Gary Clennan wrote:
Congrats! I was looking at picking up one of their 4x5's....
From what I can tell, the lead/wait time on the 8X10 is eight weeks. Dunno about the 4X5. I've been watching this company and it looks like the reception to their product(s) is mostly positive. If they're good enough for Ben Horne and Justin Lowery, I oughta be okay with one.
When my grandparents moved out of their house, I rescued my granddad's Canonete QL17. Put fresh light seals on it, found a compatible modern battery to get the meter working again, and took it from Texas to California, shooting it along the way on Fuji Superia. I had no idea if I would get ANYTHING usable, since I've never used a 35mm camera before, but got my film back yesterday and actually got some great shots! Wish I had a way of scanning these in, but the developer wanted $30 per roll to scan them
I know you can't see much from this shot, but I actually hit about a 25% keeper rate out of 48 pics, which I felt was pretty darn good for never doing this before! You can see what a noob I am in that Jeep picture...thought I had rewound the roll all the way, opened the back of the camera, and there was still loaded film. The next 2 pics on that roll were actually pretty awesome because of the ensuing light leaks.
Nice! I have a beautiful Canonet QL17iii - which just sits on a shelf because the RF is off. Its been "repaired" 2x, and is still not even close, so now it's "art".
When my grandparents moved out of their house, I rescued my granddad's Canonete QL17. Put fresh light seals on it, found a compatible modern battery to get the meter working again, and took it from Texas to California, shooting it along the way on Fuji Superia. I had no idea if I would get ANYTHING usable, since I've never used a 35mm camera before, but got my film back yesterday and actually got some great shots! Wish I had a way of scanning these in, but the developer wanted $30 per roll to scan them
I know you can't see much from this shot, but I actually hit about a 25% keeper rate out of 48 pics, which I felt was pretty darn good for never doing this before! You can see what a noob I am in that Jeep picture...thought I had rewound the roll all the way, opened the back of the camera, and there was still loaded film. The next 2 pics on that roll were actually pretty awesome because of the ensuing light leaks.
Desmolicious wrote:
Nice! What battery did you use?
If you have a digicam and macro lens, you can scan film with that. It's what a lot of us are doing.
This guy right here...it's already dead, but I noticed I accidentally left the camera on Auto aperture, which keeps the battery on, so probably drained faster than it would have normally.
Activatedfx wrote:
I've been using Photoshop professionally since the first version in the late 80's, and I could probably teach a College level class in PSD, so I don't think it was my computer skills! haha :-)
MY experience with Portra/Ektar was extreme difficulty in getting the colors the way I wanted. Blue tinted shadows and magenta casts... The film was developed at one of the top labs in the US (Duggal). The only wild card is that I "scan" via an A7ii and lightbox, so that extra step (as opposed to lab scans) MAY be part of the problems I was experiencing. I'll readily admit that.
The thing is, I'm 100% happy with shooting Provia. I LOVE seeing those gorgeous positive chromes on a lightbox. Pure joy! And Provia scans perfectly with my A7/lightbox setup. Yes, I drop the blue channel a tiny bit and warm up the white balance a bit in post, but that's 99% easier than working with color negatives. (For ME).
What's wrong with being happy with my choice of film? I'm a motion graphic designer working on high-end 3D graphics for TV and film every day, and photography is my hobby - a time to relax and enjoy being creative without pleasing a client. The more fun and easier it is, the better!!...Show more →
What make you think anything I wrote suggested you not be happy shooting E6? Is your imagination that overactive that you see that which does not exist in my text? You completely missed my point. Photoshop is a pixel editor. You can make the pixels do whatever you want. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions of Ektar or Portra images that are on flickr that look just fine, with excellent color. Certainly enough examples to show that it's not the film's problem, it is yours if you cannot get good color.
johnnynapalm wrote:
This guy right here...it's already dead, but I noticed I accidentally left the camera on Auto aperture, which keeps the battery on, so probably drained faster than it would have normally.
ENERGIZER E625G (Alkaline)
WEIN CELL ZINC AIR PX625
You stack 2 together on one side of the battery compartment, then make a little burrito out of tin foil to complete the circuit on the other side of the compartment.
I managed to sneak out today while a client was arguing internally about a project.
GW690ii + Provia 100F home developed using the FPP Arista Rapid E6 kit. (This is my 7th roll reusing the same chemistry with no ill effects that I can see...)
Blue bicycle with cinder block wall. John St., DUMBO Brooklyn.
Green Vespa with power station in background. John St. DUMBO.
Jane's Carousel. Brooklyn Bridge Park.
Lower Manhattan with Police skiff. Brooklyn Bridge Park.
