[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 147 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!



File: FujiG617.jpg (686 KB, 1000x1000)
686 KB
686 KB JPG
wide boi edition

Old thread: >>3397030
All film photography related questions and general discussion on film photography is to take place in this thread.
35mm, 120, large format, developing, scanning, labs, etc.
Feel free to post photos, we want to see that beautiful grainy goodness!

>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, you use the panorama crop mode on your P&S

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: BlueHourDunes.jpg (148 KB, 1200x400)
148 KB
148 KB JPG
If you're going to post a 6x17 camera then we need to start the thread with an image taken with said camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNewcolorV2 3.0775003433 1.0775004625 3.0575013161 3.0575013161 0.68125277758
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width11712
Image Height33553
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution120 dpcm
Vertical Resolution120 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2017:12:07 17:18:29
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height400
>>
>>3401651
I've watched Xpans double in price in the past year. Is there anything that comes close with a reasonable price? Is it even worth it to do panoramas now vs cropping?

The Bronica squad have also caught on and the 135w back is now $400+
>>
>>3401656
I feel like the only person that hasn't gone to white sands
>>
>>3401659
Widelux or a GW690 with one of those 35mm to 120 converters
>>
File: Feels_Good_Man.jpg (26 KB, 620x572)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>3401656
>Alex Burke
>>
>>3401659
Any 120 camera can do 35mm panos with shims or an adapter. You can even just spool a roll of 35mm onto a 120 spool in the dark.
>>
Are there adapters for Nikon lens?
>>
File: subway.jpg (169 KB, 1500x945)
169 KB
169 KB JPG
Is it possible to accelerate the age of film by heating it in the oven? If so what temp and how long?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS REBEL T5i
Camera SoftwareChrome OS Gallery App
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:12:05 00:27:21
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height945
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3401712
Isn't it much easier to just buy expired film?
>>
>>3401656
nice comfy alex pic

I'm shooting out at white sands in a few weeks. Any tips on metering?
>>
>>3401651
>>3401656
Hnnngggg
>>
>>3401659

Take your choice! In my mind, it almost makes more sense to adapt your favorite 120 mm camera to shoot 35 mm panos than to buy a camera for the explicit purpose of shooting panos.

https://www.diyphotography.net/3-ways-using-35mm-film-120-bodies/
>>
>>3401726

>Oh cool, my body has pano 135 backs!
>$600 on ebay

Fuck, the whole camera with two lenses and two backs wasn’t even that much.
>>
File: FirstDuneGlow.jpg (231 KB, 1024x810)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
>>3401717
Add a full stop to whatever your light meter says. It's actually really easy to meter there, and the dynamic range is almost always very low. At sunset there's usually no reason to use any GND filters because the sky is about the same brightness as the ground, if not darker sometimes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNewcolorV2 3.0399999619 1.0399999619 2.9600000381 2.9600000381 0.47499990463
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width15496
Image Height19530
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution120 dpcm
Vertical Resolution120 dpcm
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:04:06 15:49:02
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height810
>>
>>3401763
Nice watercolors, what film?
>>
How do I git gud at focusing fast? I either hurry and slightly miss if I'm shooting a wide aperture or I take forever to focus.

Is it just a case of practice makes perfect /p/?
>>
File: _DSC4706.jpg (523 KB, 1000x665)
523 KB
523 KB JPG
Anyone got a good guide for inverting negatives in photoshop? I really suck at it.
>>
Is anyone aware of beginner kits for processing your own film at home?
I saw a set up that was being done on kickstarter called lab box that I considered but wondered if anyone had advice.
>>
>>3401792
There is no "kit", you only need two things, at least for B&W which is where you should start. $20 jug of monobath and a $30 paterson tank.
>>
>>3401780
Yes
>>
>>3401789
just flip yr tone curve
>>
File: edit-25-30-11-18 (2).jpg (193 KB, 1000x666)
193 KB
193 KB JPG
The lack of photos in this thread is disturbing.

>>3401780
prefocus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3456
Image Height2400
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:11:30 21:19:31
Image Width3456
Image Height2400
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height666
>>
>>3401663
Widelux!
>>
>>3401716
Yea for 35mm or 120mm but instax is too new to have real expired film yet. The ones that are, are around 1 to 3 years expired.
>>
File: anova-sous-vide.jpg (180 KB, 782x579)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
Pretty excited lads. I received this a couple days ago, and I'm going to mix up some c41 and get to developing. If that goes well, I'll graduate to E6 (which is like 80% of my backlog)
>>
>>3401789
I gave up and started using a LR plugin to do it. Significantly easier and works in batches.
>>
File: dslrscanning.jpg (31 KB, 640x398)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
Any opinion on scanning film with a digital camera vs a flatbed?

I use an EPSON V600 to scan 35mm & 120, but it can't handle my 4x5 sheets very well. I don't want to go pick up the $800 V800 just to do 4x5 sheets, and paying to get sheets scanned is expensive and time consuming. I'm thinking about using one of my Fuji digital cams to photograph the sheets over a light table with a decent lens and invert them in PS.

Has anyone here tried scanning film with a digital camera? How does it compare with a flatbed?
>>
>>3401876
What is the name of the plugin, please?
>>
>>3401869
Very interested in this, as I was planning the same. Let us know how it works.
>>
>>3401888
Will do. You're gonna have to wait until next week at least though.
>>
>>3401869
Got one of those. Works pretty well with E-6 as well. Only wish I had a more purpose built tank to put bathe everything in.
>>
>>3401879
It’s fine for 35mm but by the time you get up to 4x5 there’s literally no point. You’re sacrificing like 80% of the potential resolution of that frame.
>>
>>3401881
NegativeLabPro. I've emailed the dude with any questions or issues and he's pretty chill about responding and updating.
>>
>>3401879
Scanning with a digi cam requires a lot of fiddling and setting up, but gives superior results with a much lower scan time. Get a macro lens or some tubes and a light box instead of paying for the fancy flatbed.
>>
>>3401879
>>3401934
>shooting film just to end up photographing it with a digital camera
>taking a photograph of a tiny picture of the real thing instead of just photographing the real thing
Why not just take the photo with a DSLR in the first place at that point? What's wrong with film cucks' brains?
>>
>>3401651
How does one load a 135 cannister onto the developer reel if none of the film is sticking out without opening the cannister?
>>
>>3401911
Yeah, I know I'd be losing resolution compared to a flatbed, but the thought is that as long as I can print up to 16x20 then I'm fine. Rarely have I ever wished I could take advantage of the hundreds of megapixels my 4x5 negatives have at full resolution. If I do, I'll send the negative off to be scanned with a drum scanner. I should still retain the overall IQ of 4x5 at ~20-24MP. The purpose behind this is to have an easy way to scan LF negatives for regular applications without buying a scanner I don't want. I get what you're saying though.
>>
>>3401943
You buy a film retriever https://www.ebay.co.uk/p/ILFORD-Film-Retriever-for-35mm-Cassettes/1623347554

Otherwise you open the cassette in the dark and do it by feel. Just organize your stuff and have your tools arranged before turning the lights off
>>
>>3401939
>Why not just take the photo with a DSLR in the first place at that point?
Some potential reasons:
1. They prefer shooting with a film camera (eg, if they have a really nice Leica or medium format camera they enjoy) or they just enjoy the physical process of shooting/developing film
2. They prefer the look of the film. That look will carry over to the DSLR scan (they’re pretty good at straight reproduction) but might be hard to achieve starting from a digital raw
3. They plan to make actual wet optical prints but want something they can quickly throw up on the Internet

Now here’s a question back for you: why do you care so much about what someone else does that you have to question “what’s wrong with film cucks’ brains” if their photographic process is different from yours? Is it insecurity or just dickishness that makes you come into the /fgt/ just to bitch about people who enjoy shooting film?
>>
>>3401943
One opens the canister. Just make sure you do it in total darkness (eg, a darkroom or changing bag).

You can also get a tool called a leader retriever that can fish it out from the slot. Or, with a little skill and technique and another piece of film, you can retrieve a leader by licking the emulsion of another bit of film, slide it into the canister, get it to stick to the film inside, and carefully pull it out. I’ve never been able to actually make it work myself, but I’ve heard of other people doing it.
>>
>>3401742
Giannis, thanks for the help αγορίνα μου. All the best.
>>
>>3401792
Ilford is releasing that like juice pouch BW kit soon
>>
>>3401943
take a developed film negative thats already cut, load it into the cannister but leave a little sticking out, reel it in from the top, and pull it out.

the film inside should come out with the developed film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-29_31
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:04:19 20:14:05
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3401798
Thanks anon, I think this is my best option.
>>
>>3401651
Is there a feasible way of making b&w slides by exposing the negative on top of unexposed film? I know Ive seen some old contraptions from Leica for this purpose but not sure how they work. I shoot a lot of slide and have a medium format projector so getting slides out of my negs would be great.
>>
>>3401660
me too... and I live about 2 hours away.
>>
File: 5810847551_6bf6d43ef1_b.jpg (283 KB, 1024x778)
283 KB
283 KB JPG
>>3402106
You can get a slide copier, although I'm not sure how common they are in medium format. Run the negatives through the front and rephotograph every frame. Alternatively, there is a reversal process for B&W film to get a direct positive, although this requires a -lot- of experimentation to get right.
>>
is there any point to velvia 100f? doesn't hold highlights like negatives, as slide it doesn't have dr like provia, or colors as good as velvia 50

i have 2 rolls of it, but to set up a tripod and do careful measuring, i might as well just shoot velvia 50
>>
>>3402118
oops i mean velvia 100
>>
>>3401792
>lab box
It will start shipping next year around february, and it will cost a hundred bucks. Not worth it if you're just starting out and you're not sure whether to commit or not. That said, lab box seems neat.
>>
>>3402118
>>3402122
No, not really.
>>
Is the MD Tele Rokkor 135mm f2.8 an okay lens? I want to try something longer than 50mm on my x-700.
>>
>>3401965
>>3402025
I'll try this, thanks
>>
>>3401869
I recently bought a sous-vide as well. I also picked up a big soup pot at the goodwill to put it and my chemical bottles into.

