[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] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile 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 113 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]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!



File: V E L V I A 5 0.jpg (512 KB, 615x615)
512 KB
512 KB JPG
saturation edition

old thread: >>3529197
All analog/film photography related questions and general discussion is to take place in this thread.
35mm, 120, medium format, large format, instant, polaroid, instax, C41, E6, B&W, developing, scanning, labs, darkroom etc.
Post photos as often as possible, we want to see that beautiful grainy goodness!

useful links:
http://istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
http://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase

>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, unless the flatness of portra

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution60 dpi
Vertical Resolution60 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
Last night's effort. Still 10 more rolls to develop.
>>
>>3534110
Cool stuff what film stock were ya shooting?
>>
File: SunflowerStorm.jpg (427 KB, 1024x813)
427 KB
427 KB JPG
Storm last night shot on Portra 160 6x7.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNewcolorV2 3.0900001526 1.0900000334 3.0899999142 3.0899999142 0.75
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width13895
Image Height33772
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 Created2019:09:11 13:17:39
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height813
>>
File: Leica_M2.jpg (199 KB, 1833x1222)
199 KB
199 KB JPG
Redpill me on the M2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D
Camera SoftwaredigiKam-0.9.1
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1833
Image Height1222
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2008:08:04 23:11:22
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length70.00 mm
Image Width1833
Image Height1222
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3534315
If you don't need an internal meter and don't want to shoot wider than 35mm without external finder, then get one.
>>
>>3534279
nice
>>
>>3534315
Your culture is being replaced, and the M2 is a nice camera.
>>
i don't like the gear thread so i'll ask here
need a cheap digital lightmeter, for my film cameras.
any recomendations maybe ? used ones from ebay etc.
>>
>>3534376
An app on your phone.
>>
File: DSC06909.jpg (639 KB, 1280x1920)
639 KB
639 KB JPG
Finally I got a decent macro lens for scanning.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
small island vibez

[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
>>
>>3534386
Based scan, based picture.
>>
>>3534279
Awesome. Where is this?
>>
From what I’ve read it was rangefinder and even simple viewfinder cameras had aperture priority, shutter priority, and program mode first, and these were only later ported over to the SLR world.

Why was this? Was their something about the SLR that made it harder to automate? Or were SLR’s just aimed at advanced users that supposedly didn’t need auto exposure?
>>
>>3534411
>rangefinder and even simple viewfinder cameras had aperture priority, shutter priority, and program mode first, and these were only later ported over to the SLR world.
>Why was this?
Because those cameras existed before SLRs did.
>>
>>3534102
toasting on comfy alex bread
>>
File: 41YagoSXsXL.jpg (21 KB, 500x500)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
Has anyone here used the Lomography Digitaliza ?
Iam wondering if the 120 Holder shows the Edges of the Film just like how the 35mm Holder shows the Sprockets
>>
File: mt herzl.jpg (2.54 MB, 1500x1200)
2.54 MB
2.54 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V800/V850
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:11 19:40:43
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3534409
It was near the Nebraska / Wyoming border, crazy storms there yesterday. Saw several tornadoes too.
>>
File: 1565637874939.jpg (1.15 MB, 1094x1636)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Modeld-lab.2/3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Windows)
PhotographerOnly the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:11 23:44:03
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: img840.jpg (276 KB, 1664x1003)
276 KB
276 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePicasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1664
Image Height1003
Unique Image ID50ae680239638da40000000000000000
>>
File: 000071.jpg (346 KB, 741x1111)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
What is your most favorite film and why is it Portra 400?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP500
Camera SoftwareFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. FE FDi Service Software / FRONTIER355/375-2.0-0E-350
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:10 00:26:00
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width5397
Image Height3602
>>
File: maymay.gif (2.47 MB, 400x260)
2.47 MB
2.47 MB GIF
>>3534517
>What is your most favorite film and why is it Portra 400?
>>
So if I set my camera to AV mode, and I look through the viewfinder and can see what the aperture and shutterspeed is, can I assume that I can ensure my image is properly exposed in normal conditions by making sure the shutterspeed stays at ~1/80-1/250 depending on what aperture I use? I just bought a film camera and took two photos. One was in an underground subway with the aperture at 2.8, 1/80 with 400 ISO film, and another was in the street with overcast weather at f/8 and I think 1/100.
>>
>>3534521
Yep those setting sound about right for those scenes
>>
>>3534522
Thanks anon, I'm relieved to know it's correct. I'm so used to never shooting above f/4 in almost any scene that going up to f/8 confused me at the start. Now I just gotta hope I'm getting my focusing spot on because sometimes I can't tell on my A-1
>>
>>3534279
Neato I never knew you shot MF, thought you were only about that LF life

>>3534315
Some people complain about the loading and the film rewinder but pretty much what >>3534318 said.
>>
File: IMG_9905-1080x720.jpg (80 KB, 1080x720)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
The Spotmatic F is probably the most underrated and scarcely mentioned camera I know, despite it being an excellent M42 mount choice. Just wanted to put that out there.
>>
>>3534574
Because other mounts are more modern and have better lenses
>>
>>3534376
Any time we recommend a good one it becomes an often recommended meme, then an e-celeb lurking here or reddit buys one, and the used prices skyrocket. Best to keep those light meter recs secret like how OM lenses used to be a secret meme. But really any light meter will be fine, especially if you don't do any flash work. Even an app on your phone is probably overkill.
>>
File: 000076630006-01.jpg (955 KB, 1366x905)
955 KB
955 KB JPG
I had an Olympus Trip 35 for a while, bought it due to the Night Trip 35 group on Flickr. Pretty cool that you can trick it into being usable in low light. This is the best shot I got out several "night walks". I think the key for low light is using colour though, you get more out of it other than light and shadow. Still, I like how this turned out, especially the masks to the right.

Also the film tracks had some dust on it that I forgot to clean off so the whole roll has a camera scratch across it. Clean your gear inside and outside, lads.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 12:19:50
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1366
Image Height905
>>
>>3534376
I have an iPhone app called "Light meter" it was like $15, I compared it to my leica meter mr and it was actually spot on and so easy to use. I've shot a roll using it aswell and it came out perfect. I'd recommend the app, free ones are probably just as good
>>
>>3534618
I use one called "Light Meter" on Android too. It has an icon with F.16 on it. For working out long exposures on film I use "Exposure Assistant". And for miscellaneous stuff like location scouting, DOF calculating and astro I use "PhotoPills". PhotoPills actually has a really nice community hub and regular contests, though it's aimed at professionals. I find it makes me want to try harder because the level of the work submitted is crazy high unlike the amateur to enthusiast skill level on /p/.
>>
I find that with phone metering apps it really doesn't matter what app you use. It depends pretty much entirely on the quality of meter reading you get from the OS.
>>
>>3534654
What's the best free lightmeter for iOS?
>>
>>3534656
If I was a millionaire I would gladly tell you
>>
File: 1545600984745.jpg (1.49 MB, 1141x1707)
1.49 MB
1.49 MB JPG
>>3534657
What's the problem?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Modeld-lab.2/3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.0 (Windows)
PhotographerOnly the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 10:12:37
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3534532
I have my moments. Storm chasing on LF.... not really gonna happen.
>>
File: StrasburgStormPano3x1.jpg (169 KB, 1200x400)
169 KB
169 KB JPG
Ok so the next two shots are sort of film, sort of cheating. The were shot on Portra 160 with a 6x7, but since it's damn near impossible to get these storms in even with an ultrawide I shot them as four shot panos with the camera vertical. Then I scanned all four shots in as a single frame on the drum scanner and stitched them together in PS to make panos. It was a fun experiment.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width17767
Image Height8884
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2019:09:12 08:33:32
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height400
>>
>>3534656
Just try a few instead of asking some anons what's best. They have different layouts and styles so you won't know what's "best" for you until you try. Some like rotary dial style and some like more modern styles. Plus they're free so who cares, try them all.
>>
File: SunflowerStormPanorama.jpg (238 KB, 1200x400)
238 KB
238 KB JPG
>>3534671
And here's another one as the storm here >>3534279 moved a little closer.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width18809
Image Height10670
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2019:09:12 08:32:21
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height400
>>
>>3534671
You should print that one.
>>
>>3534671
>>3534676
Very cool. I have thought about doing panos on film but never wound up doing it. Do you first stitch the negative scans and then colour correct the entire thing?
>>
>>3534279
Is this a 45mm on Pentax 6x7? Because I shoot that combo (though my style is very different) and this looks very familiar.
>>
Can someone tell me if I’m understanding sunny16 right? So according to this image if I have say Portra 400 film, and I set my shutter speed to 1/400 to match the ISO, I can just follow this chart and choose the aperture according to the scene and I’ll have correctly exposed pictures every time? What do I do if I want to shoot at 2.8 during the day to get a nice amount of bokeh on a portrait subject?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width400
Image Height255
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3534676
How do you avoid distorsion when making panoramas, I always get that round go pro look when I do them.

