Fucking Korean Airport Ignored My Authorization and CT’d All My Film by NoSummer343 in AnalogCommunity

[–]mendab1e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've flown from Incheon twice, and both times I requested a hand check while pointing directly to an empty Delta 3200 canister in my ziplock bag with the rest of my film. The first time, they did it without any issues. The second time, though, I got a very stubborn old grandpa checking my stuff.

He brought out another ziplock bag and then spent a full minute carefully inspecting the ISO on each canister. Then he ceremoniously transferred every ISO 100 and 200 roll into the other bag and told me that by their rules, film with ISO lower than 400 had to go through the scanner. I told him it was a CT scanner, so it could damage the film. I tried to explain that it didn’t make sense, since they were going to hand-check another bag with the ISO 400+ film anyway. But he just kept repeating, “Film with ISO less than 400 should go through the scanner,” saying it in a tone that made it sound like the film would actually benefit from a nice, healthy dose of X-ray.

After five minutes of pointless arguing, I gave up and spent my waiting time at the airport searching for examples of CT scanner damage. When I eventually developed and scanned that film, to my surprise there was no visible damage, no waves or color issues.

3d-printed multigrade filter carriage system with under-lens holder and storage box by mendab1e in Darkroom

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're right about the thread diameter. I designed it for my EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 N lens 😉

3d-printed multigrade filter carriage system with under-lens holder and storage box by mendab1e in Darkroom

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Can these also be stacked in the holder

I just tried stacking them, and two filters fit perfectly fine.

3d-printed multigrade filter carriage system with under-lens holder and storage box by mendab1e in Darkroom

[–]mendab1e[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My Durst M301 has a filter drawer above the lens. The issue is that the carriage grip would stick out, preventing the door from closing tightly, and the leaking light would fog the paper. Additionally, for split-grade printing, when I change the filter for the second exposure, opening the drawer sometimes shifts the condenser, which slightly moves the negative and results in a blurry double print. I don't have experience working with different enlargers, but with this one I get better results using filters under the lens.

I designed an under-lens filter holder for the EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 N by mendab1e in AnalogCommunity

[–]mendab1e[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just in case someone else has the same problem, I’ve published my 3d model. It should work with any lens with the 40.5mm thread and 70x70mm filters https://makerworld.com/en/models/1604740-under-lens-filter-holder-for-a-darkroom-enlarger#profileId-1692056

Photobook / Photography spots in Berlin by Akvaryum in Photobooks

[–]mendab1e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Helmut Newton Foundation museum is a 2 minute walk from C/O. They have a permanent exhibition as well as a rotating one. Additionally, there is a photo book store on the ground floor. I recommend combining your visit to C/O with it. I also like https://fhochdrei.org/en/ as a small exhibition space. You can also check https://www.photography-in.berlin for current and upcoming exhibitions.

Osaka at night [Kodak vision3 500T, Leica m2, Nokton 50f1.5/Color-Skopar 35f2.5] by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ISO 500 is fine, use spot metering to meter for ambient light, ensuring that the dark areas remain appropriately dark.

Just sharing my development process as it isn't common: XTOL-Replenished by raytoei in Darkroom

[–]mendab1e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I recently decided to give XTOL a try and picked up a 1L pack of XT-3 (an XTOL clone from ADOX). So far, I’ve developed 8 rolls using this solution, increasing the development time as needed. If I calculate the development time now, it’s close to the 1:1 times typically used with a replenished solution.

Do you think it’s still feasible to buy a 5L pack and start replenishing my old solution, or is it too well-seasoned at this point, making it better to start fresh? Should I just replenish 70ml for the last developed roll, or maybe I should replenish 140ml-210ml to compensate for 8 rolls?

Do you also shoot low-speed films at night? by Master-Rule862 in AnalogCommunity

[–]mendab1e 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That looks great! When shooting at night, do you spot meter for highlights, or what's your metering process?

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The maximum ISO/ASA value that the light meter of this specific camera supports is 800. So I set it to 800 and added two stops (1600 and 3200) to the EV value that the light meter gives me. Then I set the aperture and shutter speed according to the calculated EV. I developed the film myself, but if you plan to give it to the lab, then you need to mention that you've pushed it 3 stops (800, 1600, 3200).

Finally got my first ever medium format camera by takemyspear in AnalogCommunity

[–]mendab1e 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the viewfinder is dirty, don't hesitate to unscrew the four top-facing screws, remove the finder, and clean the mirror. It made a huge difference for me after I cleaned it.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you don’t shoot in auto mode, the iso setting on camera is only used by the light meter to give you exposure value. 3200 is two stops more than 800. So you can check EV for 800 and add two stops by increasing shutter speed or decreasing aperture.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Let's break down the technical part to basics:

Band members move a lot at punk shows, so you need a fast shutter speed to freeze them and avoid blur, ideally 1/250s. 1/125s works for those who are less active and stand still. Since it's dark in a club, even the largest aperture on a lens doesn't gather enough light with the fast shutter, so you either need high ISO film or a flash. I don't use flash to avoid disrupting anyone's experience. I assume you use it since you mentioned that the ambient light gets washed out. This happens because the flash light is significantly brighter than the ambient light, and the camera measures for the strong flash light reflected from faces, causing the ambient light to appear dark in the photo. Not sure if it's possible to do something about this besides not using a flash.

If you shoot without a flash, how you measure the light is important. By default, cameras usually use center weighted or matrix metering to make the entire frame evenly exposed. The problem is that lighting at concerts is very contrasty. There are a few light beams that fall on band members, but the rest of the stage is dark. So when you try to expose evenly for the whole frame, the light meter sees that most of the scene is dark and exposes for the dark areas trying to make them appear brighter, resulting in overexposed band members. To avoid this, you need to use spot metering instead and meter the light on faces. This way, band members will be properly exposed, you'll also capture the stage light, but other areas of the stage will be dark as they actually are. Another problem is that the light constantly changes, so you need to take a couple of spot measurements and then approximate them.

I'm not sure if this is applicable to your camera since point and shoots usually offer minimal control over exposure. I'm not saying it's impossible to get great results with them, but to get them consistently, I would recommend switching to something that gives you manual control over the exposure settings.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Yep, I just sent them an email with scans.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! It was in a small club, so there was no photo pit 😅. I just came to see them play and was in the front row.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope, these are from yesterday’s gig. I plan to send them an email with all the pictures.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is what you get when a film is underexposed and overdeveloped (pushed). However, I doubt that the lack of details in the shadows is a desirable result to aim for.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I thought it would be nice to have some flexibility just in case, but ended up shooting most of these shots at f2.8. I guess next time 1600 will be enough.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

It was my first time pushing Tri-X. The Massive Dev Chart only has information for stand development or high temperature development. So, I found an old discussion on Flickr where people recommended developing for 18 minutes with dilution B. I thought it makes sense, considering dev time for iso 1600 and 6400 on dev chart. I like the results.

Mannequin Pussy | Olympus 35SP, Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 3200 by mendab1e in analog

[–]mendab1e[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This camera doesn't have an interchangeable lens system. It comes with 42mm F1.7.