.</p>

<p>sRGB is an awful colour space, but it is good enough to use in an 'output' file. Like 8-bit, like JPG.</p>

<p>@Rob, Firefox is known to be colour-managed. That's the exception rather than the rule.</p>

To second Wouter: your photo.net and flickr photos look just the same here on my iPhone. Lovely critters, btw! As I understand it, if you want to share your photos online, you're supposed to 'export' an sRGB, possibly with a limit on vertical or horizontal resolution, JPG, copy of them. Photo editors often offer such functionality automated at least to a point.

<p>Hi,<br> The case that came with my father's AE-1 Program is no longer fit to use.<br> What would you suggest for taking the camera to town?<br> I'd like something able to carry the camera with one lens attached and at least one other. Of course, being able to accomodate the two primes and the two zooms would be great. Yes, there are many choices. My 'problem' is that modern bags are usually DSLR oriented, and DLSRs are not quite like film SLRs in bulk. So I thought of asking whether anyone had some particular choice that would fit these requirements well.<br> Thanks.</p>

(I'm one of those who like red-insensitive film!)

Very nice picture, Soeren! I should start a new thread but I fear folks would complain I should research instead of asking these questions: - how does C41 monochrome differ from colour C41 developed in b/w process? - how does C41 monochrome differ from colour C41 printed on b/w paper?

Meh. Please forget what just said. Av mode is actually with the lens in 'A' and you use the body to select the aperture. So nothing lost.

<p>Thank you all. Given the price, I think I'll give the FA-J a try before anything else. IIUC I'll have to do without Av mode?</p>

<p>Soooooooooooooooo Soeren, I often think I should get some C41 B/W film, mostly because of the infrared cleaning. But then I always think of how it isn't real B/W and the idea cools off. Would you start a thread on your experience with it?</p>

Hi. I have a Z-70 which I quite liked 15 years ago, and now I've decided I should use it more. I have 28mm and upwards covered. I'd like to know if there are interesting wide angles significantly below that. These days I know nothing about Pentax lenses. When I see wider specs, I'm left wondering if those can adequately cover 'full frame' or are only good for crop bodies. Of course I'd like to spend the least, but it would be nice to know all the alternatives. I haven't even decided that it must have autofocus, for instance. Thank you.

<p>I'm sorry for dragging this on, but it's a thing of paramount importance. If it's true that one loses nothing (except Duotone) by saving things in TIFF, that's quite a revolution in many ways. So, it's a matter worth clarifying.</p> <p>Many perhaps remember how MS Word can save files in ODT format, and have had unpleasant experiences with other word processors being able to read reverse-engineered DOC better than openly documented ODT produced by MS Word. The situation here is structurally analogous, the differences may lie in the details, and the details can make the outcome be quite different. I hope so.</p> <p>While I'd love it if Andrew turns out to be 100% correct, I am disturbed by his tone, which seems unexpectedly defensive. I can understand the frustration at continued use of an inferior alternative, if that's the case, but that should show only when the other party refused to listen, whereas here it's been present from the start in a 'newbie' thread, even in response to legitimate doubts. In such a situation, it hints more at insecurity than anything else. However, it's quite clear that that's not the case, so the signal is mixed. I hope we can sort it out from this point forward.</p> <p>If I had Ps CC at my command, I could check it out by myself, but I currently don't. So I'll try to lay out the issues that need to be ascertained. I suggest reading to the end before thinking of intermediate replies.</p> <p>- Ps will remember your selection of TIFF as the format to save new files. But will it not also remember the selection of other formats, not all of which are reported to be able to save everything? If it doesn't, then the fact that it does remember TIFF will be very significant (but vice-versa).</p> <p>- Will Ps give a warning (cf MS Office) when you try to save a file, that some features may not be preserved? Namely, will it warn you that Duotone work will not be correctly saved in TIFF? If it does, then we may reasonably be confident that we run no risk of having stuff lost when saving to TIFF (but vice-versa).</p> <p>- What does it mean that 3rd party software will open Ps TIFFs as flattened? In my jargon, flattened roughly means without layers, that is, a simple bitmap of x@y pixels and no additional structure. But most 3rd party software that reads PSD does read it with layers. It may not read everything correctly, and it's a moving target, so for that reason alone I'd love to ditch PSD, but the fact is that they do not read it flattened in the way I understand the word. Am I understanding it wrong?</p> <p>- Whether by reverse engineering or some agreement, 3rd party programs that are able to read PSD are able to read a lot of proprietary Adobe features. They may not read PSD 100% correctly, but they know what they are trying to read, and where they can they do it right. Nothing guarantees us that they will know to apply such reasoning when reading a Photoshop TIFF, even if it would be little extra work. Yes, it can be argued that if they don't do it now, they'll be able to do it in the future, but we've had too many examples of how that's not guaranteed. It's not even certain that Adobe saves its proprietary data in a TIFF in the same way as it saves it in a PSD. This point needs further investigation, unless someone has already done it.</p> <p>If all these points have satisfactory answers, then I'd be thrilled. I do hate proprietary formats. But at the same time I do know how they are often inevitable. In a way, it's all a matter of degree - at what level does 'proprietary' apply. At a low level, it's all bytes. Bytes are open. Anyone can read them. Then there's the 'container' level. PSD and TIFF are containers. TIFF is open as a container whereas PSD is not, but there is little to be done at the container level, so the fact that TIFF is open doesn't necessarily gain us that much. Then there's the payloads, and here is where the issue lies. TIFF may have rules on what it accepts as a payload and how certain things must be done, but that doesn't mean it mandates the whole logic of it, and that's where proprietariness can come in. It's a bit like having the decompiled code for a computer program, it can tell you what's being done at a minute level, but not necessarily what broader concepts are being achieved by those operations. And the difference here is that 3rd party software knows what to expect when reading a PSD, but not necessarily when it's a TIFF.</p> <p>However, these are only concerns. If the points above have satisfactory answers, then they can mostly be laid to rest.</p>

<p>I don't think that's really comparable, was the caveat not there from the start for everyone to see?</p>

This may be off topic here or not. How do you go on about photographing? Do you use the camera's meter? Do you use a handheld meter? A phone app? Do you use your intuition? Do you do average or spot metering? Do you do it mostly always the same way or does it depend on the circumstance?

Thanks! I think Alan's detailed reply will be a nice google result in the future when someone else has the same question. I know very little about optics but following the explanation was great! As to the page in the learning section, it's nice but I was unable to find it by browsing. It's very good that it explains the subject without photos of bugs. I simply can't stand looking at insects or arachnids. Other bugs also give me an electrical shock to the spine, but then I can keep looking. But not those ones. I know no one else with the same issue, but it is very serious for me.

Ok. You've stated adamantly that Ps can use TIFF as its only storage format. That should mean I can tell my company's designers to dump PSD? That's a different matter, however, from having other program's correctly interpret what Ps puts in the TIFF. Yes, scanner 'raw' files (I did put the ' there....) aren't standardised, but as far as I know they follow the spec on how to add an extra channel. The problem is that other software isn't counting on having it there to read. Likewise I wonder how much other programs can interpret what Ps writes. Yes, the spec for TIFF is open, but is it high level enough? I really don't know. That's why I'm asking. Will the Gimp (argh) correctly read complex Ps TIFFs? If so, that's awesome and I'll agree PSD would have no use.