I've done a few rolls of C-41 and everything has worked out fine. The only annoyance is that I need to let the unit heat the water bath for 20 min to get everything to temp.
>>
>>3402007
That develops 2 rolls no 35mm film...
>>
>>3402156
I have the 135mm f2.8 but in MC version, as well as the MD 135mm f3.5, like the one on that pic.
Pretty nice lenses but barely ever touch them, save on the rare occasions I shot a portrait.
I rather take out the Viv S1 70-210mm f3.5 whenever I need anything longer than the standard primes. I prefer the flexibility of the zoom.
>>
>>3402122
Vevlia 100 is technically superior in a number of aspects to Velvia 50. It's also a stop faster and a bit cheaper. I don't shoot it personally but if you can find something you want from the improvements it made over Velvia 50 give it a shot.
I shoot nearly pure Provia since it's cheaper and more versatile. I'd rather shoot Ektar 100 than Velvia 100.
>>
>>3401780
Learn to use the split prism
>>
>>3402264
I actually find using the microprism collar a lot more accurate than just the prism. Like the split prism is good for getting in general focus, but for accurate focus you use the microprism collar
>>
Found some generic Giant Eagle branded film, expired 2003, had some fun with it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3088
Image Height2048
>>
>>3402427

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2042
Image Height2042
>>
>>3401792
Film Photography Project has a starter kit that comes with all the equipment needed and some chemicals to get you started. Its good if you have idea what you need, but youd probably be better just researching and getting the items that best fit your needs. The film changing bag they include in the kit is very small fyi.
>>
>>3402316
>not using a matte field focusing screen
Microprism is good too, though
>>
i have a close friend who wants to get into film photographt- what ate some budget ($-$$) options to look into buying for him? any standard beginner kits? film prefs?
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 11:24:10
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 11:24:12
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 11:24:17
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 11:24:26
>>
>>3402459
>>3402460
>>3402461
>>3402462
Resize your shit
>>


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 11:24:03
>>
>>3402463
Fuck off if my countryside internet can handle it then so can yours
>>
>>3402465
just poking my head in this thread to say fuck you.
the main problem is 4chan server routing is often really bad.
i have 250/100mbit but i never bother loading photos >1mb, so suit yourself and don't complain if you get no feedback.
>>
Guides to developing always say to rebottle the chemistry so that there's as little air left in the bottle as possible to avoid oxidizing but what about when you're making wet prints? Doesn't the stop bath/fixer deteriorate quickly in an hour long printing session?

I'm also worried about printing in a room without ventilation and breathing in the vapors, the only way to ventilate my room is by opening the window but then the temperature would drop real quick.
>>
Hey guys, have you ever seen this ? If so, what do you think 'bout it ?
>>
Oh boy, get to go pick up a XA2 with Flash and a Minox 35 for $60 later tonight. They both look super clean and come from a guy I bought from before so they should both work, although I'll have to pick up some batteries for the Minox. Finally I'll have a tiny camera I can carry around whenever.

Next step is getting into developing my own film
>>
File: Sailboat Pano.jpg (1.39 MB, 2000x873)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB JPG
>>3401659
The 135w back has always been $300+. Even a decade ago they were that much the rare time they popped up on ebay.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:11:17 18:44:16
Exposure Time0.4 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-2.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height873
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3402504
yep it's a 2.8 big mini, good lens and sharp at that, but I prefer lenses that retract and cover -- even though the lens has a filter over it
>>
>>3402465
there is nothing to gain in your images by them being a larger size.

if anything, it's just more shittiness to take in.
>>
File: xtol13over.jpg (1.45 MB, 2441x800)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB JPG
>>3401651

I'm a poorfag and all I've got is a crop
>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, you use the panorama crop mode on your P&S


what?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:06 01:49:50
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3402465
>posts oversized photos with meme borders where the negs haven't been taken care of properly
here's your (you) sir
>>
>>3402156
Most MD/MC lenses are god tier, even the cheap 50 1.7 is hard to go wrong with. My only complaint is the plastic aperture ring on the rokkors
>>
My vuescan keeps shitting itself and crashing at the end of processing the scan image. The first scan works fine but the second time around it will crash if I don't restart after the first time. Sometimes it gets stuck at calibrating at the beginning too. Anyone ever have issues like this?
>>
I want to get into medium format and I found a store with two cameras I like in good condition and at good prices. What should I get? I know very little about medium format.

>a zenza bronica ETRsi with a 130mm lens, a 95mm (I think) lens, and a prism viewfinder for US$320
>a mamiya RB67 with a 127mm lens for US$400

Also are these actually good prices or am I getting ripped off?
>>
>>3402668
The RB is godly imo, and i would buy it if i were you. They are really comfy to shoot. I have a buddy who regrets selling his since it was his fav, but he sold it to buy some glass for his 4x5 camera
>>
>>3401660
I shot rockets there.
>>
File: _DSC6103-33.jpg (226 KB, 1000x429)
226 KB
226 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern4904
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)66 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:06:09 18:24:06
Exposure Time1/4000 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating800
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length44.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3402668
$400 seems steep though, I got mine a year ago for $250 and wouldn't pay more than that today. I don't support the hipster hype machine strangling film photography to death, all the while chanting "#FILMISNOTDEAD"
>>
>>3402668
Neither is an amazing deal but if you’re willing to part with the money I’d go for the RB. That is if you’re okay with carting an enormous cam everywhere.
>>
>>3402741
>complaining that cameras that once cost thousands upon thousands of dollars decades ago now cost hundreds
>strangling film photography to death

l
o
l

lad
>>
>>3402776
But there are way better medium format cameras available for less?? Most of the film meme darling cameras are shit (AE1? K1000?? LMAO) and modern film shooters are consummate trendhoppers that care more about fitting into the reddit analog aesthetic than taking good pictures.

There are practically infinite varieties of film cameras and almost all of them will deliver good pictures if you have a brain. Literally no one can tell the difference between a Leica and some other shit 70s rangefinder without being told it's a Leica.

Think for yourself film sheeple
>>
>>3402741

I am looking for a 135W myself. I’d be willing to go up to $300 for one if it was in good enough shape, but they are like double that on e-bay.

Can’t even find it here in Japan, though I don’t like in a super populated place.
>>
Guys I dropped of a roll of E100 and the fuck heads at the lab didn't develop it properly. everything came out as pink blobs or blue negative. desu some shots are kind of cool but the vast majority are ruined. I would post some examples but the fuck heads still haven't emailed the scans.

Anyway. Is the roll done for good? E100 is reversal slide film, yeah? So the "negatives" should be in full color? They don't appear to be. This is unreversible, or salvageable, isn't it?
>>
to slide or not to slide
i keep coming back to this dilemma
on one hand, color negatives give me more technical freedom, i can liberately blow highlights, overexpose to soften the palette, and their colors are more mallable in scanning
on the other hand, pulling out archive sleeves and looking at physical images on slides is such an unique experience
>>
>>3402854
new e100 or expired?
>>
>>3401939
If they do macro then they can have a very large file. But that is a lot harder. >>3401651
I personally scan my 120's on my v600 and if I think they are truly print worthy ill send them off to be properly scanned
>>
>>3402862
New
>>
File: 230px-Nikon_FM10.jpg (15 KB, 230x230)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
Hey I got a used Nikon FG, but it just does the mirror lock up thing; sent to repair but no hope.
Store offered a swap for a Nikon FM10, beat up EOS Elan (or sth like that) or money back, should I pick the FM10? I read the world really hates it
>>
File: images.jpg (8 KB, 266x190)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
>>3402862
>>3402877
This

I emailed the lab (irate) and they've informed me they don't process slide film. They cross process it. I wish they had told me before I dropped it off.
>>
>>3401651
I need a 6x17 in my life more than I need sex
>>
>>3402880

Tell them you want a full refund.

That's fucked.
>>
>>3402455
A Minolta X-300 with the stock 50mm 1.7 or any other similar Canon, Nikon or Olympus stuff from the mid 80s can be easily found in working order for like 50-80€ depending on cosmetics/CLA'd/new batteries and does mostly everything on a reasonable budget (aperture priority, manual mode, metering, AE lock). For film itself, sticking to Kodak Colorplus 200 for a while is a good start.
>>
>>3402455
He could find a working beginner kit in a thrift shop for anywhere from ten dollars
>>
>>3402854
>blue negative
The only way to come up with a negative image is to develop in C-41 chemistry.
They dropped your film in the wrong line, assuming they even do E-6 to begin with.

