[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / vrpg / 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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: p100f.jpg (399 KB, 1732x1732)
399 KB
399 KB JPG
based slide film edition

old thread: >>3684903
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 you're shooting that shitty kodak clone

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:06 22:17:41
>>
Just curious -- what is your keeper rate? How many shots on a roll of 36 do you think turn out nicely? How many good shots on a roll of 12?
>>
>>3690212
usually 3-6 on a roll of 36. Only a couple of those I really like though
>>
>>3690212
Depends on how much I tryhard. I think my record is 12 or so.
>>
File: Provia-100 (8).jpg (418 KB, 2592x1800)
418 KB
418 KB JPG
Hail Provia 100f!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r16 (May 9 2019) 6e6d7cc 09.05.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019.07.04 16:17:37
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
>>
is film price gonna decrease anytime soon?

I haven't been following news and still have good amount stocked but I noticed they've almost doubled in price.
>>
File: backlog.jpg (51 KB, 469x625)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>3690212
I used to be super strict with what I shot. Usual keeper rates (worth printing) were probably nearly ~80% with 120. If you're patient and methodical, it's not hard to get 80% keepers when shooting 120 landscapes. You're in control of everything besides the weather. Setup a good comp and wait for the light.

I've stopped being so fucking anal about shooting and switched to mostly using 135. I do a lot more hail marys and like everyone else and their mom started shooting 'street', where split second timing can make all of the difference and a lot more experimenting/unconventional compositions, layering techniques, etc are happening. A lot more is out of your control. It's not uncommon for me to get maybe a keeper or two from a roll of 36exp. But you know what, I find it more fun shooting this way most of the time so fuck what my keeper rate is.

>based slide film edition
Got a nice lil E6 backlog that I'm deving soon. Looking forward to seeing all the garbage.
>>
File: 400xxx.jpg (1.16 MB, 1200x900)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
>>3690225
hail provia 400x!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFuji GA645
Camera ModelFuji Provia 400X + 81a filter
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:09:21 22:53:12
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-3.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight Fluorescent
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height900
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3690230
So this isn’t a point and shoot from the early 2000s?
>>
>>3690236
it is tho! a ga645
>>
>>3690230
Cool shot
>>
File: edit-Velvia-100 (35).jpg (187 KB, 1000x694)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
Velvia 100

>>3690230
Nice shot. I was too late to discover the joy of slide film and I'm not willing the current prices for expired Provia 400. Currently, I got a roll of Ektachrome in my camera and spent the nights on our kitchen window trying to capture Neowise. Curious how my attempts turn out.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:08:26 20:54:34
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height694
>>
>>3690247
*to pay
>>
>>3690212
3-4 average ones on a roll of 10, 8-10 on a cartridge of 24
>>
File: fomapan-400-004.jpg (181 KB, 667x1000)
181 KB
181 KB JPG
>>3690251
Objectively, or keepers to you on a personal base? 8-10/24 seems ridiculously high if judged objectively.
Even good photographers state to get maybe 2-3 good shots a year. Take a look at Magnum Contact Sheets and you're going to notice that 1-3 shots per roll of 36 is already good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2191
Image Height3352
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution2400 dpi
Image Created2017:04:02 18:31:57
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3690226
>is film price gonna decrease anytime soon?
not gonna happen. fuji raised it's prices last year and kodak did it earlier this year.
>>
I've been doing stand developing with Rodinal and kept hearing how it would last for ages. Doesnt seem to be the case with this R09 One shot rodinal though. Bought it in Oct 2018 and my two last rolls turned out super faint, no edge markings or letters. If testing it should look like in this video basically nothing happens:
https://youtu.be/Ov_rOGgFHOs

I read that Rodinal "Made in germany", Adox Adonal was the real deal that would last a lot longer. True?

Thankfully the first roll was only half, got issues with RZ67 back, and my favorite shot I had mirrored on digital. Second roll was a semi-dummy to test new camera meter. If nothing else this is a heads up for others using the R09 Rodinal.
>>
opinions on the kiev 4?
>>
>>3690374
Get a zorki 4k instead
>>
>>3690374
Heavy as fuck and the focus is not intuitive. You turn it to the right and the patch moves to the left and vice versa.
Otherwise a nice camera/weapon.
>>
>>3690381
care to expand on that?

>>3690383
interesting, good to know
>>
>>3690374
I like them, they’re my favourite Soviet RFs besides the rarer and more expensive Leningrad.
They’re Contax II clones.
Your biggest shock if you’re coming from “modern” (after the 70s) film cameras will be the small squinty viewfinder without framelines.

Now onto the positives.
The rangefinder has the longest base length of all RFs, and by design can’t get out of calibration unless it’s broken or someone disassembled the camera and put it back together wrongly.
The shutter is smooth, more thumpy than clicky, and it can’t suffer atom pinholes if pointer at the sun for long, since it’s metal.
Finally the lenses. I’ll preface that by saying the selection is much smaller than ltm, especially in the wide angle focals.
On the other hand, the available lenses are very interesting (do you like Sonnar designs?), cheap (much cheaper than LTM mount versions, I mean the normals and slight teles) and work properly with no registration issues that the ltm Jupiters have. Also the 50mm ones are absolutely tiny for their speed and focal length, because the focusing helicoid is built into the camera body and not the lens.

Look into Sonnar lenses and if you like their look, opinions differ. I really like it, it’s great for people: smooth bokeh and loss of contrast at large apertures, really contrasts and sharp stopped down. And more importantly at intermediate apertures, they have good separation: bokeh is smooth with circular bokeh balls at all apertures due to 13-15 aperture blades, contrasty and sharp in the centre, field curvature makes the subject pop out more for centrally framed subjects.
Jupiter-3 and Jupiter-9 are good places to start. An underrated lens is the Helios-103, it’s the most “conventional” and technically best 50mm lens you can get on a Kiev (or a Contax), being a Planar design - Zeiss had abandoned rangefinders by the time they introduced the planar, so they never offered a Contax mount planar. It’s also very cheap.
>>
Cheap but good 35 mm scanner?
>>
>>3690473
Agreed on the Helios. It came with my Kiev and it's a very nice lens.
>>
I'm new to photgraphy (I'm from film) and I was given a film camera and liked the experience.
Today I was gifted a Diana F+, a Olympus EE-2 and a Lomo LC-A+.
I guess they are good entry level cameras but will I also be able to use them for more advanced photography?
>Tldr Does gear matter that much?
>>
>>3690542
Gear matters to the point where you enjoy using it, which encourages you to shoot.
Try the three and see which one you like best. Stick with it for a while until you really feel the need to move on and try something new. Have fun.
>>
>>3690586
Thanks anon! I think I already have a weak spot for the 35mm half frame before using it but we'll see.
>>
>>3690586
>>3690243
thanks anon

>>3690247
current 400x prices are insane. fuck paying that. its my favourite slide but ill never spend the $$ rolls go for now on it. hope your ektachrome turns out well. post the results in the /fgt/ when you have them scanned.

>Gear matters to the point where you enjoy using it, which encourages you to shoot.

based reply. that's all it comes down to.
>>
>>3690212
80%+ I only take one photograph of something i like, a roll lasts me weeks.
>>
>>3690542
When comparing photos taken by the best photographers there is a trend for most to be taken on medium format cameras. This is true for quiet a lot of photos. However when we move into the realm of even photography and event portraits the trend doesn't hold true.
Afghan girl was taken on an fm2 on kodachrome.
Sam Shere used a speed graphic to photograph the Hindenburg.
Tank man was taken on an fe2, 400mm
So we can see a mix of cameras are used and it ultimately boils down to the one you have with you (tm)
>>
>>3690225
Why can’t you guys use film to take good or interesting photos?

It’s like the most important thing is the film it was shot with and the photography itself is an after thought.
>>
>>3690712
Thats true of all photography from the 21st century. Hyper commoditization and everyone being equipped with a camera at all times has removed all genuineness from photography. In short video killed photography, so most people fixate on technical specifications, clawing to find the secrets to taking a genuine photograph. Photography is simply a whore of its former self in an era where Clara is no more.
>>
>>3690473
Thanks so much for the detailed info!
>>
>>3690712
Why are you in this thread then? People often come in here with all sorts of weird projections, go have fun with your camera (film or otherwise) and relax mane.