Not asking about film specifically
>>
>>3534722
Also the maximum shutter speed my camera can achieve is 1/1000
>>
>>3534677
I just did. Looks neat.

>>3534682
I did a rough inversion of the negatives as I use the film border as a reference point during my initial inversion. Then I stitched the four frames and continued with color correction.

>>3534703
Yep, it's the 45mm. Seems to have a distinct look. As a 4x5 shooter, I'm not sure I like the stretchy wide angle looking up feel but it's ok for a storm shot.

>>3534724
Honestly I don't really know. I just used the "Auto" setting on Photoshop's "Photomerge" and it seemed to work flawlessly. I didn't have to do anything to correct that at all.
>>
>>3534722
If you want to be creative with your aperture then use a light meter to suss out what you should do. Like we've been saying ITT, even an app on your phone is more than enough. On my app I can dial in the ISO and the aperture then have it spit out a shutter speed. Most likely you'll just have to jack your shutter speed up to 1/1000 but it's worth double checking depending on your light and subject.
>>
>>3534728
Thanks anon. I downloaded one that seems to be good, will be using it when I go out and shoot next.
>>
File: 20190912_00003_010~2.jpg (256 KB, 1766x1160)
256 KB
256 KB JPG
Any tips for better scanning?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:09:12 01:25:31
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Width1766
Image Height1160
>>
>>3534751
What are you using atm?
>>
>>3534754
Canon printer's normal scanner atm
>>
File: 20190912_00003_004~2.jpg (124 KB, 1712x1171)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>3534754
As for the camera I use a Yashica f-x3 200 with colorfilm 200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:09:12 01:25:10
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Width1712
Image Height1171
>>
>>3534722
Following the Sunny 16 rule, if you open the aperture up by one stop, then you need to increase the shutter speed by one stop.

That said, you need film with a pretty low ISO or a ND filter to shoot at f2.8 in full sun.
>>
>>3534727
Cool, it definitely does have a distinct look which is probably why it looked so familiar to me. Not sure how the other wides for the Pentax compare since I only have the 45mm, but for my use the distortion is not really an issue at all. Would like to try the Hasselblad SWC at some point to compare.
>>
I wonder why still photography did not have another generation in between film and digital, in which the light was captured from a CCD sensor, but the storage medium was still analog. You know, like video had.
>>
Not sure if SQG or film.

But why exactly does it matter what ISO the film has? If you can just push a 400 to 3200, what is the point in getting a 3200 film?

Does the exposure just look more balanced if you use a film that corresponds with the chosen ISO?

What if you took a 3200 and used it at ISO 200? Etc.
>>
>>3534777

I think the executive summary would be that box speed produces the most "natural" contrast and finest details, and for color film the box speed is also the only speed at which the colors neccessarily balance as the manufacturer intended.
>>
Guys, I did it. I officially became retarded.
>>
>>3534764
But it did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Mavica
>>
>>3534791

Oh shit, that was analog? I always thought those floppies were digital like regular (computer) floppies
>>
>>3534792
The later ones were, but the earliest ones from the 80s were still video.
>>
>>3534785

That's pretty much what I assumed as well, good to know I was right, hah.
>>
>>3534790
>Leica
>no M
retard
>>
>>3534790
That better was exceedingly cheap and came with a bunch of lenses.
>>
>>3534794

Damn, what did the images look like? Did it look as shitty as when you pause a videotape in the middle of a movie? No wonder it didn't replace film.
>>
>>3534802
>Cheap
Yes, very
>Lenses
No, but it has box, papers, neck strap

Just gonna put a minolta lens on it or something, shoot a few rolls than sell it or keep it if I like it.
Actually, I just like the design.
>>
>>3534574
>>3534581
M42 is a god-tier mount.

>prices not inflated by use on modern bodies because the mount is defunct
>pretty much the cheapest zeiss glass in existence
>pentax takumars
>helios
>>
>>3534790
I want a Leica R system some day. I really like the aesthetics. Some R glass isn't that insane price wise. The R3 is the sexiest Leica SLR, probably also because it is the least Leica.
>>
>>3534777
This is only true for black and white. Colour film has development times and temps set for the exact ISO on the can. You can't just freely push and pull and expect an ISO 100 C41 film to perform as an ISO 400 one.
>>
File: C402.jpg (39 KB, 400x400)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
My Grandad has a Reid & Sigrist Reid III that he recently dug out, he said he is going to shoot it for the first time, going to see if he will let me have a go at some point. Anyone had any experience shooting with this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1000D
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2008:12:16 14:28:44
Exposure Time2 sec
F-Numberf/36.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/36.4
Exposure Bias1.3 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width400
Image Height400
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3534807
>Just gonna put a minolta lens on it or something, shoot a few rolls than sell it or keep it if I like it.

Turns out the there arent too many options for this shit.
>>
>>3534847
>the Brits did a Leica 3 clone
I had no idea, hope it fares better than the Soviet one.
>>
File: TriX200__(8).jpg (355 KB, 646x1000)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>3534777
Cause pushing doesn't *actually* increase the iso beyond 0.5 to 1 stop, and that in special pushing developers.
The formula to calculate the ISO takes into account base+fog density, and the HD curve of the film.
Intuitively you can think of it like this: the ISO is determined by base+fog density (think noise floor), and then the length of the curve's toe (i.e. the non-steep part at the beginning) and the steepness of the curve's middle part.
The lower the base+fog, the higher the ISO. The shorter the toe, the higher the ISO. The steeper the middle part of the curve, the higher the ISO.

What pushing does is make the middle part of the curve steeper, but since it also makes the toe longer and the base+fog higher, they mostly cancel out and the ISO doesn't change much.

What it means practically, is that if you push film, you'll get less shadow detail and more contrast compared to a native higher-ISO film. Pushing also increases grain, but a pushed slower film still has smaller grain than the (same family) higher ISO film.
So you decide what you prefer, a less grainy but more contrasty look, or more shadow detail but bigger grain. Other practical points are availability, price, what you have with you™, and that past certain speeds there just aren't any films available natively at higher ISOs.

Pulling has the opposite effect: It reduces grain slightly, and it decreases contrast allowing you to keep lots of shadow detail without blocking the highlights. This is great for contrasty scenes, but can make flat scenes appear even flatter. Still though, you can up the contrast during printing with contrast filters, and pulled negatives are very easy to work with. In general, pulling is a far more useful technique to use regularly - apart from when higher speed is necessary - everybody seems to be hyped about pushing even in broad daylight.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r16 (May 9 2019) 6e6d7cc 09.05.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
>>3534879
Yep and from what he remembers it's supposed to be better, but then again he was told that from the guy he bought it from so who knows
>>
>>3534892
Yeah I mean I had a guy trying to sell me a Kiev 88 tell me it was better than a Hasselblad moments before it fell apart in my hands.
>>
>>3534896
Well it seems really well built and it looks/feels of high quality, I will see if I can get the pics off him when he has tried it and post them.
>>
>>3534279
This is really cool, anon! And even this >>3534671
is wonderful, congratulations!
>>
File: elk flats.jpg (1.83 MB, 1193x1500)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB JPG
>>3534487
it's 2 soldiers at a military cemetery but um thanks?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V800/V850
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 17:50:17
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
What is the best Canon EF film camera I could get for up to ~ 50 bucks or so?
>>
>>3535005
EOS620 built like a tank but less features than the others, single center AF point
EOS Elan
EOS Elan IIe this one has more features than the first Elan but isn't as tough
EOS10
EOS 5 or A2e if you find a good deal
>>
>>3535013
Thanks!
>>
Any recommendations for a camera to shoot pictures from within a diorama?
My only film camera is a TLR, which I got for general use, but obviously it's hard to use for close up work like dioramas.
>>
>>3534845
I see, so if I'm shooting B/W pushing the ISO doesn't do much beyond making the exposure/contrast less 'natural' as mentioned in another response?

But what happens with colour?
>>
>>3534886
Thanks for the detailed response! But you're using a lot of technical terms I'm not sure what means. "fog" and "base" "density" "noise floor", "toe", "curve" etc.

I mean I obviously understand the English words but I don't understand them in the context of photography. Noise I guess you mean 'grain' but the rest I'm not really surer what you mean by.

>but a pushed slower film still has smaller grain than the (same family) higher ISO film.

I see, so the 'only' actual difference between a film that has the ISO you're actually shooting at is the more/less shadow detail and contrast?