Go tell them, ask for your money back (dev+scans) plus the price of the ektachrome roll.
>>
>>3402880
They should have told you when you dropped it off
>>
>>3402881
Same here. Too bad theyre all like 3000 buckaroonies. How can a piece of wood and a lens cost that much?
>>
>>3402859
No question. If I had a lab near me that did E6 every day, I would shoot nothing but slide during daylight. I just wish they brought faster slide stocks like 400 back.
>>
>>3402952
Ektar:
>€8 for the roll
>dev, scan and print €26
>one hour delivery if desired (for an extra of the above mentioned)

Ektachrome:
>€23 for the roll (not sold here yet, imported from GB)
>dev and scan €33
>only twice a month

In Oslo that is
>>
>>3402741
Hmm I had a feeling I could get a lower price. I'll see if I can get it down to like 300-350 before considering, thanks for your insight
>>
Any suggestions for a dirt cheap, manual only (or with manual option), AA battery hot shoe flash? There's trillions on ebay but I wanted to see if someone has any ideas on which to go for etc. I'm putting it on a hot shoe adapter out of an ETRSi with a sync cable.
>>
File: 100065050050.jpg (929 KB, 2000x1410)
929 KB
929 KB JPG
I just bought a Plustek 7200dpi 35mm film scanner. What is the sharpest and finest grain C41 film that is still available today? Is it Ektar, Cinestill 50D, or something else?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:10:28 22:34:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3402982
ektar
honestly don't bother with cinestill, and this is coming from someone who has shot aout 20 rolls it this meme film
>>
>>3402982
Start with Portra 160 and then some slides.

Kodak 50D is like portra 160 on steroids, but you'll get none of the nice properties of it through "Cinestill":
• increased grain size, contrast and colour shifts cause you'll prolly cross process it in C-41
• huge halos, because of stripped antihalation layer
• quick degradation because of remjet removal

Jus shoot some slow Portra or some Provia if you want very sharp, tight grain.
>>
File: 12.jpg (1.35 MB, 1500x996)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB JPG
>>3402982
Cinestill isn't C41 and it's also garbage. Ektar is the answer, but if you really want to sharp, fine grain it's E6, Provia or Velvia.

Pic related: Ektar scanned on my Noritsu
>>
>>3402982
Speaking of scanners, what are the best affordable scanners (so aside hasselblad, noritsu, etc) in terms of image quality?
>>
>>3403004
Not him, but I'm considering a plustek 8200i
>>
>>3403006
Same here, looks like the best bang for the buck. Right now I'm using an old Benq scanner, but it has a bit too much CCD noise for my preference
>>
File: IMG_20180311_215402_852.jpg (246 KB, 1000x667)
246 KB
246 KB JPG
>>3402989
>>3402990
Thanks for the info about Cinestill.
I'm not an expert, but aside from cheap C41 and B&W, I shot a couple dozen rolls of slide film more then a decade ago, before getting into digital. Now I'm getting back into analog, but E6 is too expensive for me. I will mostly do gritty urban landscapes, Portra doesn't seem fitting for this purpose. I think that Ektar was relaunched after I got my first DSLR, I will try it now.
>>
>>3403009
that is some beautiful urban decay
>>
>>3403006
I highly recommend the 8200i if you shoot color. The infrared dust removal takes longer to scan, but works very well and saves you a lot of time in post.
>>
Completely new to film cameras guys so I have a few questions.
How do you get the film processed?
Also I want to get a camera for under $100 and was thinking the Olympus OM1. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
>>
>>3403009
Shoot E6 in 120 or sheet film and it's the same price as C41.
>>3403016
However you want to, get a 30 euro chemistry kit or sendit to a lab as if it were the 1950s.
>>
>>3403016
Find a local lab and drop it off to them. If you're lucky you'll still find a 1 hour place.
>>
>>3401879
When you start looking into very high end scanners like Creo and Imacon you learn that they are just expensive, purpose built cameras, with movable lenses and CCD arrays.

For instance the older Scitex brand scanners use very high quality Rodenstock M39 screwmount lenses. Those scanners cost $30,000 new in the late 90s and now people sometimes gut them just for the lenses!

It gives a lot of credence to the idea of camera scanning being very capable with a properly built setup.
>>
>>3403023
>>3403020
how much does dropping it off at a lab usually cost?
>>
>>3403027
Depends on where you live. For example here in my shit ex commie country dev only costs like $2, if you add in scanning it gets to $10.

Don't know about the USA tough.
>>
>>3403025
sorry but what you just listed
>the lens being special purpose copy lens, not generic macro lens
>even, consistent light source instead of godknowswhat anon may use to backlight his negs
>meticulously engineered surfaces vs whatever setup anon has
does not help the argument for dslr scanning, but in fact exposes its shortcomings
>>
File: 03440006.jpg (214 KB, 662x1000)
214 KB
214 KB JPG
>>3403027
>>3403028
But looking at thedarkroom.com as a reference they charge about $15 for dev and 6 megapixel scans, or about $20 for 30 megapixel scans, and they are based in the USA.

Also, I would recommend scanning at home instead of getting scans from some random lab down the street, they usually don't bother with color correction anymore and just let the scanner do it's thing.
>pic related some expired film I dropped off at my local lab, started scanning at home since then

Also, if you scan at a lab, remember that every lab has it's own look, but if the staff is serious you can usually talk to them to get to the look you want.
For example: http://www.lettherebefilm.com/comparing-scans/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-29_31
Camera SoftwareQSS-29_31 001
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3089
Image Height2048
>>
>>3403009
>gritty urban landscapes
Try Lomography 800. Not only it's fucking dirt cheap compared to other fast film stocks (basically a 3-pack for the price of a single roll of Portra 800 or Cinestill 800T), it handles push dev to 1600 fairly well and that way it makes artificial light pop out in urban night scenes.
>>
File: 2018-07-12-0005.jpg (244 KB, 667x1000)
244 KB
244 KB JPG
>>3403040
Same snapshit scanned at home and with color correction applied, excuse the dust.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3403042
>slightly brighter photo with stray pubes all over it
Not really selling the dream of at-home scanning that well.
>>
>>3403045
Couldn't be bothered to clean the negative in the 2 minutes it took to scan it for the comparison
>>
File: 2018-07-12-0006.jpg (256 KB, 666x1000)
256 KB
256 KB JPG
>>3403045
better?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width666
Image Height1000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:12:07 22:55:28
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width666
Image Height1000
>>
>>3402879
>FM10
that's literally a plastic cosina c1s in f-mount with a cosina-made lens. it even has the same 3 LED red-green-red exposure meter. OK camera for $20 or so.
I'd say get your money back and look/wait for something better.
>>
>>3403040
Auto on a lab scanner (frontier or ls-600) is better than your meticulously adjusted epson shitbed
>>
>>3403104
Btw here in argentina us dollar is actually 1usd=37,49ars, so
>>
>>3403107
oh shit pibe, I was down there like 15 years ago and the dollar was like 1:3.5 to the peso if I recall correcly, and everyone was like "te acordás cuando el dolar estaba 1 a 1?" lel
I'd pass on that FM10. it's really overpriced for the sole reason it was still in production like a year ago and had a retail price of over $250. The cosina c1s is the same camera and goes used really cheap compared to the FM10, and nowhere near the price of a nikon FG.

The EOS Elan is a sweet camera. the only downside is that it uses those weird and pricey battery packs with two CR123 cells on them.
>>
File: fp4 10001.jpg (1.27 MB, 1327x2072)
1.27 MB
1.27 MB JPG
Just popping in to say there are options besides
-flatbeds
-lab scans
-dslr
-drum scans

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution480 dpi
Vertical Resolution480 dpi
Image Created2018:09:18 22:29:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: IR750 shot 3216.jpg (1.71 MB, 2036x1332)
1.71 MB
1.71 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution480 dpi
Vertical Resolution480 dpi
Image Created2018:08:21 14:57:42
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3403105
If you don't mind that huge blue color cast, sure
>>
>>3403105
>>3403198
b-but that's how film is supposed to look like! It's the h-hipster look being all shifted and not colour accurate!! Isn't that what you want anon?
>>
>>3402962
>dev, scan and print €26

Holy shit, thats expensive anon, its only about 15 USD where I live
>>
>>3401888
>>3403058
The lab scan lools better. You shit the bed with the color correction
>>
How do I expose for brown skin?
>>
>>3403162

Your coolscan IV doesn't scan anything larger than 35mm pleb format
>>
>>3402859
you're basically asking whether you should shoot a film that allows you to be lazy and fix any fuckups by relying on its latitude and your post processing

vs

a film that doesn't

i'd pick slide

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3401651
Cool
>>
>>3403289
shoot digital, film stocks were calibrated by racist whites and asians
>>
>>3403452
It wasn’t conscious racism, it’s just that white people is where the money selling film was. I think it was William Klein who always wore a white shirt when shooting in Harlem to have a little more fill light.
>>
>>3403452
If you can find contact sheets of people who shot brown/black people you'll see the correct bracketing. I remember doing it for a trip in south america and it helped reducing film used due to less bracketing.
If you can't find it, then do an exposure experiment and record values.
>>
>>3403478
Meant for: >>3403289
>>
>>3402995
>Cinestill isn't c41
Wut. It is though. That being said I also prefer ektar.
>>
Tfw got a 610mm f/9 multicoated Apo-Nikkor to finally mount in my Ilex 5 shutter. Overall it’s about $750 for the shutter and lens, but I bet once I mount it (hopefully under $100) it’s probably now worth double. There are essentially no ultra large format lenses that long already in-shutter as sharp as this on the market. I’d probably use it on my 8x10 Toyo but keep it if I ever make bank and can afford 11x14. I think it covers 20x24 with some falloff at infinity. Knowing how good apo Nikkor s are, and that this is a rarer multicoated one, this thing probably can give me an equivalent gigapixel of information on my 8x10. Only downside, the Ilex shutter has a max speed of 1/50, though it’s actually not that fast.