FWIW I think it’s a good photo
>>
File: unknown.png (1.33 MB, 800x1200)
1.33 MB
1.33 MB PNG
>>3690712
I do take good photos though.
>>
>>3690736
This thread is for film photography sir
>>
File: film.jpg (53 KB, 686x469)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>3690804
but /p/ doesn't know what film looks like

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerJulio Rodriguez
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3690809
damn my guy still mad about his ass scans lol coming over from another thread chill
>>
>>3690485
a cheap scanner is not good and a good scanner is not cheap.

ironically tho, the best way to "scan" in your negatives at an affordable price is by taking pics of your negatives with a DSLR while shooting in RAW.
>>
>>3690212
Depends. Can be as low as 0 or as high as 30, depending on the subject and whether I took lots of photos of the same thing.

Portfolio level shots? Instagram worthy ones? Probably 1 per 3 rolls for the former and 2-3 per roll for the latter.
>>
>>3690809
He's right. Why bother if you don't make it look better than digital? The only reason for shooting film is colors/tones after all.
>>
>>3690212
for me on average I say about 10 in a roll of 36. highest I've ever had it was 30 but that roll took me 3 months to shoot.

haven't shot a roll of 24 since high school but I think it it was like 6 on average.

never shot rolls of 12. growing up I always saw them as a waste of money and now I don't think they make them anymore but, even if they still do they're probably still a waste of money.
>>
>>3690860
>The only reason for shooting film is colors/tones after all.

Or you know, because it's fun? I don't give AF about color and tones.
>>
File: 1216x811x2.jpg (381 KB, 1920x1280)
381 KB
381 KB JPG
I've inherited a few things from my great uncle, including an old Soviet Zenit 12 and a couple of lenses. Pic related, not the actual camera but same model.

I've not really done much film photography before but I'm quite interested in it, and may as well give it a go.

The camera itself seems mechanically fine, but I've no idea when it was last used or even how old it is. What other things would I need to check to make sure it's actually workin? Or should I just put some film in it and start shooting?

Looking at film too it seems that there's a bewildering variety available, are there any particular films I should look for or avoid? Or is it just a matter of trying a load of different ones and see which one I like the most?
>>
File: Ariana100_042.jpg (758 KB, 1200x800)
758 KB
758 KB JPG
>>3690971
Best way to see if it works is to load it with a cheap roll of film and try to use a wide range of shutter speeds.

As far as film goes, check out the prices for your local lab. BW film is usually cheapest to buy, but lots of labs charge more to develop it since it needs to be developed by hand. Odds are a cheap C41 (color negative) film like Kodak Gold or Colorplus or Fuji Superia will wind up cheaper as developing is done by machine and usually the most affordable.

Ignore any color films not made by Fuji or Kodak. They're either expired (fuck that) or rebranded and more expensive (seriously fuck that).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3690736
What's good about that photo and what makes it better than e.g. >>3690225 ?
>>
>>3690904
>never shot rolls of 12. growing up I always saw them as a waste of money and now I don't think they make them anymore but, even if they still do they're probably still a waste of money.
120 film is still very common and widely used. Granted, it only has 12 shots if you shoot 6x6. If you shoot 6x7, 6x9 or 6x17 you'll get fewer per roll obviously.
>>
>>3690996
The original question was clearly not referring to 35mm rolls of 12 though
>>
File: 1332149987_1_1296x.jpg (23 KB, 450x409)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>3690989
He's clearly talking about 135. Back-in-the-day 12 shot rolls were sold. Kind of like 24 shot rolls today.
>>
>>3691005
Why would he logically jump from talking about 135 to 120?
He was talking about 135, anon. You just misunderstood and that's okay
>>
>>3691007
Because 12 shot 35mm isn't used anymore, and 12 shots on medium format is common still
>>
>>3691011
Reread the post. He even said
>now I don't think they make them anymore
Which they don't. Again, he was talking about 135.
Yes, the original question was about 135 or 120, but the response was only about 135.
>>
I just noticed my local shop sells fuji pro 400h for $5 less than portra 400, and I've been shooting portra this whole time. I feel like an idiot for spending extra for nothing. That is all.
>>
>>3691088
Thank you anon.
Also check'em
>>
Do I need to use a UV filter when shooting film?
>>
>>3691126
no
>>
The lens I ordered in April finally arrived and holy fucking shit it is jank as all fuck and feels like it was made by orphan slave labor using tank parts. I love it.
>>
>>3691130
what's jank about it?
>>
>>3691146
Everything is hard to turn, the screw mount has play when you do anything, you have to lock f stop at f/16 and ride the stopdown to meter because otherwise you have to disengage completely to change stops. Honestly now that I've got that figured out and the got cosmoline moving again it's not that bad. Got some close ups on fauns in the back yard about 10 minutes after I got it in so we'll see how I did. Luckily I had 100 speed in so I've been shooting close to wide open.
>>
>>3691152
>you have to lock f stop at f/16 and ride the stopdown to meter because otherwise you have to disengage completely to change stops
not sure I understand that but sounds annoying

how much did it cost?
>>
>>3691152
Oh, and if it's not obvious it weighs more than the camera. I got this shit to get away from RB lenses.
>>
>>3691158
As designed, you can either focus wide open or stop down meter AFTER you set the stop. You can't open the aperture with stopdown engaged. As intended, you ride the stop down ring which of course has almost no knurling around it. It cost about as much as a Makarov when they were cheap and handles about as well.
>>
>>3690971

fuji c200 or kodak colorplus 200 pretty cheap, you might try these as your first roll
>>
>>3691130
What lens is this?
>>
Can you even get vintage fish eye lenses?

I'm trying to find one for my nikon f2 or hasselblad for some skate photos I want to take
>>
>>3691230
Yes, of course. There are numerous Nikon 15/16mm fisheyes as well as third party ones.

For Hasselblad theres the 30mm fisheye. Hope you have deep pockets.
>>
File: Ariana100_039.jpg (704 KB, 1200x800)
704 KB
704 KB JPG
Bought an LTM Canon 50/1.5. My first time using a sonnar type lens. It's a tiny little lens and I'm really digging the look.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3690208

How many stops shallower of a field of view does 6x9 have to 35mm? I only find the 1 stop for 645.
>>
>>3691438
Depth of field*
>>
>>3691438

It’s not really how it works. I mean in a general sense sure you can say a 55 2.8 = a 35 1.whatever... But the runoff on MF is much more subtle. It’s not distracting like on 35mm.
>>
>>3691438
Roughly 2 stops.
Or use an online DoF calculator to find precisely.
>>
File: 19619382095339wjez.jpg (67 KB, 800x529)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
Does anyone develop with one of these? I just got one and it's great. I don't have to worry about if I'm agitating or purging air bubbles enough anymore. And the amount of chemistry it saves is insane. I just developed two rolls of 120 using only 100mL of chemistry total. I'm using one of the official Uniroller tanks btw.

Any tips or tricks from someone who's been using one for a while? I've only used it twice so far.
>>
>>3690485
The best you're gonna get spending less than $300 on a good day is a flatbed scanner like the Epson V550 or the Canon 9000F.
>>
>>3691006
Man that seems a real pain in the ass. I always assumed that 24 shot rolls were just so drug stores could make more money on development but 12 shot rolls is crazy.
>>
>>3691484
I've been trying to get one for years but eBay has this stupid shipping program that fucks me with import fees and I can never get sellers to agree to send shit to me through normal mail.
>>
>>3691509
idk if it'll help but I got mine from ShopGoodwill.com
>>
>>3691512
I live in Canada. Shipping anything here is obscene, for no good reason.
>>
>>3691509
If it’s just the roller part you want, you could just make one you know
>>
File: 53740026.jpg (2.36 MB, 2000x1601)
2.36 MB
2.36 MB JPG
i wish it was summer forever
>>
>>3690374
If you like garbage janky ass cameras then it’s good
>>
>>3690736
Really? Then post some
>>
File: image.jpg (2.02 MB, 4032x3024)
2.02 MB
2.02 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
>>
>>3691546
I do in every one of these threads.
>>
>>3691488
12 shots is perfect if ypure travelling with one body only. You can shoot a daylight film during the day, and get through with it before night comes and you load some faster stock.
>>
>>3691488
12exp were common for photojournalists. Bang off 12 shots real quick and courier them for dev so they can be used in the evening/morning paper.
>>
>>3691488
Supposedly tour guides and the like in grorious Nihon would also use 12-shot rolls, so as to blow the whole thing on group photos and have it from the lab by evening.
>>
>>3691677
Tour guides often used GW690s for the 8 crispy negs. If you see a fuji 690 sold in Japan, 99% chance it was used in a tour bus.
>>
>>3691547
Looks like you have sime leakage.. did you forget to squeeze as you tightened the caps?
>>
>>3691681
Indeed and they actually used short 120 rolls of just 4 exposures, not sure if those were ever popular/available outside of Japan.
There’s even a setting on the camera for those rolls.
>>
>>3691733
>There’s even a setting on the camera for those rolls.
Yep there is on my GW690II and even on the mark III versions that released in 1992