When my grandparents moved out of their house, I rescued my granddad's Canonete QL17. Put fresh light seals on it, found a compatible modern battery to get the meter working again, and took it from Texas to California, shooting it along the way on Fuji Superia. I had no idea if I would get ANYTHING usable, since I've never used a 35mm camera before, but got my film back yesterday and actually got some great shots! Wish I had a way of scanning these in, but the developer wanted $30 per roll to scan them
I know you can't see much from this shot, but I actually hit about a 25% keeper rate out of 48 pics, which I felt was pretty darn good for never doing this before! You can see what a noob I am in that Jeep picture...thought I had rewound the roll all the way, opened the back of the camera, and there was still loaded film. The next 2 pics on that roll were actually pretty awesome because of the ensuing light leaks.
These turned out great! FWIW - you can dev much more than they recommend. My last batch got me around 18 4x5 sheets, 17 rolls 120, and 2 rolls of 35mm done with mine. After roll #15 I increase dev time by 4% each batch thereafter. Hope it helps.
Activatedfx wrote:
I managed to sneak out today while a client was arguing internally about a project.
GW690ii + Provia 100F home developed using the FPP Arista Rapid E6 kit. (This is my 7th roll reusing the same chemistry with no ill effects that I can see...)
Gary Clennan wrote:
These turned out great! FWIW - you can dev much more than they recommend. My last batch got me around 18 4x5 sheets, 17 rolls 120, and 2 rolls of 35mm done with mine. After roll #15 I increase dev time by 4% each batch thereafter. Hope it helps.
Thanks! I've been more carful metering for Provia, which is helping. On the last 2 rolls exposures were spot on with nice density in the highlights.
The shot of NYC is exactly how it looked at the moment - there's a slight haze over NYC from the California fires, if you can believe it - so that golden glow is partly due to the air quality.
Interesting re: the number of re-uses. The Arista instructions seem to indicate using the 1st Developer for just a few rolls, then going fresh OR increasing the development time per roll, but I had no idea I could push the kit so much further. Good to know! Thanks!
I have been increasing by @10 seconds since the 3rd roll. So about a minute longer on each step now... seems to be working OK. Do you think I should I hold the time for the next few rolls?
Activatedfx wrote:
Do you think I should I hold the time for the next few rolls?
Yep - for sure. If you compared one roll at standard dev time and a second with an additional 10s, there would not be any difference. This is mainly due to the fact you are working with fresh chemicals. I for sure would not adjust the time until you are over 10 rolls. But try it out for yourself and see what you like.... The main thing with e6 is how long you store the mixed chemicals. I prefer around three weeks max with e6 and six weeks with c41. After this time, you are really rolling the dice.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Yep - for sure. If you compared one roll at standard dev time and a second with an additional 10s, there would not be any difference. This is mainly due to the fact you are working with fresh chemicals. I for sure would not adjust the time until you are over 10 rolls. But try it out for yourself and see what you like.... The main thing with e6 is how long you store the mixed chemicals. I prefer around three weeks max with e6 and six weeks with c41. After this time, you are really rolling the dice.
Interesting... I'll just stick with my current developing times for awhile (1 minute more on all 3 solutions). This last roll was perfect.
Even more interesting - my E6 mix is about 8+ weeks old now. I store it capped tightly in a cool dry place...
I use the Freestyle E6 kit in 1 qt black/opaque bottles stored in the dark under my kitchen sink. I wonder how conservative their re-use ratings are but have found that when they quit, they just flat out quit. Probably because I tried to squeeze one too many rolls of 220 out of them. 220 seems to use them up very fast. Their poop sheet claims up to 32 4X5 negatives from the one qt mixture. We'll see.
Activatedfx wrote:
Interesting... I'll just stick with my current developing times for awhile (1 minute more on all 3 solutions). This last roll was perfect.
Even more interesting - my E6 mix is about 8+ weeks old now. I store it capped tightly in a cool dry place...
Oh - very interesting! That is good information to know. I usually stockpile all my film until I have enough to use a full 1l kit. After that if I have a few rolls, I will just develop them as needed. If it works for you - that's really all that matters. Maybe I can use mine longer.....
Kenj8246 wrote:
I use the Freestyle E6 kit in 1 qt black/opaque bottles stored in the dark under my kitchen sink. I wonder how conservative their re-use ratings are but have found that when they quit, they just flat out quit. Probably because I tried to squeeze one too many rolls of 220 out of them. 220 seems to use them up very fast. Their poop sheet claims up to 32 4X5 negatives from the one qt mixture. We'll see.
Thanks for posting.