>>3401869
Looks delicious, how was it? Maybe I’m old schooled, I just don’t feel that marinated pork is necessary for developing film, but perhaps I’ll try it in the darkroom next time.
>>
>>3403489
>he doesn't know
he he
>>
File: 500T10BRAUN.jpg (802 KB, 2055x1356)
802 KB
802 KB JPG
>>3403489
lmao
here's some vision 500 cross processed in c-41

I'm gonna get around to trying ecn2-anon's recipe eventually

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.3 W
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4109
Image Height2711
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2900 dpi
Vertical Resolution2900 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018.11.11 15.08.42
>>
>>3403493
>Only downside, the Ilex shutter has a max speed of 1/50, though it’s actually not that fast.
Who needs 1/60 when you got f/128
>>
>>3403554
Not untrue but who wants 1/128? Diffraction becomes awful by that point, even f/64 is pretty awful. On 4x5 I prefer shooting around f/16 to f/22 maximum, and 8x10 I try my best to shoot f/22 to f/32. Which is equivalent to f/2.8 to f/4 depth of field wise, so it requires some creative movements and deciding what should get the sharp focus and what shouldn’t.

F/128 is insanely wide depth of field but then it’s getting unenlargeable — might as well shoot medium format or 4x5 then. With large format you don’t just stop down more, you just plan and stop down as much as absolutely necessary and no more.

But since this is such a long lens then yeah I’ve read that in practical use you’re often above f/45.
>>
>>3403557
it was a joke man, calm down.
>>
>>3403560
>Whoa lmao man lemme make some banal comment and when someone offers commentary related to it lemme tell him to calm down lmao
That’s just such a weird thing. Was stating some physical properties of a shutter and a lens some sort of joke that missed the mark or something? Surreal, I don’t get it
>>
>>3403550
I'm selling my 200T bulk roll honestly isn't worth the time or effort to process c41, e6, b&w AND ecn-2
>>
>>3403493
That's a pretty cool lens. Sounds like a waste on 8x10 though if the coverage is that massive.
>>
File: 500T24BRAUN.jpg (1.21 MB, 1976x1338)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3403578
Honestly, that's fair

but I bought 1300ft of the stuff for 100$ canadian

So, I don't feel bad about "wasting" some, I'd never try selling it though, I usually just give rolls to friends for free, with the disclaimer that the results are very unpredictable. For me, it'll probably be worth it to mix up some ecn2, especially if it makes me actually wanna use the rest of this film.

250d has worked a lot better in c41, wonder if it has to do with daylight vs. tungsten

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.3 W
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3952
Image Height2676
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2900 dpi
Vertical Resolution2900 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018.11.11 16.47.39
>>
Finished my first roll with the XA2.
Tri-X 800 HC-110 b

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 02:34:44
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3403585
I researched more and apparently it only covers 20x24 at reproduction ratios not infinity. That still means it has a massive circle but it’s not some hyper large format beast like the very large Apo Nikkors are (the 1780mm f/14 covers 30x40 at infinity I hear). Either way at 8x10 I like using lenses that cover larger formats. My 360mm f5.6 was made for use in 11x14 but for 8x10 it’s a very fast normal lens with great movements. I imagine the 610mm along with my 210 kowa graphic and 120 Nikkor sw will give me all focal lengths I’ll ever need.

And thanks! I’m a huge fan of longer lenses so I have a feeling I will use it constantly. I may even use it with 4x5 for some very long landscapes.
>>
>>3403614
snappy, but some shots are oof.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 02:41:06
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height667
>>
>>3403614
Subject is eh but that lighting and contrast is gorgeous
>>
>>3403623
or at least not as I expected. Wanted focus on her eye. Just not as precise and probably more a daytime camera, f3.5 with max. 800 iso isn't that good for very low light.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 02:49:16
Image Width3328
Image Height2240
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3403625
Just a tree in our backyard. The light was what made me take it.
>>
looking to buy a f100 ebay - how do i really determine the quality of the camera when everyone says "near mint" "barely used"

should i assume everything is working as expected?
>>
>>3403774
F100 and F5 both get sticky thumb wheels, i.e. the encoders get cruddy even when kept in storage. It's best to get those locally and prepare to reject some before finding one that's properly usable.
>>
>>3403557
Shutter is fine. Forget wank with movements and ideas about enlarging 8x10 negative. Twofold enlargement is 16x20, that's large framed photograph on toilet wall of american new rich class. Printing 32x40 on fiber needs assistant or use of three hands and dick.

Too much exposure is problem solved with filters pouch next to both fuck-huge film holders in fuck-huge military backpack. If anything use 400 speed film, mount orange filter of hipster youtuber, meter with celphone and consider yourself lucky any of this is made anymore.
>>
File: s-l1600 (4).jpg (163 KB, 1600x1066)
163 KB
163 KB JPG
I want a Ricoh p&s but I don't want to drop the big bucks on any of the GR cameras. I seen they also made the MF-1 p&s that you can manually control focus and aperture. Its significantly cheaper and much less popular than the GR series.

Anyone have experience with these? From the example images I have seen there is a slight vignetting but I am not sure if its just on lower apertures or every shot.
>>
More from the XA2. Overall nice, but that one more stop of the XA3 might be quite useful sometimes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 14:19:30
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3403844
Especially here

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 14:48:40
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
last one. all others are even more boring, or blurred.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 14:53:40
Image Width3328
Image Height2232
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height666
>>
File: DCS_0959.jpg (633 KB, 1080x1350)
633 KB
633 KB JPG
First +2 push process

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: 20171220-74120007.jpg (1.18 MB, 1000x1500)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
How should I expose E100 in the snow? Do I just spot meter for the midtones and trust my camera to get it right?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:12:28 12:13:06
>>
>>3403878
If overcast use integral metering (midtones if spot). In sunshine consider the reflecting snow and compensate by 1-2 stops.
>>
File: Img0035.jpg (717 KB, 1113x1200)
717 KB
717 KB JPG
i know this is now /sqg/ but i really want to know if there are light leaks on this picture.

only got like two photos with this effect, but i'm not sure because too new in /p/

can i get an advice?
Nikon F90x
Kodak Pro 100
>>
>>3403952
Looks more like a shutter sync issue if anything.
>>
>>3403952
>>3403953
shutter sync would only be with flash not broad daylight

looks more like a shutter or mirror issue
something is blocking the path of light to the film.
sad news is that an F90x is not worth fixing
good news is that you can probably find another around free
>>
File: 1537283223635.jpg (29 KB, 540x360)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>3403953
Maybe it's the shutter syncing with the mirror?
>>
File: 20181201-07030015.jpg (400 KB, 796x1200)
400 KB
400 KB JPG
>>3403883
cool cool. I'll post results in a month or so, once I finish the roll and send it off for processing.

