The OCAU "film is not dead" club

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds as if you are removing the paper and scanning straight away with no development steps or chemicals? If that's the case, then the light from outside the pinhole camera and certainly the light from the scanner would be overexposing the paper, fading any image on it.

What you might be asking for is just the normal steps for developing prints. First random link from google, here, is about pinholes using beer cans and photo paper. Some steps listed there. Heaps more info out there, no doubt people here have done printing and can add advice.

What you want to be doing, I think, is;
1. Load camera in darkroom, maybe try using the darkest room in your house at night.
2. Take photo, given the length of exposure is 6 months, check with a pinhole exposure calc that you are not using too long a time.
3. Unload in darkroom, as in step 1.
4. Develop paper with chemicals, needs darkroom.
5. Dry paper, then scan.

Also, sound like quite an interesting experiment. If you do get images be sure to post them up.

 

This is the step I am asking about. Exactly what chemicals and how too process. Darkroom is easy (I have an enclosed laundry, running water, ventilation which is all light isolated and I have redlights I use for astronomy to avoid ruining night vision).

Yes taking the paper straight from the pinhole camera and onto the scanner (avoiding as much light as possible when I do this etc) and scanning does produce an image. As I said its faint (which is expected) and scanning degrades (exposes) it further so I can only do one scan and then process digitally. I can't get benefits from multipass scanning I get from scanning normal negatives and photos that have been lab processed. As I said I have never lab processed myself so I don't know the process. So what can I do to the exposed photo paper before I scan to help get the best image I can.


So if I understand correctly from the link I can use a developer solution to bring out the image (contrast), the stopper halts the developer process and the fixer bath stops the photosensitivity of the photopaper so it won't expose any further (or at least kills 99% of the rate at which it exposes). Then wash and dry and it should be a nice negative image and ready for scanning etc? I've got quite a few pinhole shots tucked away and a number of bad early experiments I can test first.

So along with the practical darkroom tools (light, tongs, sink, trays etc) will the following chemicals suit:

Ilford Multigrade dev 1 ltr LCS
Fotospeed SB-50 Odourless stop bath 1 ltr
Ilford Rapid fixer 1 ltr LCS

cheers

 

Red light =/= safelight. Red lights are just red. Safelights output a veeery specific frequency that papers aren't sensitive to. Especially important with MG papers.

 

I know safelight and red light are different. I can't recall off hand the exact model etc but I use a portable darkroom safelight I picked up years ago as a red torch to my astronomy. I have exactly what I need for that. To be honest a red torch instead of a proper safelight is surely going to do far less harm than taking the photopaper out of the pinhole camera and onto a flatbed scanner

It's the chemical side of the process I still need help with though. Am I understanding the proces and are the chemicals listed above the correct ones to buy?

Another question on the chemical side is how long can the chemicals remain in the baths exposed to open air?. I have a lot of papers ready to process, can I leave the chemicals in the trays overnight (maybe with glad-wrap over the top?).

 

The contrast you're referring to is the silver halides in the emulsion, I can't understand how you are getting any image from an undeveloped paper neg?

Only developer is prone to oxidization out of the lot you linked. Developer is usually one-shotted (the MG dev you linked is). You may be able to get away with a few sheets per bath but it will exhaust fairly quickly.

A print is positive, it sounds like you are using Ilford Direct-Positive paper.

 

Like I said, its a VERY faint image. It's there though. The sun trail itself appears as a brown line on the white paper. It's definitely a negative image though (pretty obvious once you scan the paper and adjust the levels).

What intrigues me is even though its B&W paper I get a colour image...my guess is its something to do with the chemicals in the paper being vastly over exposed. If I set up a camera somewhere for a single day but have it pointed away from the sun so it receives no direct sunlight then the image I get is a B&W negative. But pointed towards the sun the same process gives me an almost real colour image: scan the paper in colour, adjust RGB levels seperately to fill out the histogram and the sky is a blue-aqua colour and the sun trail is yellow. No other colours are strong so I think its just co-incidence (ie the chemicals are so overexposed they burn or something) but it does create an interesting effect.

So it is also something I will have to keep an eye on when developing the paper. I've got plenty of early experiments to process first. I don't know if the image flips from negative to positive during development, or if I'll end up with a developed negative. Or if the over exposed parts won't develop at all. I just don't know about the chemical process to know what to expect.

If I can use the fixer to stop the paper from exposing further I can make multipass scans and improve my output images at least. If I can also get some contrast improvement with the developer too than that's a bonus. I know we're not talking about perfect photos as a result, just a signal-to-noise improvement over what I can currently achieve. Annoyingly larger papers in large cans produce a much softer image than a small flat offcut in a mints tin which comes out nice and sharp.

 

Interesting to see some examples. I think it's worthwhile to develop them, you would probably get an extremely overexposed image but the detail would definitely be much more than what you have now.

If you're new to developing at home, try starting out with some negative film as that's much easier and doesn't require a darkroom. The process with paper is the same but in a darkroom.

 

Extreme exposure.

Leave a paper or b&W film out in the sun for a while, it'll go black. Photons cause silver specks to eject from silver halide, developing amplifies it and grows silver crystals at the most silver specks like a nucleation center etc etc.

Normal exposure otherwise is just a tiny amount of not-visible silver on the paper or film.

 

Has anyone come across any Prakticar B-mount lens in their travels? I have a Zeiss Jenaflex and was looking for some more lens for it. Cheap is good

I've had it since new (1989) and have a 50mm 1.8 and 70-210mm 4.5-5.6.

I've just pulled it out and there is still a roll of film in it, half used. I wouldn't have used it for 10 years, any chance the film could still be good?

Thanks

 

Has anyone tried the Nokton 50 1.1? I'm looking for a 50mm, not sure if the size of this lens would be too excessive.

 

Sandwichmanz has one I think.

I've held one, they are solid units.

I like my ZM 50/1.5 c sonnar a lot.

 

There are usually a few dozen Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar's on eBay - identical optics to the M42 versions, but mount adaptors to suit Prak-B are quite rare so they're less interesting to people like me who like old lenses on new cameras.

I'd recommend the 35/2.4, the Prakticar version of the Flektogon, one of my favourite lenses - sharp, and it focuses really close.

 

Have held the 1.1 - pretty hefty - and bear in mind that focusing at 1.1 might be a bit hit and miss - I'm a fan of the LTM Canon f1.4 "Japanese Summilux" (but that's pretty heavy too)

 

Hmm I thought about it but it's a bit too pricey for me and really don't want to think about the focus shifting. I'm actually looking to for a CV 50/1.5 LTM as it seems like a great budget lens but very curious about this 50/1.1 especially if the size is too bulky.

Thanks, I'll look this one up.

 

I'm missing the viewfinder, the only downside to a NEX.

 

So I've been shooting digital for a few years (Nikon D7000 then an Oly OM-D). I want to finally start shooting film! I want a body that's uber portable, cheap, and simple.

I'm thinking of getting an Olympus XA / XA2. Are there any better places to hunt than eBay and Gumtree (I'm from Melbourne)? Any other camera recommendations?

Thanks!

 

KEH (online store) or APUG (forum)?

Other than that, used camera stores like Camera House, or smaller pro stores that do a lot of second-hand gear.

 

OCAU Film Scanners

I got Silverfast SE with my v700

But just got Silverfast AI to try.

Anyone got preferences? Seems fairly intuitive to start.. I am going to embark over the 6 months in rescanning my current archive (~60 - 70 rolls). Not every frame, but quite a few.

Just wanted to get some tips straight up for getting it pretty close on scan to minimise processing after!

 

Any more suggestions for used stores/smaller pro stores?

 

I use Vuescan and scan multipass DNG with flat contrast settings, then load it in Lightroom. I use Plustek though, not sure if it's any different with other scanners. I found the quality so much better and faster to scan than getting perfect scans straight from scanner.

I've actually had great success with gumtree, especially semi-broken film cameras which are almost free and can be fixed in minutes. I recently got a Leica M6 from KEH in BGN quality for a good price and condition, though that's my only purchase from them. Arrived from US to Aus in 4 days.

XA2 is cheaper however doesn't have rangefinder focusing like the XA so you'll have to guess the distance. I like rangefinders, can recommend Canonet QL17, Yashica GSN, Hi-matic. Nikon SLR like FE or FM is good if you use Nikon DSLR gear now. The Canon AE and A1 lenses use a different mount to the modern Canon EF cameras. If you buy used, SLRs are the easiest to check on the spot. Other cameras like P&S and rangefinders, you will need to shoot a roll to check function so get one with a return policy in case.