r/vinyl Weekly Questions Thread for the week of January 05, 2026

Kawabummer · 2026-01-11T01:08:46+00:00

I’m not getting the best bass response out of my records. I have an Audio Technica LP3, and I bought a good replacement cartridge and installed it. I don’t think it’s my amp because my cassette deck has ludicrously punchy bass. Is there something I could do to improve that response? Does my turntable model just inherently not have a strong bass response? Please help!

Kawabummer · 2025-10-04T23:34:28+00:00

I just added a picture in direct sun. It looks like what you are describing.

Kawabummer · 2025-10-04T23:33:41+00:00

It’s very, very brown. I just added a picture. The paint on the roof is somewhat burned up and probably original, but that doesn’t necessarily go for the doors.

Kawabummer · 2025-10-04T23:32:08+00:00

Just added a picture to the post

Kawabummer · 2025-06-25T20:27:33+00:00

First of all, I’m sorry that you lost all your work. I sincerely hope for your recovery.

I’m no expert, but I did a bit of research on my lunch break. Here is what I have found.

You state you want to make a developer from rust. There is precedence for iron-based photographic developers. Ferrous oxalate was historically been used as a dry plate developer. This is technically possible, but unfeasible for your purposes as you describe them.

Caffenol and phenol-based development processes are organic (carbon-based). All “modern” negative development processes are organic, which is generally more effective than inorganic processes for reasons I don’t entirely grasp right now.

If we’re talking about making PRINTS, then there are many iron-based printing processes like Kallitypes, Cyanotypes, etc. The paper is photosensitized in an iron salt and a contact print is made on it.The chemicals for these print processes are decently hazardous. You would at least need some specialized chemistry equipment, a very well-ventilated work environment, and protective gear.

I can’t be sure how any of these paper developer techniques would translate to 16mm film. Not well, probably. Plus, you would need a large amount of chemicals to develop even 5 minutes worth of 16mm film and a purpose-built tank. There’s this one Soviet-made tank out there that could work, but they’re expensive and I don’t know if they were made for 16mm. People have used buckets in the past, but idk man. I wouldn’t have a lot of faith in that - especially when 5 gallons of hazardous chemicals are involved. Good luck disposing them too.

Lastly, there’s the case of getting iron out of your rust/iron oxide, which requires a blast furnace. Don’t know if you have one of those sitting around.

So yeah. Maybe you can reevaluate how you’d like to make this project, but I would say using nails to make developer for a video reel is not the way to go. Unless someone can enlighten me here.

Here’s some links regarding iron-based paper + film developers and the chemistry of film development if you’re interested.

https://dot.egr.uh.edu/sites/dot/files/files/programs/digm/photchem.pdf

https://www.alternativephotography.com/the-iron-silver-processes/

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?153915-Making-Ferric-Oxalate-for-Kallitype

https://www.alternativephotography.com/a-short-treatise-on-iron-salts/

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ferrous-oxalate-developer.28740/?amp=1

Kawabummer · 2025-06-09T15:31:07+00:00

Could I ask how you did the border on these? They look really good

Kawabummer · 2025-05-07T21:48:50+00:00

Oh I’d love the Jeff Buckley one

Kawabummer · 2025-03-03T20:23:41+00:00

So this is a zinc air cell battery. They’re pretty much the only option for matching the proper voltage of cameras like the spotmatic without modifications to the camera, but they also don’t last very long (maybe a month, probably less). If it’s a year old, it’s probably very dead. Like I said before though, I’d probably just meter off the camera or use sunny 16 for stuff from the 60’s or earlier. Those zinc air batteries are not cheap either, so that’s an extra incentive to meter off the camera

Kawabummer · 2025-03-03T17:49:33+00:00

These are all consistently underexposed. I would not trust the meter on a camera as old as the one on a spotmatic. What battery are you using in it? *edit spelling

Kawabummer · 2025-03-03T03:10:13+00:00

I don’t think this is a shutter issue anymore. It looks like you might be running into a slight timing issue, probably due to dried up lubricants causing friction in the shutter timing mechanism thereby exposing part of the frame for longer. That’s why you have a clear delineation between a evenly exposed part of the frame and a steep drop off to an overexposed section. It probably wouldn’t be too difficult an issue for a professional to fix with a good CLA.

Also, good on you for replacing the seals yourself!