> it decreases contrast allowing you to keep lots of shadow detail without blocking the highlights.

Right, I know a lot of people recommend pulling 1 time on film because of this exact thing. Would you agree on this?

The reason I want to push is mainly because I'm going to a concert/festival thing so I'm assuming there will be bad/low lighting.
>>
>tri-x 400
>hp5
>other?
what does /film/ recommend for a beginner in film photography who wants to shoot black and white?
>>
Rescued Parrot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:05:11
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-8.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Day of Judement, God is Calling

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:09
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Pepper

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:54
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-7.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Readings

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:05:23
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-7.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Musings at the UNM Duck Pond

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:03:36
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
The Pews

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:39
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Police Situation and the careless woman

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:18
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Dog Days of Summer

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:11:29
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-8.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Matt from the Picture Perfect Photo Lab

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:03:35
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-8.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3535048
>>3535051
>>3535052
>>3535054
>>3535055
Nice pics, Anon.
>>
>>3535054
Hey hold on, you're the Albuquerque Anon who shoots film in Black and White. I recall some of your work, such as people in churches and all. Glad to see you're back. You might not remember but I told you once in here you inspired me to buy my first camera and shoot daily life. Been improving ever since, step by step. Don't leave us hanging, Anon.
>>
>>3535065
Thanks babe.

>>3535067
That I am and I do remember. I’ve been shooting as much as I can given my schedule between work and nursing school. I think I got about 27 rolls in August, give or take a couple but I’ve moved on from scanning with the older Nikon scanners to a friend’s Sony A7. I’ve got lots to share but have consolidated scanning to once a month. Thanks anon.
>>
Pagosa Springs, Labor Day weekend

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:44
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-7.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
relax, don’t do it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:04:26
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Nambe Falls, NM

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:03:45
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-6.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Friendly Parrot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:05:07
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness-7.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: vancouver241.jpg (787 KB, 2064x3328)
787 KB
787 KB JPG
Fp4 in Vancouver
>>
File: vancouver245.jpg (857 KB, 2064x3328)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
>>3535078
>>
File: vancouver249.jpg (608 KB, 2087x3335)
608 KB
608 KB JPG
>>3535080
>>
>>3535082
>>
File: vancouver247.jpg (839 KB, 3335x2080)
839 KB
839 KB JPG
>>3535085
Fuqk
>>
>>3535044
Tri-X all day
>>
>>3534279
I don't really understand why you still post on this godforsaken website but I'm really glad you do. That's a bloody amazing shot, I already knew it was going to be good when I saw it on your IG story a few days ago.
>>
>>3534525
Get contact lenses for better focusing if you're myopic. Also you might have to calibrate the focusing screen.
>>
>>3535044
trix or hp5, whichever is cheaper locally, developed in d76 or id11
>>
>>3535042
The development time for C41 is standardized so that an ISO 100 shot at ISO 100 will have to be in the developer for the same length as a ISO 800 film shot at ISO 800. Box speed will always have the closest color balance to what the manufacturer intended, while the more you push the more the color will start to deviate. If you're pushing 2 stops you'll definitely get some color cast that depend on the film and the lighting. At 3 stops most colour film starts falling apart with excessive noise, bad shadow detail and strong color cast especially in the shadows. Generally you'll get less saturation with overexposure and more with underexposure, and a film shot at box speed will almost always have better detail and lower grain than a film that's half as fast and was pushed a stop.
Also with slide (E6) film you have maybe about a stop of latitude in the best case scenario, and after that it falls apart very quickly. Slide film is almost like digital in the way you expose it. If it doesn't get enough light it will be hard to recover any shadow detail even with pushing, and overdeveloping will destroy highlight detail because unlike C41 film, the emulsion actually gets "thinner" the more you expose/develop it. C41 gets "thicker" with more light, which is fairly easy to compensate for during scanning; you just shine more light through the darker negative. But you can't just shine less light through a transparent part of slide film to get an image that's not there.
>>
File: tw0303-4.gif (13 KB, 336x203)
13 KB
13 KB GIF
>>3535043
I'll explain a bit more.
Every film has something called a characteristic curve (or HD curve). It describes the way the films builds density after development (i.e. how dark it gets to the naked eye) relative to the exposure it has received. Look at picrelated.

Toe, middle part and shoulder are just areas in that curve, in practice they correspond to shadow details, midtones and highlights in your photo.

You see how the density doesn't start from 0? That's because the physical base of the film where the emulsion is coated on, is not completely transparent, but has a density itself. And secondarily, there's "fog", unwanted density that builds up "accidentally" even without exposure. That could be due to the film aging, cosmic rays/radiation, heat, etc. .

That's what base+fog is, the combined densities of the base material and the fog. And when doing calculations, any density up to that point is "discarded", you start counting from base+fog and up.
Notably, the ISO calculation takes the base+fog level into account. The lower the base+fog, the higher the ISO - all other things being equal.

>I see, so the 'only' actual difference between a film that has the ISO you're actually shooting at is the more/less shadow detail and contrast?
Yes.

>Right, I know a lot of people recommend pulling 1 time on film because of this exact thing. Would you agree on this?
Sure. It's really useful for high contrast scenes. And when in doubt it's always better to have a negative that is a bit too low in contrast, than a bit too high. Cause all the information is there on a low contrast neg so you can increase contrast at will during printing. But a high contrast negative has lost some information so you can't go back.
>>
>>3535109

Would you say then that if for some reason you had NO choice but to shoot c41 film 1-2 stops underexposed, it’s better to correct it in the scanning process than to push it?

(Say for instance you just genuinely exposed it at the wrong speed and didn’t find out until later..)
>>
>>3535181
No, I'd still push it. Density refers to how "thick" the image in the emulsion is. With any kind of negative film the more light and development it gets the thicker it is, because more silver halides turn into silver. If your density is high (so you overexposed/overdeveloped) you can shine more light through the negative but the detail is still there (up to a certain point). If the density is too low then there's not enough detail and your image will be very muddy. Like I said, you can shine an extremely strong light through something that's very opaque but has detail and thus extract that detail, but you can't shine an extremely weak light through a transparent material that has no detail. Negative film is transparent when it's not exposed/developed enough to form an image, slide (reversal) film is transparent when it's exposed/developed beyond its limit. The closer you get to transparent the less detail you'll have.
If you don't expose the film and you develop it it will be transparent and you'll get no image. If you expose it but skip development and just bleach it you'll get no image. If you expose it a little bit and develop it a little bit you'll get a thin negative with a faint image. If you expose it a little bit and develop it a lot you'll get a somewhat thicker negative but with a lot of grain. If you develop and expose normally you'll get an image with "normal" density and less grain. If you expose it a lot and develop normally you'll get thick negative with fine grain, but your scanner might struggle to resolve the highlight detail. Since highlights are the darkest part of the negative this is where the scanner will have the most digital noise. But if you DSLR scan or somehow otherwise have an adjustable backlight then you can use more light and get a less noisy digital image.
>>
>>3535194
>you can't shine an extremely weak light through a transparent material that has no detail.
I mean you could but you'd get no image because there's no detail. If you exposed even a little bit and developed properly your image will always fall somewhere between transparent and completely opaque but generally speaking it's better to be closer to opaque. Giving the film more light during exposure and developing it for a longer period both increase density and bring it closer to being opaque, but giving it more light will reduce grain and ensure that the different color layers are even.
>>
yo /fg/t, since the op is about LF..
i would apppreciate advice on choosing a 4x5 body
so far i've been eyeing the Chamonix 45H-1:
-pros: bellow can acommodate 60mm to 350mm; fairly generous rise fall, shift movements; quick setup
-cons: double-track focus rail seems to have some quirks
anyone has experience with this model? or recommendation of other bodies?
>>
>>3535070
My younger sister is at nursing school too, I completely understand your time situation. Keep pushing, and it's nice seeing your photography work again.
>>
>>3535073
>manlets
>when will they learn?
>>
>>3534113
Pan-f plus

Souped in rodinal 1:50 for 12:30
>>
help i turned saturation up to 11 and now real world looks dull

what do I do?
>>
>>3535401
Take more photos so you can experience the world as it should be.
>>
(1/3)
new roll, how’d I do? mju-ii Superia400 nothing special

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1228
Image Height1818
>>
>>3535470
(2/3)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1215
Image Height1800
>>
>>3535472
(3/3)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1228
Image Height1818
>>
>>3534830
>>3534574
This
M42 is so nice and widely used on old bodies and the helios and jupiter lenses are sharp af stopped down
>>
I just got my first few rolls of 120mm developed and I have a question around scanning / IQ.

