Jump to content

yockenwaithe

Members
  • Posts

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by yockenwaithe

  1. <p>Do you know what the ISO and type of the film you are shooting is? Also, how many times have you used the same developing fluid? C41 developing fluid degrades rather fast if you use it too much. Also make sure you're using distilled water and a very good thermometer (too much or too little heat is a good way to throw off the times and wreck the film). The graininess looks like an error with your film though (or if you're push processing it, that could make the film a bit more grainy)</p>
  2. <p>Funny thing I actually have an old unused Pentax focusing screen with a chart for what works best with certain lenses, but I have no clue as to if it'll still work with new DSLR cameras</p>
  3. <p>I'm thinking as opposed to selling the Leica I'm going to save for a nice $1300-$1500 DSLR body, an M Adapter, and an M42 adapter so I can use most of my lenses on it (this will take roughly a year). I don't plan on buying any more lenses for, so I don't have that to worry about that. I also don't want a mirrorless camera [having a viewfinder is pretty important for holding the camera still when it's not mounted I find, and I don't particularly like the electronic variety] though they do appear to be much cheaper.<br> The reason for the preference of Nikon is the old Nikkor lenses aren't too expensive and they're of pretty good quality. I would be using Zeiss or Voigtlander but I don't have the cash for that.</p>
  4. <p>So I'm a semi-new to photography [i've only been shooting full manual for two years] and I was wondering whether or not I should sell my Leica M2-R or my Summilux f/1.4 50mm gen.I lens, or both. I'm an 18 year old full time worker and artist and I need to be able to cover the cost of developing film for my other cameras [an Argus/Cosina STL 1000 and Rollei 35], and getting a good digital camera and at least one good 50mm lens for it would be massively beneficial.</p> <p>Also, if I were to buy a digital camera for under $800, which one should I buy? I would want a Nikon with an F mount so I can use manual Nikkor lenses, but that's about it.</p>
  5. <p>I would agree if developing the stuff wasn't so damn expensive</p>
  6. It's doubtful that the filter will really improve the quality of the film in any major way besides a slight increase in sharpness, which you probably won't notice because you're using a good-quality lens. I would buy a nice cheap Skylight filter or a UV filter if you're concerned about banging up the lens (alternatively you could go the way of the lens hood but good quality ones [all metal] can run a lot more expensive than just a filter by itself). IR filter in general are a good for improving the quality of black and white films (which are sensitive to IR), but I don't think you'll need it in this case.
  7. <p>It depends on what you're looking for. If you go into almost any Walmart this day you can find 200,400, and 800 speed <strong>Fujifilm Superia</strong> film (I prefer 400). Is good if you don't want a vintage look, and has quite good grain, but keep in mind it tends to favor blues and greens. I generally like using this for general photography because it is cheap and easy to process, though I do find using a Fuji machine tends to mess up the color balance of whatever goes into it I find. <strong>Kodak Porta</strong> film is also a really strong choice. It has excellent grain, color balance (especially for color film!), and just overall looks really nice.<br> If you're looking for black and white, I would recommend <strong>Kodak Tri-X</strong>, which is only available online. If you're looking for that 'vintage film' look this film will sure as hell give it to you (visible grain and all), but with the added bonus of not having the drawbacks (fuzziness, strange contrast, etc.) prevalent in some of the older films. <strong>Ilford HP5</strong> (only available in ISO 400 last time I checked) is also a strong option. It's a little less grainy than Tri-X film, but it's a lot easier to shoot with. It also has the added benefit of being quite inexpensive ($4 for 24 exposures) and easier to fix up post production.<br> As for 3200 speed, <strong>Ilford Delta</strong> takes the cake.<br> As for where to buy this stuff, <strong>B&H</strong> is where I'd suggest</p> <p>Hope this helped!<br> Spencer</p>
×
×
  • Create New...