In the mean time, enjoy this poodle on Portra

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:12:09 15:53:33
>>
>>3401931
>>3401876
yeah need a cracked version about this
don't want to pay 100 bucks for 1 year
>>
>>3404267
Just found a crack the site looks pretty shady, it's all in Chinese but I'll download it and see if it's legit. If it is I'll give you guys the link
>>
>>3404269
go for it comrade....iam fed up with the silverfast results with the flatscan from my university
>>
>>3404273
Alright so the link I downloaded from had a .txt file with another link to download another file and that has a .torrent link in it with NegativeLabPro and what seems to be the crack for it... hope this wild goose chase pays off. Mind you all these files where in Chinese so I had to translate everything but this torrent link is in English which is a good sign. There's no other peers downloading this torrent so it's going super slow
>>
>>3404277
I believe in you anon
>>
>>3404277
hopefully it works out
>>
>>3404267
If that doesn't work, you could also give "colorperfect" a try, its 67$

If you google inverting negatives, there's a blog post with a Photoshop script on it, that's useful in a pinch
>>
>>3404277
any update ??
>>
>>3404267
Pretty sure it's $100 for good.
>>
>>3404290
Colorperfect is a huge pain. If you're already using LR, round tripping to it is rough, besides which it's a huge bummer to use.
>>
>>3404277
>>3404278
>>3404281
>>3404291
>>3404290
YA BOY GOT IT WORKING
Notice how there isn't any trial next to convert negative?
I managed to find a direct download link, that torrent wasn't downloading at all. Go to the nitrofire link on this website
http://yjaksk.biz/plugins/10825-negative-lab-pro-v121-plug-in-for-lightroom-windows-version.html

>>3404303
I agree, Colorperfect is great at what it does but having to use it in Photoshop is a bitch.
>>
>>3404305
There's a .txt file with instructions on how to install it. I'd suggest removing NegativeLabPro form Lightroom if you already have it installed and delete all the previous NLP files too before installing the cracked version
>>
>>3404305
holy boy !
it's downloading now but the servers are fucking crap lol
thanks anyways, i really love you big times dude.
thank you for this amazing job...
will tell if it worked for me or not and then re-up this on mega for better downloading
>>
>>3404305
It works, just have to find a way toconfigure lr properly bc it pisses me off
Iam using camera raw in photoshop only but i guess i can edit negs on lr then switch the tiffs to camera raw
Thank alot dude ! <3
>>
>>3404309
No worries man post back when you have the mega up

>>3404312
I find editing in Lightroom way less cumbersome than using photoshop, you're welcome btw!
>>
>>3402644
Seems like this only happens when using the "maximum" crop setting for some reason, I've been scanning with manual now and it works fine.
>>
File: 318619.jpg (41 KB, 1024x768)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
I've grown sick and tired of getting subpar results out of a shatbed, so I've decided to either invest in a better scanner or quit shooting MF entirely. Plustek just gone and decided to discontinue the 120 scanner and the only thing I can get new from a retailer around here is the Reflecta MF5000. Has anyone here experience on this thing or Reflecta scanners in general? Worth the 1.5k I can get it for?
>>
Are Rollei 35 a meme? I'm thinking of getting a small camera with good optics to put in pocket and was considering MJU2 but their price has doubled over last few months, even more expensive than Rollei 35s now. I'm not paying that much for some plastic crap that will likely break in a couple of years.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2075
Image Height3130
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:11:26 16:55:17
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1366
Image Height2048
>>
Looking for the best medium format camera with a budget of £200-250

The only medium format I have is a Yashica Mat 124. I love it but I'm getting bored of it and feel the lens could be better.
>>
File: DSC_1058.jpg (380 KB, 1500x998)
380 KB
380 KB JPG
>>3404554
Don't buy cameras like the mju ii at ebay prices. Look through local ads and thrift stores.
Just last week I got a mju II at the local equivalent of goodwill for about $60. Haven't my test roll back from the lab yet (should be ready tomorrow), but I still have time to return it if there's a problem. Not like there seems to be an issue.

If anything I have the feeling that mju iis are easier to come by than rollei 35s. But then I don't have too much experience shooting with a rollei 35 other than an xf35 which doesn't really count I guess.
>>
>>3404554
>Are Rollei 35 a meme?
No, they're genuinely really nice little cameras. Loved mine (owned a Germany-made R35 and a R35s) and regret selling them.
They're quirky in operation though and their design forces you into a certain workflow ("aperture priority"-style shooting, first exposure then composition, etc.). If you want to do anything else you'll probably find it a bit finicky. A real love it or hate it camera.
Both Tessar and Sonnar lenses are nice. The Sonnar especially is famously sharp but I personally had a slight preference for the Tessar's character.

There is one significant reliability issue though: you'll definitely want to test it yourself beforehand or get it from a seller who can confirm he knows it works fine.
Excluding only those made at the very beginning and end of the production, nearly all Rollei 35, T and S models (both made in Germany and Singapore) use a plastic gear in the film advance gear train which has a tendency of losing teeth when used forcefully. This doesn't render the camera unuseable but you'll have do a long and a short stroke to fully cock the shutter, which is annoying.
Wind the shutter 30-40 times and if you don't feel anything wrong the camera's probably fine.

Do not get an E series. They completely ruined the design in an attempt to appease those who whined about not having a lightmeter in the viewfinder. Those dials were not made to use with the camera to your eye.
>>
>>3404554
Just buy literally any plastic piece of shit 80s PnS from Goodwill for $5.
>>
>>3404568
Yep, Olympus XA is probably a good candidate. Easier to use than Rollei 35 thanks to rangefinder and aperture priority meter and a lot cheaper than both mju ii and rollei 35.
>>
>>3404554
I have the 35, with busted light meter so I got it for cheap. I'm using it as a travel camera on hikes and it's perfect for that, light meter isn't really necessary in daylight conditions and it fits a nifty pouch intended for cigarette pack perfectly (pic related). Not really something I'd use for shooting action because of the way it operates but then again I wouldn't use an AF compact either because I don't trust 80's to 90's AF worth a crap (even the much hyped T2 wasn't entirely reliable).

My only gripe is that it can rip the film straight out of the damn canister if you're careless with the last stroke. Happened to me twice already and I had to extract the roll in a bathroom and lost some frames as the first 10cm or so split in two length wise.
>>
>>3404572
Forgot pic.
>>
>>3404561
The lens in that thing is stellar, sharper than you’re likely to be able to resolve with most scanners.

But if you want to mix it up I’d recommend an SLR, that way you get changeable backs, changeable lenses and can use filters. You may be able to pick up a Bronica SQ-A within your budget if you’re patient. Then long-term you can invest more in the system.
>>
just won a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 in great condition for cheap on ebay. any words of advice for a newbie? I've never used a film camera before and wanted to learn with something fully mechanical
>>
>>3404600
Probably the best 35mm SLR made by Yashica. You also got access to some amazing carl zeiss lenses.
>>
>>3404626
that's reassuring! I would love a zeiss lens but I feel that I should spend time learning before I shell out for one. I'm going to see if I can find a cheaper wide angle lens for it as a start
>>
>>3403952
What did you use for scanning? Looks great.
>>
>>3404561
Likely a Bronica ETR or SQ.You can also find Mamiya RZ/RB for cheap but keep in mind they are very heavy and bulky.
>>
File: cms 20 II.png (295 KB, 1023x570)
295 KB
295 KB PNG
Is the Adox CMS 20 II worth it with an old Zenit E and Helios-44 and Pentacon 2.8/135?
>>
I have some black and white Wephota Pan 100 that expired in 2004. It smells strongly of vinegar. Should I even bother shooting it?
>>
A 10 pack of original Agfa Vista 200 + a 5 pack of kodak pro image 100 for $60
Worth or not? Supposedly kept in freezer since purchase, the agfa vista is 2008 expiry, not sure about the pro image.
>>
File: IMG_20181210_211515.jpg (594 KB, 1082x825)
594 KB
594 KB JPG
So there's no fixing this huh
>>
>>3404843
Not unfix-able but hard to fix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTulo_SIE6E
>>
File: IMG_20181211_001037.jpg (384 KB, 1397x1047)
384 KB
384 KB JPG
>>3403953
I don't have a flash yet, entire roll was shot between 9am to 5pm

>>3403975
Well, that's unfortunate, because i always dreamed with this camera ( i got it from a pawn shop w lens and motor for 50$).

Is there any way to fix it? Like i said before, only two photos got this weird effect, maybe i fucked up thw roll when i changed lens?

>>3404653
Lightbox and a nikon d5300 pluged to pc with nikon software, i dont remember the lens, maybe 18-55 or 28-105 afD in "macro" mode

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelMoto G 2014
Equipment MakeMotorola
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2018:12:11 24:10:38
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Date (UTC)2018:12:11
Time (UTC)05:08:05
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
Color Space InformationsRGB
F-Numberf/2.0
Focal Length3.54 mm
Lens Aperturef/2.0
Exposure ModeAuto Bracket
Image Height2448
RenderingCustom
SaturationNormal
Exposure ProgramManual
SharpnessSoft
White BalanceAuto
Image Width3264
Metering ModeAverage
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
ContrastNormal
Exposure Bias0 EV
BrightnessUnknown
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Time3293/50000 sec
>>
>>3404846
I read a bit about cleaning the contacts, but that's useless if the ribbon is tearing right? Do you have a yt link for a tear down? I couldn't find many
>>
File: bermagui2017.jpg (1.02 MB, 1000x995)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG
My scanner finally arrived today, feels great to be able to scan my film again after a year without my own scanner, time to work on colour correction again...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2614
Image Height2599
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:11 17:07:44
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height995
>>
File: newcastle2017.jpg (1.07 MB, 1000x995)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB JPG
>>3404870
Pretty sure i shot these on expired kodak vericolor III

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2597
Image Height2583
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:11 17:08:20
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height995
>>
File: golburn2017.jpg (1.03 MB, 1000x995)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>3404871
le big ram

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2591
Image Height2577
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:11 17:08:48
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height995
>>
>>3404870
Which scanner is it?
>>
File: cathrinehillbay2018.jpg (634 KB, 1000x995)
634 KB
634 KB JPG
>>3404882
Epson v550, nothing too special.

This was shot on expired Fuji NPZ 800, kinda gave up colour correcting this one...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2591
Image Height2577
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:11 17:59:02
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height995
>>
>>3404821
Vinegar smell indicates acetate breaking down. This happens to film kept poorly. Don't put it in a camera you don't know how to clean. You could risk it by pulling out a few inches and seeing if it's gunky, but Murphy says then the breakdown will be closer to the last frame because of gas chemistry.