>not sure if those were ever popular/available outside of Japan.
From my knowledge they were only available in Japan and weren't super popular. I've searched on yahoo auctions for film lots pretty much everyday for the past couple of years and have never come across a half roll of 120
>>
File: zdzislaw beksinski.jpg (1.01 MB, 1268x1800)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
How can I do this without a model or a studio? I like doing my shots alone (I dont have anyone to ask anyway) but it just seems impossible to focus and set up the shots without one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2800
Image Height3975
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2017:05:08 18:00:03
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1268
Image Height1800
>>
>>3691484
My camera club lab has some of those. I tried them for developing color paper in a tank but it kept getting stuck. My guess is there's some belt that's slipping inside.
>>
>>3691947
Yeah when I was doing research online it seems like most of the info out there is for prints and large format. Kinda weird that almost no one is talking about using it for 35mm and 120.
>>
>>3691697
It was dye left over from pouring out the soak.
>>
is there someone here who could explain to me how to fix the film advance lever of my camera? I'm new to all of this and I did take it to a service a couple of days ago but it broke again. The model in question is a Ricoh Kr-10 super. Thanks in advance if someone can help or give me some advice
>>
>>3692052
Use a wrench to loosen the jig, rotate a couple of the exposed turnkey bolts clockwise. That should tighten the whole thing up my friend.
>>
>>3692055
Thank you man, I don't wanna pay again for something so simple
>>
File: 1574848337138.jpg (223 KB, 2048x1356)
223 KB
223 KB JPG
So I got this Yashica Microtec Zoom 120 at a sale section and everything seems to be working from all the modes to the flash and it even the shutter release button works. But as soon as I put in film, the counter stays at 0 and i cannot actuate the shutter anymore. From there on I can still change all the modes, zoom etc but it just doesnt take and photos. I also checked if it really got the film and it did (ruined a roll because of that). Is there anyway to fix this or is it dead end?
>>
File: banding.jpg (32 KB, 725x909)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
any of you guys ever have this happen with a scanner? I scanned only a week ago, and now suddenly I'm getting this horizontal cyan bands, even when there are no negs. I've tried cleaning the glass, dusting everything, nothing has changed it. Did my cat fuck the scanner while I was asleep? I don't fucking understand.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerQUITLSA
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
I can get a nikkor 28mm f3.5 for AU$90
Is it worth paying the premium to get the f2.8? I can't really find any for less than AU$200~
I do shoot wide open at times for portraits and the like but will probably use this more for landscape/street
>>
>>3692070
film advance motor might be busted and can't move the film. it's a common problem on '80s and '90s point'n'shoot cameras. their parts are just reaching their end of life by now.

>>3692122
>Did my cat fuck the scanner while I was asleep?
sorry, no idea about the scanner, but I also have cats and I know that feel.
one night I woke up to the sound of my plustek 8100 crashing into the ground. luckily it was in it's case and it landed on the side with the folded cables so it didn't take full impact, but holy shit with these little devils that are hell bent on breaking everything meaningful to me I swear.
>>
Remember guys, nows the time to buy that medium format lens you wanted, speed booster digi joggers are gonna buy them all in a year
>>
File: fuck.jpg (64 KB, 608x850)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>3692131
I pulled the whole thing apart, cleaned the two calibrating sensor holes, then got another two clean scans out of it before this. What the fuck is happening? I can't find anything online under "cyan" "blue" "bands" "lines" "epson v700".

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerQUITLSA
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3692156
Why?
>>
>>3692164
You can get something like the mamiya 1.9, and boost it into a 1.4 with a great look
>>
>>3692156
Eh this happens every now and then. When the NEX adapters first come out contax G glass went up in price for like, a year. It’ll go back down when the kids realize you actually need a subject to shoot.
>>
>>3692165
Interesting. Migght look into it
>>
>>3692200
Dont
>>
>>3692209
Why?
>>
>>3692235
See
>>3692181
>>
File: AA025.jpg (1.41 MB, 3001x1999)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB JPG
Guys I need an advice. I recently develop a film, for the first time I only asked for the high-quality scans, instead of usual postcard print in the previous place I used to live.

There's so much fucking grain. And it's a Kodak 400TX. Do you think it's because they didn't retouch it and it's just normal? Or is it because it's a 3000x2000 scan for such a small medium? Or they totally fucked up the scans? I'll send them an email and I want to know what to say.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3001
Image Height1999
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 Created2020:07:25 00:53:24
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3001
Image Height1999
>>
File: AA019.jpg (1.28 MB, 1999x3001)
1.28 MB
1.28 MB JPG
>>3692244
Other pic, they're basically all like this.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1999
Image Height3001
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 Created2020:07:25 00:55:04
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1999
Image Height3001
>>
Just sent in my first 2 rolls of film for development. Both Ektar 100 that I bought in 2010 (expired 2011) but then never had the enthusiasm to carry around my Minolta XD7+58mm 1.2 because it's a fucking brick.

Then got a Rollei 35 S last week and it's small enough for me to comfortably take it outside. For digital shooting I dumbed down everything over the years aswell and only really use a Ricoh GR.

Expired film, zone focussing f2.8 at dusk, I expect the worst.
>>
>>3692131
it does advance the film as soon as i close the back tho, didnt seem like that was the problem
>>
>>3692244
>>3692247
These look like they’re really dense on the net and have Little density separation on the Meg between tones which leads to unevenness like this.

Possible heavy overexposure or overdevelopment or both.

How does the nets look? Really dark?
>>
Does anyone know what camera this could be:
35mm slr
Silter
Plastic of flimsy build quality
Has auto focus
Most likely built after 91
Fat body design like dslr's had, not like the brutal cameras of the 80s

Yeah i know its a bad description but its a camera i remember using as a kid. Its possible the film rewind was spring loaded or similar and would rewind really fast when released.
>>
>>3692323
That could literally be any autofocus SLR from the early 80s to early 2000s
>>
my local fuji shop sells these films for

Pro 400H ~ $9
Superia 400 ~ $6,5
Provia 100 ~ $6
Velvia 50/100 ~ $8

hows these compared to US or Europe?
>>
>>3692323
Maybe a Minolta 5000 or something?
>>
>>3692344
>Provia 100 ~ $6
>Velvia 50/100 ~ $8
Are they expired or something? that's cheap as fuck
>>
>>3692351

I dont think so

Our economy fucked af so they know they couldnt sell with high prices so they try to minimize profit in favor of number of sales (in my guess)

for reference Portra 400 costs $14
>>
>>3692355
Do you live in Japan? would explain the low cost of Fujifilm and high cost of Kodak.
I've heard labs charge a premium to develop Kodak film there.
>>
File: index(19).jpg (24 KB, 500x500)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>3692342
>>3692349
>>3692323
Was more like this fat ugly shape, but all silver.
>>
how do I go about editing slide film scans? (DSLR raw scans if that makes a difference) The only colour adjusting experience I have is using a colour enlarger.
>>
>>3692361
Rawtherapee darkroom or lightroom
>>
>>3692344
Germany (including 16/19% tax):

Pro 400H ~ $13 (11 €)
Superia 400 ~ $9 (7,5 €)
Provia 100 ~ $20 (17 €)
Velvia 50/100 ~ $23 (20 €)

...
>>
>>3692356

No, I dont think Japan's economy fucked.

Fujifilm itself invested much on country, their X cameras usually cheaper too. These are official Fuji shop prices, theres no official Kodak/Ilford/Whatever shops.