So I use this lab in NYC - https://www.bleekerdigital.com/services/film-processing/ and normally go for the high resolution JPEG option since I am under the impression that TIFF is mostly useful for editing images which I rarely do.

The 35mm scans I get back are something like 3600 x 2400, 7mb & 9MP.

The 120mm scans I just got back are 3720 x 3000, 7mb & 11MP.

Some of these 120 shots do look very sharp, but I feel like its not a crazy step up from 35mm like I expected. I would have thought the resolution would be much larger. Is this possibly because of the scans I'm getting? I realize there's alot of other things at play but can someone help me compare with what kind of files they are getting for their 120 scans? Thanks
>>
>>3535655
and to clarify, the MF camera I'm shoot with is 6x7
>>
>>3535538
Changing lenses takes time on M42, just like at any other screw mount. Every lens is sharp stopped down. If your lens isn't sharp by f/8 you might as well use a coke bottle.
>>
>>3535656
I shoot my own 35mm and 6x7 and the difference in resolution is significant. It can potentially be due to how they scan the files. They likely have high quality dedicated 35mm scanners and lower quality 120 scanners. If you really want to know if it's them find a loupe and inspect the film up close.
>>
>>3535675
It takes me like 5 seconds tops to change lenses on m42 bro
>>
>>3535739
What resolution do your MF files come in as?
>>
>>3535655
Before you get leapt on, there is no such thing as '120mm' film. 120 is the code used to refer to medium format rollfilm that fits 12 6x6 exposures, like 135 is the code for 35mm cartridge film.
>>
>>3535675
>It takes time to change screw mount lenses

Da fuq

[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
>>
>>3535675
This. Screw mount lenses can be a pain, bayonet mount cameras are infinity easier to use. Not sure about M42 (don't own any m42 cameras anymore) but Leica screw mount lenses take 1080 degrees (three rotations) to put on/take off.as with Leica M it's just a 45 degree turn and it clicks in place. There's no indicator on screw mount lenses where to start so half the time you're just fumbling around trying to find the starting point.
As for sharpness I can easily say that the m42 mount lenses I've used are not as sharp as their Pentax K mount equivalences, same goes for the LTM to M mount lenses I've used. Modern lenses are sharper and built better, what a surprise.
With that being said M42 mount isn't bad or anything I just don't see an argument for them when there's better options, maybe that they're cheaper to buy? But then again photography isn't really a poorfag hobby.


>>3535782
Not trying to be that dude but I timed taking off and putting on a new lenses on both leica screw mount and m mount. M mount took 4 seconds and screw mount took 12 seconds, then again that isn't m42 mount
>>
>>3535793
I normally scan at 3600DPI since that is the fastest on my scanner. I resize to something smaller since that is all I need normally.
>>
>>3535889
I'd say it is a tiny bit more fiddly and requires a little more care than with a bayonet mount. You don't want to cross thread and ruin your lens and body.
>>
>>3534574
My favorite camera. Its heavy as fuck but its built like a tank.

Bought it for $100 and it came with the 55mm f1.8, 200mm f4 and the 24mm f3.5. I had an old spotty that I gave away after I got it. Its a nice camera
>>
I'm a dumbass and posted in the old thread, repostin here

Been shooting film for a while now, been loving it. Starting to get in the habit of just cutting out- and throwing away the worthless negatives I take (mostly stuff that's out of focus or with bad composition, etc).

Is that wise to do or will I regret that? I don't need these taking up space in my negative sleeves I think? Do you guys keep your negatives at all after scanning?
>>
>>3536039
How do I know what DPI my negs were scanned at? What does 3600DPI equal in resolution?
>>
>>3536161
I can calculate the reverse if you want to. DPI is just dots per inch, pixels per inch in practice.
For 6x7 that's 56mm*69mm, about 6 square inches. At 3600DPI that's 77MP.
I might have messed up a little with the mental math though. It should be easy to derive the DPI if you have the megapixels for your film.
>>
>>3536158
It makes sense to do that, but the reason I don't is that I'd wind up with strips of 4 images, or 3, and then a full 6, and then a 5, etc.

I just like keeping my film in strips of 6. Only time I toss the technically bad shots is if they are at the very beginning or end of a roll.
>>
>>3536161
>What does 3600DPI equal in resolution?
For 6x7? A bit over 70megapixels.
Convert each dimension of your frame from mm into inches, for instance 6x7 is ~56mm*68mm = 2.2in*2.68in.
Then multiply by 3600 each dimension, so you have
2.2*3600*2.68*3600=~76,000,000 pixels, i.e. 76MP. Could be slightly up or down depending on the exact dimensions of your frame (each camera has its own film gate and mask, and thus slightly different frame size), as well as the negative carrier on the scanner, which might crop your frame a bit.
>>
>>3534517
>shooting Kodak film in Japan

Fuji color balance is literally made for Japanese blues and greens.
>>
>>3536158
At least Robert Frank used to do that, cut out and throw away negatives he didn’t intend to use. I keep all my negatives but only print the decent shots I see on the contact sheets. When scanning I just don’t scan the roll at all if there’s not enough good photos on it.
>>
File: Film-Pano-sized.jpg (664 KB, 2100x765)
664 KB
664 KB JPG
>>3534671
This looks great.
I just got my slides back for an attempted pano I did with a 6x6.
I had a tripod and took a shot. advanced film but leaving no gap. rotated camera took next shot.
but i was dumb and rotated the wrong direction for the advance so i scanned them as individual shots and stitched them in post.
Again those storm clouds look great. Might need to grab porta on a cloudy day

>>3535050
good pupp
>>3535055
comfy. i like it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeAdobe Systems Inc.
Camera ModelTiff File
Camera SoftwareCapture One Pro Fujifilm 12.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width6000
Image Height2188
>>
>>3536206
Not to mention that labs in Japan are cheap and competent but often refuse to process Kodak films because of reasons.
>>
>>3536158
I always cut them in strips of 6 because that's what my scanner film holder holds. it's easier and quicker to load it with with complete 6 frame strips rather than multiple smaller strips or single frames. I don't care if there are bad frames there, I just skip them or quick prescan for previsualization and move on the next frame. they're also easier to load on 6 frame strip sleeves.
and yes, I do keep all the negatives. after all, it's the master record, like a digital RAW file. it's the one I'm going to in case I need a better/different scan or prints.

technical reasons aside, I do keep all the photos I take, good or bad, because they make me reminisce of the moment I took them. that's the main reason why I got into photography.
>>
>>3536158
I cut up a lot of film. I try and throw away everything with obvious errors but I prefer not to throw away bad photos. I am more attached to bad slides than bad negs though since it is very unlikely I will ever look at a bad neg again.
>>
File: R1-31.jpg (612 KB, 1818x1228)
612 KB
612 KB JPG
on kodak t-max

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelF5
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:09:15 21:07:27
>>
File: R1-09.jpg (924 KB, 1818x1228)
924 KB
924 KB JPG
>>3536295

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelF5
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:09:15 21:06:30
>>
File: R1-30.jpg (668 KB, 1818x1228)
668 KB
668 KB JPG
>>3536299

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelF5
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:09:15 21:07:25
>>
File: R1-21.jpg (1.09 MB, 1818x1228)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
>>3536302

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelF5
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2019:09:15 21:07:05
>>
>>3536295
>>3536299
>>3536302
>>3536309
These need contrast.
>>
Can we please all split this together: https://www.nickcarverphotography.com/teaching/online_courses/manual_metering_film_photography/#courseoutline

Or should I just buy a spot meter and figure it out myself?
>>
>>3536330
>$300 to learn how to meter for film
>$199 to learn how to meter for film
For fuck's sake...

* Look at a characteristic curve.
* Figure out how many stops over/under middle gray your film can go.
* Measure the highlights and shadows of a scene using a spot meter. It can be the spot meter built into your camera if your camera has one.
* Based on your spot meter readings, choose the exposure that holds the full range, or the part of the range you want to keep if the full range exceeds your film.

There. Not hard. Shall I post a bitcoin address for the $199 payment?
>>
>>3536330
lmaoooo
i just can't fucking believe that some faggot npc subhuman have paid for this shit.
>>
>>3536341
Expanding on this, there are SLRs which will hold multiple spot meter readings on a viewfinder scale letting you see what the metered range is, and automatically calculating the exposure which will hold most of it (if you're in an AE mode).

The EOS 3 will do this and it's an awesome feature. I believe the T90 could to.

With a lot of scenes you don't even have to take the time to meter multiple points in the scene. I was recently on a mountain trip with my 5Ds (I know, it's digital, just hear me out) and wanted optimum exposures in potentially tricky lighting. Even with Canon digital you have plenty of shadow latitude, but you can't blow the highlights on any digital sensor. So I spot metered the brightest part of the scene that I wanted to hold and adjusted exposure to 2 and 2/3 stop under that reading since I was metering a highlight but the meter assumes middle gray. Done. Every shot was exposed to the right without clipping highlights.

Had I been shooting negative film I would have metered the shadows and...depending on the film...set exposure 2-4ev above that because neg film's latitude is all on the highlight side.

It's pretty simple really and you don't need to pay $199 to get a feel for it. Spend that money on film and developing instead.
>>
>>3536330
someone on r/analog posted asking if this was worth it and i commented saying how retarded it would be to pay that guy for this stuff

i was downvoted into oblivion.
>>
>>3536330
I like his youtube content, but I think this course is a waste.
>>
>>3536330
If you don't already have a spotmeter your money would be far better spent on a nice one that can do incident and reflected readings. I know people will also say you can use your phone but honestly if you get one and compare you'll notice how much more accurate a dedicated meter is when you actually start shooting.

There's enough free content on the web at that point to learn metering, both old school stuff and on people's websites. At the end of the day it's probably going to be similar to learning the zone system so you might as well start there.

I think spending the money on his stuff is kind of like giving him a nice donation for his content at least. He actually does nice youtube stuff. If you're rolling in it, go for it.
>>
File: tower LR done.jpg (151 KB, 490x739)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
Scuffed the shot and wasted the opportunity, lads. Time to buy a light meter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3536490
looks dope as is

please stay alive and take more pictures.
>>
>>3536218
Oh, and expanding on this a bit, I’m usually thinking of my photography as a sort of personal journal. When approaching it from that angle, I think the bad shots are also meaningful, as part of a sequence in a contact sheet that might be a slice of life from a certain time period. I also use a lot of quartzdate compacts because of this approach, and even the blank frames will have a date on them.
>>
File: 1563989637952.gif (2.65 MB, 200x250)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB GIF
>try using sunny16 rule while shooting my first roll of film
>halfway through realize that because i've had it set to aperture priority and adjusted the aperture based on the scene following sunny16 rule i've made a mistake
>forgot about the rule of matching film ISO (400) with the shutter speed (which was usually around 1/125 when adjusting aperture according to scene)

Have I just completely fucked up?
>>
>>3535175

Thanks a so much for taking the time to writing very detailed!

I've got questions again but if you can't be bothered at this point, I understand!

Okay I'm trying to understand the "base+fog" thing.

Do you have a tangible example? I understand that these are 'inherent' values in a roll(?) if X ISO but in what way is it applied. How do I know the base+fog of X roll, what do I do with that information etc.

Are you saying that an ISO 100 film is ISO 100 *because* it has a lower base+fog? Is that what makes it ISO 100 and an ISO 3200 would have a much 'stronger' base+fog as a result of being an ISO 3200? Or is it 3200 as a result of the high base+fog? Etc.

I'm not sure how to phrase my question, actually. I hope it makes sense.


And yeah, I've noticed that about the shots I've taken so far with my film. Over exposed shots look horrible, whereas underexposed look a lot better and the detail is still there, just very dark.
And I suppose once I get the hang of the chemicals myself I can just make it brighter in the process. Or obviously on the PC after being scanned, gotta get a scanner first though, haha.
>>
>>3535109

Thanks a lot for this response.

One thing I'm struggling to get still is a purely 'linguistic' thing I suppose, language barrier maybe.

Why is it that if I take an ISO 200 film and pull it down to 100 people say it's "over exposed" and vice versa if I take the 200 film to 400 people say underexposed??

My logic tells me that ISO 400 as opposed to 200 = more light which would be the *over*exposed as opposed to ISO 100 which is *less* light? Right?
>>
>>3536600

I'm bit of a newbie myself but I don't understand this. If you have an SLR new enough to have Apeture priority (or any kind of "priority" and not be 100% manual. Why would you need to use sunny16 and not just use the lightmeter in the camera?
>>
>>3536610
I guess I just don't trust what a 40 year old camera can calculate compared to a modern DSLR. I shot on aperture priority for a while on my DSLR before switching to manual permanently, but I still shot at f/2.8 all the time because I could. Now I'm no longer able to shoot at f/2.8 unless it's actually dark enough because my camera only goes up to 1/1000 so chances are it'll be overexposed if I want to get a good amount of depth of field on a sunny day
>>
>>3536179
>>3536176
Thanks so much, this is really clear to me now. As is the fact that my 6x7 scans being only 11MP means I'm getting cucked by the lab. Time to look into scanners
>>
>>3536608
Mate just google it, this is like asking me why going at 60 km/h will get you to your destination in less time than going at 40 km/h, even though 60 is a higher number than 40.
ISO is not a measure of light, it's a measure of sensitivity. Higher sensitivity = higher ISO number = less light needed for the same density because it's more sensitive to light.
>>
>>3536606
>>3536606
You can safely forget about but base+fog. It’s an inherent characteristic of the film, that the manufacturer uses to determine the ISO value, you don’t do anything with it, and the tangible example would be to shoot a frame with the lens cap on, develop the film, and the density of that blank frame is your base+fog for that film and developer combination.
I was just trying to explain how pushing doesn’t give a lot of *real* speed, and the reason is that pushing affects the cube of the film as well as the base+fog, and those two are used to calculate ISO (the real speed of the film).
More simply, the real speed of the film mostly depends on the shadow detail, and pushing affects mostly mid tones and highlights and very little the shadows. So the real speed of the film after pushing can increase practically around half a stop to maybe a stop for special combinations of films and developers (an example of the latter would be TriX and Diafine, or similar compensating developers). Apart from that you don’t get any more shadow detail no matter how you push, unless you go into extreme techniques like hypersensitisation with mercury vapor. Mind you those are niche techniques only used in scientific photography (Astrophotography, experiments, etc.) before digital, or by a tiny minority of film autists.

Also about the ISO rating, base+fog plays a role in the calculation of that, but it’s not the only parameter. Again, you don’t have to worry about it cause it’s an inherent characteristic of the film (and developer), and the manufacturer did the measurements already and gave you the ISO.

>Why is it that if I take an ISO 200 film and pull it down to 100 people say it's "over exposed" and vice versa if I take the 200 film to 400 people say underexposed??
Because by pulling from 200 to 100, you didn’t actually decrease the sensitivity of the film, unlike digital where when you change the iso you alter the sensitivity of the sensor.
(Cont.)
>>
>>3536629
(Cont.)

So by pulling film, you just “lied” to you camera that the sensitivity of the film is 100 instead of the actual 200, so the camera overexposed it, giving it more light as it thought it’s less sensitive. And you compensate that overexposure, by developing for a shorter time.

And the opposite for pushing, you “lie” to your camera that your film is more sensitive than it actually is, so the camera gives it less light thinking it’s more sensitive, so you end up under exposing. You compensate for that by developing for a longer time.
>>
when shooting the minolta maxxum 400si i rin into various inconviniences like the autofocus triggering when the shutter is half pressed and ruining the focus. The aperture and shutter speed also seem to have a mind of its own. One click of the wheel sends the shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/2000 instantly and the only way to get a good combination is to change the aperture which again will go from f/4.5 to f/8 instantly. it's only been one day but a lot of opportunities have been missed. am i the only one with this problem?
>>
>>3536629
>unlike digital where when you change the iso you alter the sensitivity of the sensor.
That's wrong: ISO doesn't alter the sensitivity of the sensor. In non-invariant sensors it alters the amount of gain applied to the sensor elements' output at the analog-electronical level. In ISO-invariant sensors it impacts the slice of the sensor elements' output that's passed through to the ADC, i.e. there's cutoffs at low and high ends of exposure.

Anyway, I'd like you to rephrase the previous in terms of a film equivalent to the noise floor.
>>
>>3536600
If you truly were in aperture priority mode the camera should've selected the shutter speed according to the aperture you've chosen. What camera are you using?
>>
>>3536668
I'm using an A-1
>>
>>3536669
Was the aperture ring on your lens set to the 'A' position? That's the only way the camera will work in an automatic mode
>>
>>3536670
Yeah it's locked on the green 'A', I switched the aperture by turning the dial on the top of the camera where the AV/TV options are, and the shutter speed changes depending on the scene and what my aperture is so it's definitely in aperture priority. So sunny16 is only something I should worry about if I'm shooting in full manual? What about if I'm anywhere between f/1.8 and 2.8 and the shutter speed automatically goes to 1/1000? I assume that because it can't go any higher and because I can't lower the ISO then the image would possibly be overexposed?
>>
>>3536659
Don't manhandle the shutter. All cameras require a soft half press to engage autofocus. If you're jamming your finger down too hard it'll trigger.