If you've got a bunch, sacrifice one just to see if it's real bad or not. Show pictures of sacrificial film, sacrificial camera, and/or snapshits on first test roll.
>>
File: newcastlehamilton17.jpg (1.01 MB, 1000x988)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
>>3404902
I think i may be getting better with colour correction. Kodak Vericolour III

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5183
Image Height5113
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution2400 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:11 23:51:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height988
>>
>>3404807
If you like using a tripod and have a bottle of Adotech lying around to develop the film then yes, probably.
>>
>>3404855
I tried tearing down this camera for the same issue. The LCD is connected with a long ribbon to the front and the back isn't easy to get to. I wouldn't recommend it.
>>
I just purchased an olympus OM2 but the light meter seems to be too sensitive. Where my phone and digital camera says to expose for 1/20 or 1/30 the OM2 wants to expose at between 1/60 and 1/120. I've encountered light meters that get weaker with age but never one that's too sensitive. Will this be an issue or can I put a roll through it without worrying?
>>
>>3405099
If you know by how much it wants to overexpose then it should be easy enough to compensate, no?
>>
>>3405099
Probably the wrong kind of batteries
>>
File: 1538877960073.jpg (45 KB, 800x546)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>go pick up photos
>it's all blurry trash

i'm never shooting 200 ISO again
>>
>>3405099
Are you using SR44 batteries or LR44?
Alkaline-based LR44's have a very wavy discharge curve over time and if they're brand new they might be providing a too high voltage. You don't want to use LR44s in cameras in general.
Silver oxide SR44s are slightly more expensive but very stable until right before they die (and are the recommended option).
I find it hard to imagine the slight differences in voltage would give such an underexposure though, but it's about the only thing I can think of.

Have you already tested the camera with film? Does auto mode expose correctly? It uses a different light meter than the needle you see in the finder, so if both are skewed it's probably a power issue I think.
>>
>>3405099
Check you're using the correct batteries, i.e. silver oxide. The one you want is SR44. There is an identical looking alkaline version, called LR44. Many sellers put both names in the description, because the batteries are the same size and (initial) voltage, so make sure you see "Silver Oxide" on the package and not "Alkaline".

The thing is, silver oxide batteries remain virtually constant in voltage as they discharge, and then drop off sharply near the end of their life.
Alkalines drop the voltage gradually, which affects the metering.

The OM-2 has a voltage "regulation" circuitry, in the sense that if it senses the voltage has dropped off substantially, cuts all power and the camera doesn't function.
*However*, between the battery being new, and the time when the voltage is too low to function, the voltage keeps dropping gradually and the camera doesn't correct for that (because the batteries it was designed for don't do that), which throws exposures off.
Also, the voltage cutoff (i.e. when you need to replace the battery) with silver oxides happens when the battery is almost completely spent, while with alkalines it happens at half way through the battery's life. So you get far less usable battery life from alkalines.

>TL;DR: Just get silver oxide batteries and try again. Easily available, not much more expensive and last quite longer.
>>
>>3405113
The problem is not the tool but that you're using it in the wrong situation
>>
>>3401789
Negfix8 works nicely. Very light as well.
>>
>>3405133
sure, but I'm shootin 400 ISO now
>>
>>3401651
I saw Linhof Technorama 617 not so long ago in Vienna, it was for €8600. God damn, I can only imagine this goodness with slide film.
>>
>>3405129
>>3405126
Thanks guys. I do have LR44, so I'll try getting the SR44. I haven't run a roll through yet so can't tell if it exposes properly. Both auto and manual gives me the same reading though so if they use different metres, it's likely that the batteries are a bit over-charged perhaps. They're brand new batteries
>>
>>3405142
Enjoy your baseball sized grain
>>
>>3405156
Using SR44 will probably solve your problem.

Just looking at the meter value in the finder won't tell you anything about a possible difference between manual and auto meters though. In both auto and manual the needle actually relies on the same light meter. However in auto mode it only serves as an approximation, while internally the camera uses an entirely different light meter measuring the reflection of the film surface (IIRC), so basically there's no way of knowing what this auto-only meter is reading until you've developed a test roll.
>>
>>3405208
OM-2 and OM-4 in auto mode will measure light reflected off the shutter curtain if it's at sync speed or faster (1/60 on both), and off the film if it's slower than 1/60. And like you said, the auto meter's indication is just an estimate because the real metering it's gonna use isn't available until the mirror has been lifted.

I'd suggest exposing the same thing off a tripod in both needle-matching manual and camera auto to see if there's a difference. Also, cellphones sometimes straight up lie about their ISO and aperture, so the app might not be spot on. Generally OM-2s aren't picky about batteries.
>>
File: 1326116399905.jpg (22 KB, 140x147)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
You can get Vegas Pro 15 for $19 on Humble Bundle for the next 2 weeks.

https://www.humblebundle.com/software/vegas-pro-even-more-software?hmb_source=navbar&hmb_medium=product_tile&hmb_campaign=tile_index_4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2014:03:10 23:23:43
>>
>>3405260
*$25
>>
File: wolf slut (1 of 1).jpg (480 KB, 864x1080)
480 KB
480 KB JPG
Everything is better in black and white
>>
>>3405231
>>3405208
Found a new problem! The battery is already drained. I've only been playing with the camera for like two hours. Could this also be because I used an LR44 battery or should i bring out the vinegar and q-tips?
>>
Can someone tell me why buying a Canonet QL17 GIII rangefinder is somehow cheaper than buying a Konica Big Mini? What the fuck is going on with film point and shoots lately, I feel like the market is insane.
>>
>>3405260
And why would i wanna do that anon?
>>
>>3405315
It's the instagram influencers
>>
>>3405315
More canonets out there and fewer people who want to deal with manually focusing and exposure controls, I guess?
>>
>>3405344
Canonets are fucking expensive for what they used to be tho
>>
>>3405173
grain is pretty small on this >>3405305
>>
>>3405344
the whole thing is just retarded to me. I see Konica Big Minis with f3.5 glass going for up to $250. the f2.8s going for even more. Those are shitty three element lenses, while the canonet goes for $150 and has a shutter priority mode with f1.7 six element glass.

I actually have a Big Mini HG because it was my mother's camera when I was a kid. I might sell it and buy more Zuiko glass for my olympus SLR. I'm sure this meme is going to die eventually.
>>
>>3405435

>this meme is going to die eventually

I think now is a great time to release a new SLR.

We have DSLR mounts starting to die thanks to mirrorless, so it would be a great way to ease the transition.

Probably not economically viable though.
>>
I am pretty amazed by how much detail scans of 120 have, even things like 400 iso 120
>>
File: image.jpg (785 KB, 1000x732)
785 KB
785 KB JPG
>>3405482

>400 iso 120

I shot my first roll a few weeks ago. All handheld snapshots but I LOVE how they came out. Need to shoot it again, but it is a pain without a scanner.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height732
>>
>>3404841
$60usd? I'd say its barely worth it, kinda overpriced for expired if you ask me
>>3404871
Nice to see some less common areas in Newcastle, have you only been using a shitbed for your 120 so far?
>>3405524
This scan for example easily looks more detailed.
>>
>>3405568
Yeah 60 usd. Agfa vista is sort of hard to come by here in western aus and ebay prices are always over $10 for one roll so I decided to go for it, $4 per roll is the best price I've ever seen. The pro image is only about $6 with shipping so idk if that one was worth it but the seller was really nice, we talked about shit for like half an hour before I left and he said he's still regularly shooting these films at box speed but he just doesn't do it that often anymore and is mostly shooting 120 now. Only time will tell if they're any good though. I plan to shoot the agfa soon just because I haven't shot it before and I'll post the results in the actual /fgt/
>>
File: 2018-12-11-0009.jpg (965 KB, 2576x3873)
965 KB
965 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelLS-1000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:12:11 23:49:07
>>
>>3405568
It was cropped and rotated too.
>>
>>3404549
This one is sold as the Pacific Image 120 in the states and I've got the exact same question. Can't really find the Plustek 120 anywhere so I guess this is the next best option for an accessible dedicated MF scanner. It seems decent at least according to this site https://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaMF5000.html
>>
>>3405619
what lens and film?
>>
now that the dust has settled and everyone's bored of digital photos, instagram/facebook, etc i'm thinking about picking up one of these for fun/novelty/nostalgia. people either never knew or barely remember the charming activity of snapping polaroids and being able to hand them out of keepsakes to your friends. might be kind of fun and I feel like I'll enjoy the simplicity of shedding post-production and the endless snapshitting that digital tography enables. not for any serious photos, just parties and holidays and whatnot.

what is /p/'s opinion? useful activity or waste of money? will i get bored with it in a week or will it expand my enjoyment of photography?
>>
File: Slobruthers231.jpg (175 KB, 1200x800)
175 KB
175 KB JPG
>>3404554
>are $100+ pns cams a meme
What do you think, fuckface?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 550D
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number1132529712
Lens NameEF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2016:09:06 07:32:06
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModePartial
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeOne-Shot
Drive ModeTimed
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Self-Timer Length10 sec
Macro ModeNormal
White BalanceDaylight
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed160
Color Matrix129
>>
>>3405662
The Rollei 35's not a point & shoot, fuckface
>>
>>3405662
>Leica is good because they're expensive
>Hasselblad is good because they're expensive