Development prices only differ c41/e6/d71 wise not by label
>>
>>3692371
>>3692351

So I suspect quite a difference, especially on slide films. Thanks
>>
>>3692235
Because youll do the exact thing I was warning about, buy an mf lens and slap it on a digibody
>>
Got my first roll of Ektachrome. What can I expect, how should I shoot it? Is the Meter in my Nikon f80 good enough or do I need a handheld light meter?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1242
Image Height907
>>
>>3692408
Ektachtome has lots of latitude anyways
>>
Why is it so hard to get a deep blue sky with film?
>>
>>3692408
>What can I expect,
disappointment at the fact that you could of payed less for a roll of Provia 100F that gives better results

>how should I shoot it?
With a camera, preferably a 35mm camera

>Is the Meter in my Nikon f80 good enough or do I need a handheld light meter?
Oh good you do have a 35mm camera and yeah the f80's meter will work 100% fine.
>>
>>3692411
>with film?
What film? Slide film? Colour Negative film? How are you metering? What are you using to scan with? How do post process your scans? Are you just getting the lab to do everything?

Be more specific
>>
>>3692361
I don't use a DSLR to scan my film but a Plustek.
I get the scan looking as close as I can to the physical negative in my scanning software, save as a .tif Import to Lightroom and fuck with the curves if need be, dust removal and add sharpening.

Hope that helps

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:26 00:02:28
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3692411
Use a filter if you want a properly exposed image with also a deep blue sky.
>>
>>3692411
Shoot away from the sun and don’t fall so hard for the golden hour meme. If that doesn’t work you can start fucking around with GNDs. Also your opinion of “deep” blue may be different than others.

>>3691536
Like how much darker do you want from here?
>>
File: Ariana100 040.jpg (943 KB, 1200x800)
943 KB
943 KB JPG
>>3692356
Japan Fujifilm prices are on par with USA's. I was also charged a flat rate for dev no matter the film brand. Kodak films are much more expensive there though.

t. used to live there.

>>3692361
edit them the same way you'd edit a DSLR file.

>>3692411
there is no reason to not get a deep blue sky if that's how the sky actually looks. if you're trying to get a deep blue sky when the sky is hazy and washed out, you're just being silly. not even a polarizer will save you here.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:07:22 22:52:29
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCool White Fluorescent
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastSoft
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: JUL18_06.jpg (819 KB, 1639x1084)
819 KB
819 KB JPG
>>3690208
i shot with some expired gold 200 a few years back (film expired in 2002 i think). Are these colors a result of the expired film or just my N70 and lens?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4916
Image Height3252
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:08:22 19:59:03
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1639
Image Height1084
>>
File: 14940006.jpg (2.69 MB, 3089x2048)
2.69 MB
2.69 MB JPG
Taken from my first roll of Ektachome, shot on a Canon AE-1 Program with 35-105mm lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.81.014 (190708)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationLeft-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3089
Image Height2048
>>
>>3692442
I thought that was like exactly the point of a polarizer
>>
>>3692411
Polariser.
>>
File: Roll1_00000010.jpg (108 KB, 1000x676)
108 KB
108 KB JPG
foma 100, please comment.
shot on minolta srt 303b, 50mm lens

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFujifilm eSystems, Inc.
Camera ModelDigital Link
Camera SoftwareLIBFORMAT (c) Pierre-e Gougelet
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: JUL18_14.jpg (708 KB, 1100x1639)
708 KB
708 KB JPG
>>3692443

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3299
Image Height4916
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:08:22 20:00:28
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1100
Image Height1639
>>
File: E100 014.jpg (1.18 MB, 1200x800)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
>>3692452
It helps, but if you're shooting in hazy as hell light typical during the summer a polarizer still won't help much. Also, a polarizer's effect is at its max when your shooting perpendicular to the sun. As the sun gets closer to being directly in front or behind you the polarizing effect diminishes.