The shutter speed changing will be from light changing. If you're fiddling with the camera and point to a bright source it'll switch to 1/2000, if you move it to darker it'll switch to 1/250. Cameras rapidly switching like this is normal, especially if they have spot metering. You should be able to lock the exposure to the desired shutter speed by holding down half press on the shutter. This means it won't change the exposure locked until you full press.
>>
>>3536673
At 1/1000 it's still good, but if it begins to flash you should change the aperture value until it's not flashing anymore. And no, you can't lower the ISO since with film it's pretty much locked by the stock you are using.

The good thing is film is pretty tolerant of overexposure (not under tho) and even if you fuck up the settings in that direction by 2-3 stops the image should still come out ok.
>>
>>3536678
Flashing? Is this the display that shows up in the viewfinder that'd be flashing? I don't think I've seen it flash yet so I'll have to test it out next time I'm outside. Thanks anon.
>>
>>3536680
No problem anon
Here's a link to the camera manual: http://www.jameskbeard.com/Photography/Legacy_Canon_Manuals/CANON%20A%20-%20SERIES%20CAMERAS/A-1%20Camera%20Owners%20Manual%20%281978%29.pdf

The flashing thing is on page 56 I think.
>>
>>3536660
Yeah you're right, it's the gain. I thought what most people mean by "sensor sensitivity" is the sensitivity+gain, i.e. after the signal gets amplified, and not just the strictly technical sensitivity (the voltage the sensor produces before any gain).

>Anyway, I'd like you to rephrase the previous in terms of a film equivalent to the noise floor.
Rephrase what? The noise floor for a film system is the base+fog density.
>>
>>3536626

I tried, but thanks for the suggestion I suppose.

>Higher sensitivity = higher ISO number = less light needed for the same density because it's more sensitive to light.

This makes sense though. Higher ISO implies that the rest is lowered (underexposed) because you heightened the sensitivity of the ISO. Am I getting it?
>>
>>3535175
>Toe, middle part and shoulder are just areas in that curve, in practice they correspond to shadow details, midtones and highlights in your photo.
The toe and shoulder don't really have any detail to speak of. A flat line = no density change and detail is density changes in response to varying levels of light falling on the film. Shadow and highlight detail would be represented by the straight line portions near the toe and shoulder.

The very beginning of the toe and shoulder, the curve into a flat line, represent the "roll off" effect that is characteristic of film versus digital where highlights, for example, immediately block up once overexposed.
>>
>>3536712
Pretty much
>exposure time / square of f stop = how much light hits the film or sensor
So twice as long = twice as much light; one stop wider aperture = twice as much light (aperture stops are square roots and the lower the number the more light they let in, so f/2 will let in twice as much light as f/2.8 since 2x2 is approximately half as much as 2.8x2.8)
>ISO = how the film or sensor responds to a given amount of light
So let's say you're photographing a dimly lit scene and you've chosen f/4 aperture, 1/60 shutter speed and an ISO 100 film but the image came out very dark and you can barely make out any detail even in the highlights. You can now open up your aperture to let's say f/2 and use a slower shutter speed like 1/30, and the same film will now get 8 times more light (1/30 divided by 2x2 is 8 times as much as 1/60 divided by 4x4) and show a good amount of detail.
If your circumstances don't allow you to give your film more light (let's say you're shooting handheld so you can't go slower than 1/60 and your widest aperture is f/4) you can keep the original exposure settings (1/60 f/4), but use an ISO 800 film instead of 100. Even though you haven't increased the amount of light coming in, the film is 8 times more sensitive so it shows the same level of detail as the less sensitive film with 8 times more light.
In real life though, higher ISO means more grain. Higher ISOs exist to help you when it's impossible to increase your exposure (like if your lens doesn't go any wider, or you're photographing a moving subject that needs a fast shutter speed to be sharp). When exposure time is not an issue, like if you're photographing a stationary object with your camera on a tripod, then you can use lower ISO films for less grain.
For example portra 160 is a low sensitivity film, but it's actually excellent for night photography as long as you have a tripod and your subject can stay perfectly still for a few minutes.
>>
>>3536608
Also note that a lot of people just use the terms pushing and pulling wrong (common here in/fgt/ too). If you expose a roll of say Portra 400 at 200 as is common, and drop it at the lab without specifying anything, you aren’t pulling anything, you’re just overexposing by a stop. If you tell the lab to cut the development time by a stop, then you’re actually pulling. With color negative film, this is not usually something you’d need or want to do.

With black and white pulling is a lot more common. Maybe you’re shooting Tri-X but want more dynamic range and less contrast, so you’ll expose the film at 200, and you’ll also develop with a time for 200, instead of the normal 400 time which is longer. Many black and white films actually don’t take overexposure as well as color negative films, so doing this instead of just overexposing by a stop is preferable.

It’s good to think of pushing and pulling in terms of contrast. For example I know I’m going for a lot of contrast because I shoot street, so I get closer to my preferred end result by pushing my 400 speed film to 1600, even though I’m also painting myself into a corner at the same time since I know I won’t be getting much shadow detail. I also know that I need a fast shutter speed and a small aperture, which I can both get by pushing.

You also need to consider the characteristics of the individual film. A lot of 100 speed films are really contrasty already, so I never push those since I know I’m already getting heaps of contrast.
>>
>>3536659
>the autofocus triggering when the shutter is half pressed and ruining the focus
that's normal behavior in pretty much all AF SLRs. how do you focus then? on maxxums you can't manually focus the lens when the focus mode is set to Auto. the screw locks the focus ring. if you don't want the AF to kick in, just slide the switch on the lower right side of the lens mount to MF to unlock the focus ring and leave it in manual.
otherwise the proper procedure with autofocus is to center the subject in the middle, half press to autofocus on it and recompose while half holding the shutter release.
>The aperture and shutter speed also seem to have a mind of its own.
seems like you're on one of the autoexposure modes. P/Program I'm guessing. moving the wheel will change both values in sometimes a non-linear way but keeping the same EV, that means all shutter speed/aperture combinations will yield the same proper exposure but with equivalent value combinations. also, in the autoexposure modes the +/- button modifies the exposure compensation, not the apterture. make sure it's set to no compensation.
set the camera to manual mode if you want fine control of both shutter speed and aperture.
>>
File: Rollei_80s_Speyer.jpg (1.15 MB, 1500x2250)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>3536330
This is the dumbest shit. Exposure isn't that complicated, the guy will go on and on about esoteric shit that you should take into account when setting exposure, when it's just as simple as making a judgement about what you're willing to overexpose/underexpose in your image based on the kind of film you have. You'd have to have the IQ of a bonobo's foreskin to think that you should spend $200 on something that you can figure out through trial and error, instead of putting it into film and a nice weekend out.

Outside of that, read a book from one of the greats I guess.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height4500
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:17 02:06:08
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1500
Image Height2250
>>
shot and deved a roll of kodak gt 800 and honestly was expecting only couple chunks of grain to fall out of the dev tank. this stuff would be pretty rad fresh i bet

[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
>>
File: 20190916_193504.png (52 KB, 563x259)
52 KB
52 KB PNG
>>3536330
Satisfaction?
>>
Tried out portra 160 for the first time. I absolutely love it.
>>
>>3536777
i tried the half press focus/exposure lock and it works most of the time.

as for the shutter/aperature, it is in manual mode but i still seem to have the problem. it could be a fault in my camera so im thinking of getting it checked at a local camera maintanence shop
>>
>>3536840
How do you scan your photos? They always look oversaturated and grainy as shit
>>
>>3536840
Hey i think i remember this girl, are you the same anon that posted that one slide of her, or someone similar? If so, loved that shot keep it up.
>>
File: file.png (314 KB, 506x341)
314 KB
314 KB PNG
Bit of a dumb question.I was thinking about getting a physical warming filter for one of my lenses and was wondering how i would account for it in my scanning so i don't just white balance the whole effect of the filter away.
Cheers.
>>
>>3536934
Instruct your scanning software to neither colour correct nor invert the scanned negative. Then process the scan in Darktable (or some such) and dial your white balance in by eye (or reference to e.g. a white sheet of paper in a different frame).