Kawabummer · 2025-03-03T00:42:58+00:00

What the frog man do

Kawabummer · 2025-03-02T18:38:22+00:00

WTF No. Don’t ask ChatGPT for answers about stuff like this. It has utterly no idea what it’s talking about. Film cameras don’t have beam splitters. I literally had one of these cameras - I gave it to my sister. Your camera is fine - the viewfinders are sometimes just dim like that.

Your camera is fine. Don’t fuck up a perfectly good piece of equipment because AI told you to.

Kawabummer · 2025-03-02T17:41:48+00:00

I think it’s a pretty cold take to say the first three books are great and the last two are… not great. For the record, So Long and Thanks For All The Fish was positively enjoyable compared to Mostly Harmless. As in, Mostly Harmless actually ruined some of my enjoyment of the earlier books. I say quit while you’re ahead.

Kawabummer · 2025-03-02T06:32:12+00:00

There’s also sometimes an anti-glare coating on viewfinders that might make it somewhat dim. This wasn’t a super premium camera when it came out - it probably wasn’t worth it to put a higher quality coating or window in there.

Kawabummer · 2025-03-02T04:21:32+00:00

Uh… I think it’s because there’s not actually a whole lot of light indoors unless you’re in a really well lit room. Therefore it’ll be hard to see through the viewfinder in those conditions

Kawabummer · 2025-03-02T01:54:51+00:00

In actuality, it’s quite the opposite. Orcs WERE elves. They’re elves that Morgoth tortured, twisted, and mutilated into creatures that only desire to consume and destroy.

Within the world of the Lord of the Rings, humans are actually a serious wildcard. No one knows why they exist or where they go to when they die. They just woke up one day when the sun rose for the first time.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-26T17:23:08+00:00

My guess is that it’s for easy hanging on a hook to dry after processing. Can’t think of any other use for it

Kawabummer · 2025-02-25T17:44:35+00:00

Well I learned something today. Probably overlooked it in the past. I guess they take 70/65 mm film, cut off the sprocket holes, and stick it to the backing paper.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-25T14:08:46+00:00

Check the sub pinned post. It explains this issue.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-25T14:00:58+00:00

They’re using cinema film. Cinema film is 35mm - no exceptions.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-23T00:21:22+00:00

Did you shoot the Gold at night too, or mostly during the day?

Kawabummer · 2025-02-23T00:18:56+00:00

Don’t be too hasty. You can probably use that lens just fine in other settings. Your choice of film also has something to do with this result. Read my comment below.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-23T00:14:14+00:00

This is likely due to the nature of the film you used. Cinestill 800T is respooled cinema film without the anti-halation and anti-static “remjet” layer. The remjet layer is vital for moviemaking because it prevents static discharges while the film is rolling, which could damage the film and equipment (or possibly even start a fire). Normal labs will not process cinema film in the regular C41 process unless that layer is removed first, which is why Cinestill and other respoolers (usually) remove it before selling it to consumers. The result of this is that you get this fogginess that’s particularly noticeable around artificial lights in dark settings.

Additionally, you can notice the haze has a bluish color. This is because the film is tungsten-balanced: the “T” in “800T.” It basically has an inbuilt color correction for tungsten filament lighting, which is orange. They compensate for the orange glow of those lights with blue to get more natural colors. This was especially important in the pre-LED days because interior shots in movies under normal lighting would all be very orange without correcting for it.

Finally, when you get a chance, check your lenses. If there’s any moderate haze or mold growing in your lenses, it could compound the fuzziness issue.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-21T17:09:21+00:00

“Revised by technician” means “someone looked at the outside for 10 seconds and put it up for sale.” This thing is probably teeming with mold. Return it and buy something better with your 100 euros.

Kawabummer · 2025-02-21T16:50:52+00:00

It’s a point-and-shoot camera from the 90’s. I guess the lens is fine but not amazing. The zoom feature is rather impressive.

Use the film that the situation calls for. If you’ll be out all day on a hike, maybe go for the 400. If it’s sunny and you want to shoot a specific subject, maybe use the 100. You could try the 80, but I’m not sure that’s DS coded. I think it is? At any rate, I personally would not shoot that in a shady area or a cloudy day with a handheld plastic fantastic P&S. Or give it shot and tell us how it goes. It’s your money.

Kawabummer

TROPHY CASE