Is that what you're implying fuckface?
>>
>>3405129

reminder to choose the 1.5v ONLY . I realised I fucked up when I bought two $11 Renata SR44 1.55v, it wouldn't work at that slightest voltage
>>
>>3402909
>>3402939
I followed up and told them I wanted the full refund and they refused, saying they haven't done E-6 in 5 years. Information i was not given before dropping off the roll. Anyway, Northern Artists in Toronto is a blight, don't go there. This isn't even the first time they've fucked something of mine up. I live nearby which is why I gave them another chance but really this ought to be the last straw. Dude deserves to go out of business. probably makes all his money off prints for seniors and passport photos.
>>
Storing dev chemicals in (clean) plastic water bottles in a dark dry and cool closet, yes or no? I can't find any decently priced fluid containers, I tried three chemists and k-mart but they were all looking at me like I was looking for fucking dragon balls. Apparently a "1l fluid container" is a completely unheard of item. The closest they could get was a $15 metal flask but there's no way I'm buying 4 of those.
>>
>>3402880
I feel like in the year almost-2019, it’s kind of on you to check and see if a lab does e6 before you hand them e6. It’s pretty rare these days.
>>
>>3405651
TriX 400 and the Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI
>>
>>3405711
Depends of bottle. But generally yes for short term. If you want to like mix bucketful of D-76 stock for next year use, you might want to use glass bottles.

(Please do not recycle any water / soda bottles which have been used to store chemicals.)
>>
>>3405716
Even when i used to go to pro labs that did E6, i made sure to put all my E6 rolls in one cluster on the counter and all my c41 rolls in another cluster and let the person at the desk know which is which.

do people actually just hand film over without even specifying what it is?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height900
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Whenever I hear horror stories about labs on here I feel more that me just hand developing everything with the occasional flaw is going to give me less instead of more mistakes. Is it just that we only hear about the bad stories here or are labs actually pretty low quality in their work? It would make sense if it's unskilled people keeping the machinery running because they bought it 15 years ago but it still sounds grossly incompetent.
>>
>>3405692
Don't back out, that's no excuse.
They accepted a job they couldn't do, and destroyed your film in the process without prior notice.
What if you had important shots in there?

Even the limited liability waiver most labs have (usually you can see that in the cutoff they give you), says clearly they're liable for *film and processing refunds* - but not damages due to the value of the pictures.

Read their policy, if they have one, bring this up to them. Then shittalk them on google reviews, twitter, etc., and send them an email titled "Letter before action".

Write down what you're asking for (say 50$) and why this is justified, present the proof (payment for processing, destroyed film, etc.) saying that you're taking the case to Small Claims Court.
Put your name, the business name and address on the header, and finish your letter with:

"I would like a reply as soon as possible so that I know you have received this letter. If you do not agree to the above, I would kindly request you provide me with a detailed response stating your reasons why. To avoid taking court action, I am willing to use Alternative Dispute Resolution to resolve this problem.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 14 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue a Plaintiff's Claim against you in the Small Claims Court at Sheppard Ave. East, without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs and damages.

I look forward to your acknowledgement."


More info here:
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/scc/
Form is here:
http://ontariocourtforms.on.ca/static/media/uploads/courtforms/scc/07a/SCR-07A-Jan14-fil-EN.pdf
And here for fee waiver:
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/feewaiver/index.php

Never had a case where this didn't work, apart from a time with a Ryanair delay that they tried to bullshit around claiming "technical issues". And in that case I went along with it, paid nothing, and got £1000.
>>
>>3405730
In my 15 years of using labs across countries, I've had 2 instances of fuckups. Once a roll of E6 was cross processed and once was terrible temp control at a lab I probably shouldn't have been using in Northern Thailand.

People just post the bad experiences. Not telling the lab what you want is also cause for concern. It's not that difficult to say, "here are 4 rolls of C41 film I'd like processed. Develop only please."
>>
>>3405692
kinda cunty for them to not refund you or offer a free roll.

that said, did you really not mention E6 at all when you dropped it off? did you not look at their offered services?because you would've noticed E6 wasn't one of them had you bothered. the fault is on both you and the lab .

with how prevelant the lomo crowd is it's not out of the question for a lab to assume a roll of e6 being dropped off is meant to be cross processed, ESPECIALLY if they don't even have E6 processing posted as one of their services.

the fuckup is on you, my dude
>>
>>3405723
I just want to get my feet wet, I have a 1l digibase C41 kit so I guess it would be short term. And of cours I won't reuse them lol.
>>3405730
Depends on where you live. There are only three labs in my area, two of them are "pro" labs and they both charge around $25 for dev+scan, and there's another one that charges $12 and they also give you a roll of C200. Sounds good on paper but they scratch the negs and the scans are so fucking bad that I got way better results just taking a picture of them with a dslr and a non macro 50mm lens. The pro labs have imacons, but fuck paying $25 per roll on top of film cost. That would be around $1 per frame in total.
I got a 1l C41 kit that should be good for 25 rolls for $50, a plustek 8100 for $200, a dev tank for $18 and a thermometer for $5. If you live in the US you'll get better prices than that. It's so much cheaper that it's ridiculous, after 25 rolls my cost per roll average will already come down to the shit lab level with much better quality and after 50 rolls it will be down to $6.5 per roll.
>>
>>3405737
This desu

It's akin to taking your car that needs an alignment to an oil change shop and being mad it got an oil change and not an alignment.
>>
File: ektar01.jpg (973 KB, 3000x3000)
973 KB
973 KB JPG
looks like I'm just in time for lab dev horror stories
just got my most revent rolls back, and the Ektar herpes are back!!!asdfasdfsadfa
fuck me I'm going insane here trying to figure out the cause
starting from the top: this one is from 6 months ago, rolleiflex, deved by a fairly popular lab in Europe
>>
File: ektar02.jpg (954 KB, 3000x3000)
954 KB
954 KB JPG
>>3405748
excuse the size, I'm posting them large so you can zoom in to see the herpes
this one bronica sq, deved by said EU lab
>>
File: ektar03.jpg (799 KB, 3000x3000)
799 KB
799 KB JPG
>>3405749
bronica
minilab in Asia
>>
File: ektar04.jpg (1.06 MB, 3000x2955)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
>>3405751
and lastly this one bronica, same Asian lab
my deduction is that:
-it's not the bronica back being dirty, as the rolleiflex rolls were also fucked
-not film rolls either, as they were bought from multiple sources
>>
>>3405754
which leaves:
-dye bleeding: all of these rolls were shot long exposure at night, and each include several frames with strong reds like this one, which I think may cause bleeding onto other frames. I have seen it happen with cinestill (though in cinestill only the edges are affected, kind of like light leaks), but I'm suspicious that Kodak haven't considered this scenario for such a pro product.
-lab dev: I used to rule this out because they were deved by two different labs, but at this point it's the only likely culprit.
Googling led to these forum posts
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/c41-kodak-120-ektar-strange-patterns-please-help.49369/print
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154498
but I can't view the images to see if it's the same problem.
>>
File: ektar05.jpg (1.3 MB, 3000x2955)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
>>3405757
forgot to attach said super red frame
Anyway, as much as I like ektar's colors, I'm just to burnt out to use it again for night exposure and risk having my effort ruined. Guess it's only 400h now.
>>
>>3405757
i've had lots of fuckups with kodak pro c41 films. even in date stuff. it seems that even a few weeks of exposure to high temp (30C) and/or humidity can fuck them up. i've had the exact same issue but much much much worse with ektar. also have had issues of the backing paper leaving imprints if numbers
>>
>>3405762
>issues of the backing paper leaving imprints if numbers
lol same
I bought some exp Kktarchrome. The test roll was fine, the second roll used for a pretty foggy morning got huge Kodak prints all over it. I have never touched Kodak expired stuff since.
>>
>>3405748
>>3405749
>>3405751
>>3405754

It's definitely not the camera or film.
The only other possibility I can think of, with the dark spots, is air bubbles on the film during development, causing some small stops to be underdeveloped (and thus appear darker).

Since bubbles can be introduced at any step, air bubbles during bleaching would cause the brighter spots. Because silver wouldn't be able to get bleached from those areas, so giving them higher density, which shows up as brighter spots after inversion.

Bubbles can be cause by contaminants in the water (excessive chlorine) and the chemicals.
It's really weird though you go the same issue with 2 completely different labs in different countries.

You're sure the brighter spots aren't dried up water/chemical marks on top of your negatives, right?
>>
>>3405773
you sound like you know a lot about film
>>
>>3405773
>You're sure the brighter spots aren't dried up water/chemical marks on top of your negatives, right?
One roll was shot during rainy days so it might have been my wet fingers, but then the rest were taken during dry season. Unless they had been damaged way before I bought them.
It's just strange that I have this problem only with Ektar. Before I handled plenty of portra/400h under snow/rain and took them through fairly humid conditions, but never a problem.
>>
>>3405716

I haven’t come across a lab that DOESN’T do e6.