Warming filters are mainly used for slides intended for projection. For negatives, colour balance is set during processing or enlargement. IIUC positive-to-positive colour processes can also control it using filters, and you might certainly make projectable positive prints from slides while applying those filters during that step.
>>
>>3536840
The scan is way oversharpened
>>
File: EnchantedRock_Portra400.jpg (1.04 MB, 1000x687)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
First roll of portra. All were pretty much snapshits

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4915
Image Height3377
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2019:09:17 12:19:02
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height687
>>
>>3536933
>girl
>>
>>3536721
>>3536734

Thanks for the great info!
>>
File: DSC07369-positive.jpg (469 KB, 2048x1367)
469 KB
469 KB JPG
I scanned some 30yo negs from my parents Hawaii trip today for them. Mostly snaps but there where some nice ones as well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 01:02:01
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness3.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1367
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC07394.jpg (1.35 MB, 2048x3065)
1.35 MB
1.35 MB JPG
>>3537151

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 01:04:51
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness3.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height3065
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC07389.jpg (1.42 MB, 2048x3133)
1.42 MB
1.42 MB JPG
>>3537152

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 01:04:12
Exposure Time1.3 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Brightness3.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height3133
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3534279

Neat! you using a grad ND filter?
>>
hmmmm vulvia....
>>
>>3537175
Nope, those stormy skies get so dark that the ground sometimes appears brighter than the sky.
>>
>>3537151
>>3537152
>>3537153
Pretty cool, thanks for sharing
>>
>>3536347
I have an EOS 3, might have to read the manual to 'understand' it a bit better. That sounds great.

curious, can you explain more about EV, I haven't quite grasped the concept - I underexposed some MF work with my mamiya 645AFD when I tried to mess around with it
>>
>>3535044
kentmere 400 is the cheapest decent film, at least in the US

>>3535655
there's way more detail in the film, but you'll need to pay more for high res scans if you want to access it, unfortunately

fine grained 6x7 has something like 80mp of detail, but scans anywhere near that are insanely priced
>>
File: h.jpg (575 KB, 2478x1024)
575 KB
575 KB JPG
anyone else have a horizon? need tips, I've put three rolls through mine and am having a horrible time, it's so hard to get a well composed shot
>>
File: nikonos v.jpg (27 KB, 430x430)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
I live in the pacific NW and it rains a lot. Think it makes sense to get one of these as an outdoor camera for hiking and going out when it's wet? Probably not going to use it as a dive camera anytime soon but the waterproofness is appealing and it doesn't seem too expensive.
>>
>>3534384
>>3534618
Don't use cellphones anymore. One of the reasons I went back to film in the first place. Not going back to the digital appendix.
>>
>>3537223
i think you may need a more interesting subject - it does seem like a challenging format to work with
>>
>>3537275
who the fuck doesn't own a phone in 2019. what the hell is wrong with you?
>>
>>3537243
Depends but I never had any problem backpacking in bad weather (continuous light rain for days) with my SLR at early stone age.
Maybe if you insist shooting film while kayaking or during rainstorm or something.

(IMO a tough digital p&s as second camera would make more sense but I totally admit making sense is optional. Do what you find fun.)
>>
File: 000186810034.jpg (1.33 MB, 1545x1024)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB JPG
Canon TX, Portra 400

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.50.008 (160222)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1545
Image Height1024
>>
>>3537282
Do you have your SLR in bag or something when it's raining?
>>
>>3537243
Just carry an umbrella. You really don't need to buy more gear for rainy days. If you're still worried put your camera in a plastic bag and cut a hole for the lens. And I live in Scotland so 3/4 of the year is a rainy day.
>>
>>3537282
>>3537330
My main camera is a Pentax 67 so it's a bit obnoxious to set up with an umbrella, I was thinking of something I could walk around in since I'm already walking around in full rain gear on these trips. Last time I was out it felt weird taking out my little film point and shoot since it started fogging up the viewfinder and I was a bit afraid of water messing up the camera's electronics. My other digital point and shoot is a Ricoh gr which is great but also not exactly the best weather sealed camera.

I'm mainly looking for a lighter walkaround 35mm that can compliment the Pentax when it's too wet to keep it out of my bag, or for shitty conditions. I suppose a more durable point and shoot would work too. I already can stuff the gr in a little pocket since it weighs basically nothing so I'll try that one next trip this weekend. I've also thought about a plastic bag but there's not much room when I put my camera back in my backpack, and walking around with the 6x7 out isn't the best idea so it would be constantly taking it off/on which I figure would get old. I'll probably stuff one of those in my bag too though for a tripod shot, but I don't think that's a full solution for walking around.
>>
>>3532890
Managed to get the film developed and got it back today. Half of the film was more or less underexposed, and all the photos were green. Like, seriously green. The woman from the lab said it's because the film was probably old. Wasn't even worth scanning. Mostly shots of sky, nature, and landscapes. Slightly disappointing but my curiosity is satisfied.
>>
Man I love Acros but printing it can be an absolute bitch. Just did some work prints yesterday and there’s just so much info on the negs that it’s hard to get the contrast right. Printing at grade 1,5 is okay but everything is kind of a dull gray mush, and whites and blacks are still hard to nail. I guess split grade printing would help but who has time to do that for work prints?
>>
>>3537303
If I remember right I just stuffed it as is somewhere between spare clothing and sleeping bag which are supposed to be the last things to get wet. After few days of walking & camping in tent with no real drying opportunities everything gets rather humid but it did not affect my SLR (just a Pentax ME super kit). At this millenium I do same but use a small dry bag for (mostly digital) camera &cet gear. Weights nothing and is 100% waterproof.
>>
>>3537436
What are you developing it in, and for how long?
>>
File: IMG_0400.jpg (2.18 MB, 2205x1470)
2.18 MB
2.18 MB JPG
my concert shit with film is flash. it doesn't look particularly interesting don't think

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1281
Image Height1
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3537421
It happens. I got some old disposables developed recently as well. Kodak turns blue, Agfa turns reddish at least after 10 years.
>>
File: MarioSanchez-15.jpg (742 KB, 1000x670)
742 KB
742 KB JPG
my first roll, portra 400 with the canon a1

roast me
>>
File: 1 (2).jpg (597 KB, 1000x670)
597 KB
597 KB JPG
>>3537542
>>
File: 1 (3).jpg (588 KB, 670x1000)
588 KB
588 KB JPG
>>3537543
>>
File: 1 (5).jpg (508 KB, 670x1000)
508 KB
508 KB JPG
>>3537544
>>
File: 1 (4).jpg (599 KB, 670x1000)
599 KB
599 KB JPG
>>3537545
>>
File: IMG_0530.jpg (770 KB, 2016x1512)
770 KB
770 KB JPG
Anon with the gummed up Isolette III here. My replacement bellows arrived.
>>
File: IMG_0531.jpg (537 KB, 2016x1512)
537 KB
537 KB JPG
>>3537582
Fitting it was a bit cumbersome, but looks like it worked out.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 7
Camera Software12.4.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 21:05:28
Exposure Time1/14 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.99 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2016
Image Height1512
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_0533.jpg (719 KB, 2016x1512)
719 KB
719 KB JPG
>>3537583
Not 100% sure about the lens collimation. It only seems to focus to infinity when you turn the front element all the way in.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 7
Camera Software12.4.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 21:50:55
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.99 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2016
Image Height1512
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3537412
A weather sealed pro SLR + weather sealed lens should work too. If you want compact and simple a P&S will do. If you want features and options the pro SLR.

I don't think you need an actual diving camera to survive the rain, though if you got one you could also use it underwater.
>>
File: IMG_0534.jpg (669 KB, 2016x1512)
669 KB
669 KB JPG
>>3537587
The final result. I'll probably shoot a roll of film with it this weekend. The rangefinder might need a bit more adjustment, but it should work for now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 7
Camera Software12.4.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 21:57:15
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.99 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2016
Image Height1512
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: _6A_0085.jpg (192 KB, 800x533)
192 KB
192 KB JPG
Hi all,

fucking around with a lomography simple use (fixed f/9, 1/120 s) and ordered a bunch of expired fujichrome velvia iso 50/18. am I likely fucking up real bad if I shoot outside under fairly sunny conditions?

pic unrelated, expired disposable kodak
>>
>>3537459
The prints or film? Film goes to Xtol 1:1 for 9,5 minutes in 20c iirc, prints go to Ilford’s paper dev that I can’t remember the name of for 1 minute.
>>
>>3537243
nikonos is great for that. like you said, they aren't expensive.
>>
>>3537590
looks v clean, nice work

>>3537607
f/9, 1/120, iso 50 works out okay for mild sun, but you're probably going to fuck up at least some of the shots, I would save the film for something with a good meter or at least some settings

>>3537243
they're pretty chunky, you could look at some p&s like the canon wp-1 or sureshot a1, some of the olympus p&s are water resistant, Genba Kantoku for the japan factor
>>
I own a Minolta X700. Can any of you fellows recommend me a good zoom lens?
>>
>>3537658

I know of the Minolta A Mount 70-210 f4 beercan which is good and cheap, maybe there is an MD Mount version of that lens
>>
>>3537658
Vivitar Series 1 V3 70-210mm is supposed to be great. But I don't have it. For lower focal lengths there is also the 35-70 f3.5 which is also okay.

