Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,547   Posts: 1,573,006   Online: 857
      
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81
  1. #51
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by NB23 View Post
    Stormbyte, Yeah, you want to sound even smarter? Recommend all of us to spend 20,000$ each on some film that will ultimately expire in 2014.
    Way to go.
    While I readily admit that results may vary with the assortment of emulsions in existence, film has been known to keep in-freezer for over a decade, regardless of expiry dates. If you're not happy with my suggestion then don't spend the money, and don't make the investment.

    Either way, for Pete's sake, quit bitching about my proposition when you offer no alternative solution.

  2. #52
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    You know, there is a sister site to APUG, aptly named DPUG for this type of discussion. Hybrid work flow is not a taboo topic, it's just relegated to the correct forum. To your great surprise you will find a user with just my user name posting there frequently
    There's as much discussion on DPUG in one month as there is on APUG in 30 minutes.

    And you just contradicted yourself. This makes APUG a darkroom only, minilab unfriendly forum. Make your mind up.

    Tri-X will not be saved by hybrid workflow discussions on APUG. It may be saved by ordered restructuring at Kodak together with a replacement of their management board.
    No kidding. But look at the title of the thread and OP's query. Problem is one cannot even have these discussions realistically without veering into the censorship realm. Even just workshopping or blue sky wondering about where industry and users can or will go brings up taboos topics. It's like talking about the birds in one coffee shop but having to talk about the bees in another. Where's the love?

  3. #53
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,783
    Images
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    There's as much discussion on DPUG in one month as there is on APUG in 30 minutes.
    Maybe there's more to discuss about pure analog processes than about scanning ... start an interesting thread on DPUG and you'll be surprised how many familiar APUG faces suddenly come out of the woodwork. "Film is dying!" is probably a wrong start BTW ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    And you just contradicted yourself. This makes APUG a darkroom only, minilab unfriendly forum.
    APUG is apparently unfriendly to a lot of topics: Nobody wants to discuss my car for instance. My kids don't want to eat their vegetables, bamm!, offtopic again. Re-tiling my bath room: not a hot topic here. Crashes of KDE window manager under Ubuntu linux: seriously annoying to many but not to be discussed here. Eurobonds? Next! Interest on my savings account well below annual inflation? Nope, not here. No snow far far this winter in my home town? Try again. Obamacare? Nope again.

    It's a big world out there, lots of exciting topics. APUG is here to cover one small aspect and it does so very effectively. I don't know whether any generic forum would have answered my dark room questions nearly as quickly.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  4. #54
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,137
    Wow, click new posts and I start on page 2 with at least four more to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    a) It's Tri-X. Frankly, while it's good, it's not *that* good. Sure it's iconic ("cult following" says it all) but frankly I think that's more in the name and history than the emulsion, particularly because Tri-X is not now what it was 10 or 20 years ago. Can you honestly tell me there is something you can do with Tri-X that you absolutely cannot do with some other film like HP5? I would find that really, really hard to believe. I think the loss of TMY2, Portra and Ektar will be a bigger blow to photographers than an old-style B&W emulsion that isn't very different from at least one (profitable) competitor's product.
    But I'll answer this - yes, there is something - shoot it at EI 1250 and develop in Diafine for really good low light negatives, better than any other combo at that speed I've found. It's a good 2/3s stop effective speed faster than HP5+ in Diafine, and doesn't have the grain or contrast increase you get from pushing with more conventional developers. The ability to pull that out of my bag of tricks at need is the single biggest reason I use Tri-X instead of HP5+. Otherwise I'd be happy with HP5+. That said, I used to get a nice 1600 as per the Diafine instructions, so I'm suspicious that the changes in the film may have lost me a third stop of effective (no arguments about how "real" it is - it works for me) speed. If I need faster I go to TMZ in 35mm and Delta 3200 in 120, but both will have dramatically more grain than my Tri-X/Diafine combo.