They may have to send it off and it may take awhile, but they will get it done for you.

I’d throw a shitfit if they fucked me like the other guy.
>>
>>3405730

You only hear the bad. On something like 125 rolls the last two years, and the worst experience I had was some that were a little dirty/dusty.
>>
File: IMG_20181212_171534-01.jpg (927 KB, 1875x2458)
927 KB
927 KB JPG
First time I use a Bronica SQ and I've managed to load the film the wrong way (pic related).

Was it exposed? I know there is black paper in 120 film.
Is there any way I can save this roll? Like respool the roll?

Thx /p/ros.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeXiaomi
Camera ModelMi A1
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:12:12 17:16:17
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNot Defined
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness-4.4 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.81 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1875
Image Height2458
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Time (UTC)16:15:34
Date (UTC)2018:12:12
>>
>>3405790
Ah, shit man.

The roll will still be usable, but you might get some paper backing marks on your negatives, like frame number etc.

You could try respooling it in the dark (absolute complete dark though, or in a changing bag).
Keep in mind the film is not glued to the paper on the end, just the start. So unroll slowly and make sure to grab the film when respooling. And also spoil it tightly.

And make sure you’re spoiling the right way, I.e. in your respooled roll, the white side should be facing out.

Give it a try, otherwise it’s a wasted roll anyway.
Worst case scenario, you’ll lose some frames or even if you lose the whole roll, you’ll learn how to respool properly in the future If it happens again.
>>
>>3405790
No exposure, because the film was passed with the backing paper facing outward towards the shutter. Just get yourself a dark room and roll it back on the spool the right way, then reuse it.
>>
>>3405783
if a lab advertises that they do bw and c41 with no mention of e6, you have to be a special kind of retard to drop a roll of e6 off and make no mention of e6
>>
>>3405741
>>3405737
>>3405818
Are you guys baiting or what?

>get car to place called "Mechanic Shop"
>ask for oil change, pay, leave the car
>come pick it up, there's antifreeze coolant in the oil tank
>"Ah well, we stopped doing oil changes 5 years ago there wasn't enough business, we only have antifreeze coolant now so we put that instead"
>"no refund :^)"
You seriously think that's ok?
>>
>>3405833
except you changed my analogy.

it sounds like this guy went to a lab that makes no mention of e6 processing anywhere on their website and dropped off a roll of e6, making no mention that he wanted it developed as e6
>>
>>3405790
I’ve done this too, and not in a camera I was using for the first time, so don’t feel too bad.
>>
>>3405835
>making no mention that he wanted it developed as e6
But you shouldn't *have* to mention that. It's the correct process, when you want it developed it's assumed that you want the correct process unless you mention otherwise.
Just as when you want your oil changed, it's assumed you want the correct oil type, not just the contents of the oil tank changed to whatever liquid.

The lab is totally inept if they didn't realise it was E-6 film and either not accept it or give the guy the option to crossprocess it. Cross processing without telling (or even realising it) shows complete lack of professionalism, even more so when they refused the refund.
>>
File: catte.jpg (800 KB, 1094x757)
800 KB
800 KB JPG
>>3405568
Yeah i've only been using a shitbed for my 120 as i have no idea where to get drums scans in my area, Right now the quality is good enough for me, color correction is a pain in the ass though.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2245
Image Height3388
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution2400 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:12:13 05:08:31
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1094
Image Height757
>>
>>3405833
Alternate analogy: it’s the future and you work at a gas station. 90% who come in have electric cars and you know how to deal with it, but like 10% of the people who come in have reall old cars and are gas for hards so you keep a gas pump around to deal with them. Some dude comes in with their car and asks you to fuel them up and it’s clearly an old car and not electric, so you pour gas in the hole in the tank. And then they’re pissed off at you for filling their steam engine with gasoline instead of water.

I live in the city of St. Louis, and for the entire city there’s basically one business left that processes film that’s not just a c41 minilab. When I go there with e6, they’re always surprised and impressed because usually they haven’t seen a roll of e6 in weeks or months, and it always takes them a long ass time to process it because they need to collect enough e6 for it to be economical. Everywhere else, you’re lucky if they do C41

So if the lab is not the very best lab remaining in their metropolitan area, most likely they have no idea what e6 is because it’s never come up before—anyone who regularly shoots e6 is someone who knows to ask first and knows that very few labs do it anymore.
>>
>>3405852
Creve Coeur Camera?
>>
Could pushing (colour) 800 iso to 1600 work or will it just turn into a mess? I would love to try some fuji natura 1600 but it's getting a bit pricey and was wondering if there is any alternative left.
>>
>>3405910
There is no such thing as "pushing" color film. C-41 and E-6 are very specific chemical processes, designed by engineers with no room for deviation to achieve optimal results. What clueless people nowadays refer to as "pushing" because they read it on the internet is actually "developing film incorrectly" and the results always reflect that. There's a reason that labs charge more to "push" color film, it's because the machines aren't even designed to do it and you have to go into the settings to change everything for one single roll. It's not supposed to be a thing.
>>
>>3405910
>will it just turn into a mess?
It won't turn into a total mess, but you won't get real "iso1600-detail" in the shadows. You'll get more contrast though, a bump in the mids and a slight colour cast, mostly correctable.
>>
>>3405902
Schiller's. Creve Coeur doesn't even do C41 on site at most of its locations anymore--only one of their stores does processing on site and I don't think they do E6 anymore, just B&W and C41.
>>
>>3405910
push Fuji Pro 400h to 1600. Looks the same if not better than Natura 1600, which is basically just Superia 1600.
>>
A while back a friend of mine gave me an old Zeiss Ikon 35mm camera and some lenses for it. I just looked them up and they are actually worth a lot of money. One of the lenses sells for 600-1000USD.
I'm guessing he had no idea when he gave them to me. I wont try to sell them but I feel kinda bad that he gave me these for nothing.
>>
>>3405919
I'm trying to figure out what in your head is the difference between push/pull processing black and white film (i.e., developing it "incorrectly" vs. the specified developing times to change the effective sensitivity of the film) and push/pull processing color film (i.e., doing the exact same thing, just to a process that it's not done to as often)
>>
>>3405986
not the anon you are replying too

push processing on color can be done, but results tend to be less predictable than b&w, in black and white, all you have to worry about is silver grains, you either develop them more, or less. With c41, you are developing three different dyes. Each dye potentially develops at a different rate, and these development rates aren't linear. They are generally calibrated to get to the same development point in a standard amount of time. Giving it more time to develop will effectively increase sensitivity, but it might not be a consistent increase in sensitivity, depending on film
>>
>>3405919
>>3405935
>>3405970
Cheers, might give it a whirl.

>>3405654
You could buy a used one and a pack of film and if you don't like it you can get rid of it without a big loss in investment. I would only give them to your friends if they are really great friends.
>>
>>3406016
>You could buy a used one and a pack of film and if you don't like it you can get rid of it without a big loss in investment. I would only give them to your friends if they are really great friends.
Good advice actually. I should find myself a used one or even a cheaper/Polaroid brand one or something. My dad might still have his old Polaroid from the 80s not that I think about it... if you can still get film for it...
>>
>>3405977
>Zeiss Ikon 35mm
can you post pics of it?
>>
>>3405818

Oh absolutely.

But it is also pretty shitty of the place to just take your e6 roll without question and assume you want to ruin it with cross processing.
>>
>>3405654

I actually picked up the instax printer, the Sp-02 or whatever.

On the plus side one hand,t is pretty cool since you can print anything and not worry about ruining any film. On the other hand, it is pretty overpriced, the film is small, and the resolution quite low.
>>
>>3405835
I didn't mention it, and neither did the lab. Being completely honest, I had no idea what processing e6 took, and seeing as the place is called "Northern Artist Prolab", I assumed they knew what to do.

Obviously they did not. And obviously that's partly not my fault for not asking before hand, do you guys develop color reversal slide film. But I'll be honest, had I said that, I would not be surprised if they simply said "yes" and still did the cross processing, seeing as every one there has been incompetent every time I've been there. I dropped of 3 rolls once and none of the sets came with all the prints. I had to stand there with the cashier pointing out all the shots in the negatives that they decided to exclude. I gave them the benefit of the doubt because it was a lot of photos. Another time, they gave me someone else's scans. And another time before that they over charged me. When I went back in regards to the E100 roll, they gave me back a partial refund, except the cashier didn't know how to do refunds, so he gave it back in cash.

I know in my heart of hearts, had I gone to Downtown Camera, not only would they have said "oh E100 huh"! Exclamation and all, they would have asked if I wanted it done properly or cross processed, and if I even knew what color reversal film was.

I take part blame for not doing my due diligence. But the sheer incompetence of this place cannot be understated.
>>
>>3405731
Thank you for all the detail but I'm lazy and a wimp. It has to be said though, Toronto people do not take shit. You fuckers fight tooth and nail. I sent him an insulting email so he knows I have no respect for him though.
>>
New thread
>>3406274
>>3406274
>>3406274

Soz for posting late just got home
/blog



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.