But I don't use zoom lenses, I only know this because I ever played with the thought of acquiring one.
>>
>>3537635
>f/9, 1/120, iso 50 works out okay for mild sun, but you're probably going to fuck up at least some of the shots, I would save the film for something with a good meter or at least some settings
many thanks, will try to stick to lower light conditions until equipment situation changes
>>
File: AlsService.jpg (329 KB, 1024x814)
329 KB
329 KB JPG
>>3534279
A little more storm stuff, again on Portra 160.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNewcolorV2 3.0900001526 1.0900000334 3.0899999142 3.0899999142 0.75
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width13832
Image Height16319
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 Created2019:09:18 14:53:56
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height814
>>
File: LingleTornado.jpg (449 KB, 1024x814)
449 KB
449 KB JPG
>>3537691

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNewcolorV2 3.0900001526 1.0900000334 3.0899999142 3.0899999142 0.75
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
PhotographerAlex Burke
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width13897
Image Height33262
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 Created2019:09:18 17:53:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height814
>>
File: LingleTornadoPano1x3.jpg (212 KB, 1200x400)
212 KB
212 KB JPG
>>3537716
And a further back view taken just a couple of minutes earlier. Another stitch.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution304 dpi
Vertical Resolution304 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 16:11:47
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height400
>>
Tol grasses

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1334
Image Height878
>>
>>3537716
you really fucked the composition up on this one bud. in a big rush?
>>
>>3537691
This is so sick, I'm guessing it was a longer exposure so it captured the lightning?
>>
>>3537774
Well it was a tornado... In a rough place for shooting too. Safety came first.

>>3537790
Yeah it was about 4 seconds. I had to shoot most of a roll to get one with lightning on it.
>>
>>3537748
Is this medium format?
>>
>>3537794
>Yeah it was about 4 seconds. I had to shoot most of a roll to get one with lightning on it.
You're reading my mind dude, I was JUST about to ask if that's a long exposure/how you'd get one with lightning in it.
>>
>>3537795
35, tri-x 400 with constant agitation for the increased contrast
>>
>>3537798
Oh wow, it looks pretty grain free. How did you scan it?
>>
>>3536872
My local lab scans them for me.
>>3536933
Yes I am the same Anon, Thank you.
>>3537077
She's cis.
>>3536959
Thank you for your feedback I will keep that in mind the next time I am editing my scans.
>>
>>3537243
i got a weathermatic dual 35 for the same reason as you (also a PNW guy) and i never ended up shooting it in the rain. Only got around to using ti this summer on same lake trips.

Not a bad idea per se (look at Parr's Bad Weather) but it didn't materialize for me.
>>
>>3537547
>>3537545
>>3537544
>>3537543
>>3537542
pretty good honeslty. keep it up
>>
>>
>>3537865
>>
File: shuk.jpg (2.17 MB, 1500x1176)
2.17 MB
2.17 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V800/V850
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:18 20:43:17
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3537866
>>
>>3537665
>>3537670
Thank you very much lads.
>>
>>3537800
A little Nikon Coolscan 5k that my uni has. Grain isn’t big because of the size I scanned it at, I’m going to guess. Also, I cut my dev time 15%. Also, I used a yellow filter.
>>
File: 000012.jpg (694 KB, 800x1000)
694 KB
694 KB JPG
Shot my first roll of film, turned out better than I expected (and I expected complete shit so not that high of a bar). Now I gotta work out how to edit film photos properly

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:20 00:02:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000007.jpg (600 KB, 800x1000)
600 KB
600 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:20 00:01:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000021.jpg (656 KB, 800x1000)
656 KB
656 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP500
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:09:20 00:06:04
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: R1-09241-0013-2.jpg (517 KB, 1200x805)
517 KB
517 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:19 18:48:55
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: DSC_4882.jpg (653 KB, 1200x795)
653 KB
653 KB JPG
digital for the sake comparison

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern770
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)72 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:09:19 18:48:24
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/4.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1000
Lens Aperturef/4.5
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length48.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3537691
Bro I follow you on Instagram and I had no idea you posted here too
>>
>>3537691
He's back!
>>
File: 6x6-002.jpg (713 KB, 1024x1024)
713 KB
713 KB JPG
Just got a zenza bronica s2a, goddamn I love this piece of metal.
>>
>>3538152
>Paying for a adapter that's freely available
I hope you didn't pay too much for that, you could 3d print one yourself almost for free at you local makerspace.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:323120

Your camera will shoot 2.4x4.5 images now. The height stays the same, but since 35mm film is smaller in width than 120 film, the width gets cropped down.

You'll get around 29 frames from a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film, depending on how big the gap between shots is in your camera.
If your camera has a frame counter, don't wind all the way to frame 1, 120 film has about a foot of leader before the first frame. You'll skip over several frames on your 35mm film if you go straight to frame 1. Likewise, you'll still have a few shots left one you hit the "last" frame on the film counter.
>>
>>3538168
i don't have no 3d printer nowhere so...
but thank you very much for explaining

the thing is my fuji 6x4,5 winds it automaticly but i will give it a try anyways !

also: should i mainly frame with the centre ? knowing that top and bottom are cropped out on the 35mm stripe
>>
>>3538181
btw if i get around 29 frames from a 36 roll
shall i set the camera to 120 or 220 ?
because i once put a 220film in and left it at 120 switch...after 16 frames it spooled the film back
had to respool in changing back so i can use the other 16 frames aswell
>>
File: Scan-190918-0061.jpg (704 KB, 882x1334)
704 KB
704 KB JPG
Wish I hadn't waited so long to scan this

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.19.251832120
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width882
Image Height1334
>>
just copped a nikon fg 20
first foray into photography
what am I in for
>>
http://www.filmtoaster.photography/

How does bullshit like this even sell? Rich boomers??? I feel that film photography attracts more and more meme products that are comparable to the audiophile crap. Just read his FAQ It's really pathetic.
>>
File: snapshitsforpeepee.jpg (345 KB, 663x1000)
345 KB
345 KB JPG
>>3538316
I was really hoping it was a toaster :(

Had a B&W summer, hope you guys like this.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:12 19:58:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2005
Image Height3024
>>
guys....i just realized this...
when i use the 35mm adapter 35mm film in my
fuji ga 6x4,5 camera it wouldn't make any sense right ?
the camera shoots in Portrait mode
so i won't be able to get panorama shots
>>
File: IMG_2593 - Copy.jpg (2.13 MB, 4032x3024)
2.13 MB
2.13 MB JPG
i just bought my first analog camera, it's a Chinon 35 EE-II from 1978 and there's one thing confusing me about it.
there's this one lever (thing in red circle) which doesn't seem to do anything, i read the manual and it says that it's apparently some "lock for function control ring" yet even when i pull it up it doesn't lock anything. am i doing something wrong? also is the camera usable without batteries? the manual says that the batteries should only power up some automatic exposure control thing. sorry if i sound like an utter retard

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software12.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:20 11:59:16
Exposure Time1/17 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness-1.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3538468
the battery is for the Light Metering, meaning it gives you the correct shutter speed after you've choosen the Aperture you like to shoot at
for example you go on aperture f8 the camera will pick the correct shutter speed i.e. 1/250 sec
you pick aperture f 5,6 the camera goes in that case 1/500sec and so on

since the camera doesn't have a manual shutter speed dial, you must make sure the light meter in that camera works.

if the viewer shows you inside the viewfinder the shutter speed, you can compare it with a Light Meter app on your phone and if it's the same then it's okey

the lever there is probably the Self Timer Lever
you pull that thing...cock the shutter, hit it and after some time (most cases 10 sec ) it hits the shutter
if it doesn't work, no drama
>>
>>3538478
thanks for the information
>>
i'm the same idiot as >>3538468
i just loaded film into my camera for the first time and the film counter doesn't seem to be moving no matter how much times i "take a photo", the rewind lever is moving, i tightened it when i was loading it and all that. did i do a mistake or could the counter on my camera be broken?
>>
File: _20190920_201456.jpg (1.15 MB, 1999x1333)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
Anyone know anywhere good to take photos in Phuket?

I'll post some more photos later on
Took this one at the markets he was pretty cool

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2019:09:20 20:14:57
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3538486
If the rewind lever is moving then it means the film is moving just fine. It's just the counter that is busted, and it won't affect anything besides not telling you which frame you're on. It's not really uncommon with old cameras for the counter to become jammed, luckily with 35mm it doesn't affect anything. With a medium format camera you'd get increasing frame intervals because the take-up spool is directly winding the film instead of a sprocket gear.
>>
>>3538612
oh okay thanks a lot for the information
>>
>>3538612
was it the yashica fr ?
they're known for doing that...counter just stops working



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.