    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    Some of us have no choice when a product is discontinued, especially if creative projects require it. The freezer I am using will hold 3,000-4,000 rolls depending on format, it is about 2/3rd full. It has lead sheeting on the interior and exterior, is only used for film and is at around -10F.
    Will lead sheeting significantly retard the degradation of film while frozen? I had thought of storing it in lead lined bags if those are still available. Lead is cheap but I'm not sure how available it is in sheeting. How much did that cost, to line the freezer? I'd think it would be a lot easier to line the interior, just stick a sheet against each wall, than the exterior, especially the rear where the coil is. What's the rationale behind lining the interior AND exterior? Is it to just get twice the thickness of lead? Any advantage versus just using two sheets, or sheets twice as thick?

    I don't have a dedicated film freezer yet but I will, I will - and I like the "buy up all you can afford then as you shoot ten rolls replace ten rolls" idea. Keeps the stock full while supplies last and keeps the orders rolling in to the makers. (Well for sheet film it would take me a long time to shoot ten boxes so I might start with ten boxes and replace one or two as used up, but it's the same principle.)

  5. #55
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    Lead sheeting won't help. It's transparent to the background cosmic radiation that, cumulatively, will fog film. Rate of fogging depends on film speed and emulsion, with conventional-grain types often less susceptible at a given speed than tabular or core-shell flavors.
    Kept reading and found this. Can someone confirm this? It sounds plausible - cosmic rays are, after all, very high energy. These aren't incidental x-rays from a poorly shielded CRT we're talking about.

  6. #56
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,391
    Images
    65
    Thin lead foil or bags will protect from X-Rays at airports but you need something better to protect against high energy cosmic rays!

    PE

  7. #57
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The world HAS changed. it's the denial of that reality among some (often very bitter) filmophiles that is part of the problem. They are stuck in a 1987 time warp. The nostalgia about how film may come back vs. digital is ludicrous. It's like saying we'll use the internet but with typewriters. Or if we all spend $4,000 on hard copy encyclopedias we'll bring back that industry.
    I couldn't comment on bringing back encyclopedias, as I don't know very much about these. I was deprived as a child and the closest I ever got to a volume of Britannica was the occasional visit to my cousin's house.

    Bug I digress...

    It would be foolish and yes, perhaps even 'evangelical' to argue the longevity of film, as a going concern, on the basis of its aesthetic merits or historic (mass) appeal. Still, there are tale-telling signs even in the new, digital paradigm, confirming the existence of continued and even renewed interest in the medium, even if on a smaller (or vastly different) scale.

    Film is an 'organic' medium for capturing likeness. It exudes true, 'continuous tone', which in some inexplicable way seems to 'connect' with the viewer. And while the same 'connection' can be made with virtually any medium, none lend itself to this task with comparable ease.

    And so, there has been, in recent years, a growing trend to recreate some of the characteristics of film in the digital sphere. The most pronounced (and monetized) of these has been DxO's FilmPack 3.1 - a now-third generation *digital* product whose sole raison d'etre is to re-create the grain and exposure scale of various emulsions.

    Does this save the industry? No, hardly.

    *BUT* it does show that film can-and-does occupy a formidable place in <gasp!> even the digital workflow! And while entirely irrelevant to the question of its continuity as a viable business product or its continued availability, it shows that film will always remain at the significant core of any serious creative rendering process. The question of whether the artist 'reaches' the point at which film once again becomes relevant is exclusively in function of the individual's dedication to creating images and the depths to which they are willing to make this a personal obsession. Thankfully, artists can always be counted on to obsess!

    I've posted some videos below for those of us yet unfamiliar with DxO Filmpack 3.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr7EMwXvk68

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MTRp...eature=related

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    648
    Quote Originally Posted by stormbytes View Post
    film has been known to keep in-freezer for over a decade, regardless of expiry dates.
    I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?

  9. #59
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,137
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?
    Prohibitive for one box of Tri-X. Not so bad with a chest freezer full of film.

    Depends on a lot of things: local electrical rates, freezer efficiency, ambient temperature, size of the freezer and how often and for how long you open it, just for a few that come immediately to mind.

  10. #60
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    I haven't done the maths but how much would the electricity cost on a ten year deep frozen box of Tri-X?
    Nothing if you live in Antarctica.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin