What non automotive projects and repairs are you doing?

[payne11]

Good

[xHeart]

A pick-n-pull for electrical DIYers?

[RickHaleParker]

A pick-n-pull for electrical DIYers?

Would not be cost effective to move old buildings to one location so they can be picked-n-pulled.
Closest thing I know of is Habitat for Humanity's ReStore. Where the pull is done you do the pick.

[xHeart]

A pick-n-pull for electrical DIYers?

Would not be cost effective to move old buildings to one location so they can be picked-n-pulled.
Closest thing I know of is Habitat for Humanity's ReStore. Where the pull is done you do the pick.

Good to know, RHP!

After a successful 20A circuit upgrade, associated material, and EMT skills, I'm ready for a home EV charging station.

[matthew1]

Not a fix project, but for sure a DIY one. Last night I processed two 36 rolls of Tri-X black/white film. I scanned one in already today.

[Sveedy]

Are you talking about old school 35mm film where you develop it in a canister and then have the three baths and drying lines etc for printing in the darkroom ? I did that sort of stuff way back when.

[matthew1]

Yes. Just no printing. Only processing the film, which is very easy and has low hardware demands.

From there I scan it, one long strip, no cutting the film.

[Sveedy]

Very cool !! I miss the old 35mm days. Didn't even know you could still get it, but I guess artist types will always need a source.
I think for awhile there was just one Kodak plant left making it.

[RickHaleParker]

Yes. Just no printing. Only processing the film, which is very easy and has low hardware demands.

From there I scan it, one long strip, no cutting the film.

Why Film then digitize rather then use a Digital Camera to record? Seems like a lot more money, time and labor to get the same end results. Would think the extra steps would induce artifacts.

[matthew1]

Very cool !! I miss the old 35mm days. Didn't even know you could still get it, but I guess artist types will always need a source.
I think for awhile there was just one Kodak plant left making it.

Kodak never stopped making Tri-X and some other films, some color. It's so fun.

Why Film then digitize rather then use a Digital Camera to record? Seems like a lot more money, time and labor to get the same end results. Would think the extra steps would induce artifacts.

There is no answer to this that makes people say "of course!", I've found. I suppose I could sum it up by saying it looks better than digital, and the nostalgia, and it makes me a better photographer.

When I'm paying for each frame, I slow down and compose better. I know I could just do this with digital, but I can't. The limited resource nag just isn't in my head using a DSLR as much as I want it to be.

As for looking better, the Eye of the Beholder and all that. When this comes up, I hear the "there are filters to make it look like film," but if I'm going to do that, why not just shoot film? My barriers to entry for film are really not that high. The processing chemicals are good for around 100 rolls for $40, so that's just overhead. Tri-X 36 rolls are $7, so that's not bad. The knowledge barrier to entry I crossed in 1986, so that's not a factor.

The feeling of winding film through a nice SLR or rangefinder is priceless. I have a Leica M6 made in 1988 if memory serves and it's magic. The German engineering is just a joy to hold and use. The sounds, the action, all of it.

If that's not enough, I always have the option to make prints in a darkroom with a negative, a process that we know lasts 100+ years, and maybe lots more, because prints with the same process are that old now, and doing fine.

I'll post a few from yesterday's processing in a minute here...