Basically, shooting in shitty light / atmospheric conditions and expecting to somehow record a blue sky as if its a crisp fall day comes down to simply not understanding how light works.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:02 21:55:38
Exposure Time1/5 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness-3.8 EV
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3692443
>>3692460
The colours are 100% from the expired film
>>
File: JUL18_23.jpg (817 KB, 1666x1100)
817 KB
817 KB JPG
>>3692468
thanks, was thinking about buying a new box of gold 200 but wanted to make sure that they'd turn out better than this. cheers

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4999
Image Height3299
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:08:22 19:42:43
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1666
Image Height1100
>>
>>3692467
This looks terrible
>>
>>3692481
Not him, I like it
>>
File: Kodak Gold 400-0114.jpg (971 KB, 1000x689)
971 KB
971 KB JPG
>>3692473
The colours honestly don't look that bad, I've defiantly gotten worst results shooting with expired film.
pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:10:31 00:10:18
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 2020-01-21-0020.jpg (439 KB, 1000x674)
439 KB
439 KB JPG
>>3692459
My foma looks way more constrasty. Did you overexpose?

Nice shot, I like trains (and everything related)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:25 17:42:53
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3692321
Hi, thanks for the answer! What do you call nets or meg? I even googled it and didn’t find anything, can you explain?

I usually overexpose slightly when I’m shooting, to avoid having darks that are totally black. It’s also true the shots with high contrast (that are well or under exposed) are less grainy. Things is, i never saw this much grain before and I often overexpose of 1 shutter speed from what the Minolta say is good.
>>
File: SCAN_0007.jpg (975 KB, 1000x662)
975 KB
975 KB JPG
>>3692473
Gold 200 is a very nice film, but it tends to show red more dominantly. You can correct this easily during scan

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7300
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:25 17:46:23
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: jul93_13.jpg (581 KB, 1684x1088)
581 KB
581 KB JPG
>>3692511
I wonder if the formula has changed, I've been scanning 90s family film, most on Gold 200/400 and it looks great. Been using a plustek 8100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5052
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:06:23 11:17:59
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1684
Image Height1088
>>
>>3692512
maybe there is a new Gold 200? I used VueScan and Negative Lab Pro to scan, but switched to Silverfast, since the process feels faster and the colors better. I use a Plustek 7300 scanner.

Great shot btw
>>
File: jul93_28.jpg (1.65 MB, 5076x3336)
1.65 MB
1.65 MB JPG
>>3692521
I mean it was 25 years ago so its possible. I really wish I knew what camera my parents used back then. When they switched to Olympus in 1997 it just wasnt the same.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5076
Image Height3336
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution3600 dpi
Vertical Resolution3600 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:06:23 22:08:16
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width5076
Image Height3336
>>
>>3692505
you have a good eye, I accidentally overexposed as I am still a huge beginner who knows only the sunny 16 rule

I like the geometry in your photo. is that the ocean?
>>
>>3692512
Man if it wasn’t for that tangent on the left side this shot would have been based
>>
>>3692510
>What do you call nets or meg? I even googled it and didn’t find anything, can you explain?
He meant to type "neg" as a short form of "negative" and had his phone autocorrect it to other stuff
>>
I've been using a gallon of stock solution d76 for just a few weeks and started to have the liquid change colour. I'm guessing it's from reusing the same solution even though you're supposed to be able to do that? Or maybe it's a bit too warm in my apartment. It started to turn from clear to have a faint yellowish colour and now it turned kinda grey. Is it fine to keep using? Should I be extending developing time and if so, by how much?
>>
File: AA024.jpg (422 KB, 1180x1772)
422 KB
422 KB JPG
>>3692551
>>3692321

Ahah alright sorry. I don't have the negatives, I'm meant to pick them up another day. I'll compare with other negatives, that can indeed be a clue, thanks

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1999
Image Height3001
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 Created2020:07:25 13:27:36
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1180
Image Height1772
>>
>>3692536
thanks mom from 1993 for not centering the the edge of the house properly
>>
>>3692577
How dare she
>>
>>3692448
this is a very pleasant shot anon
>>
>>3692448
sum1 told me 2 look at exf and i did ehich camr a is nortisyu koki i dont kno that 1
>>
>>3690208
>get a roll back
>24 guarantees of disappointment
why do i bother
>>
>>3692903
Because_pes_piss_piss test space because pets please becauseSent from my android this space because piss for 20 69 four 2069 420 69
>>
>>3692552
I thought you weren't supposed to reused black and white developer
>>
>>3692552
Why would you reuse D76? It's like $10/gal. Just mix 1:1 and adjust dev time accordingly.
>>
>>3692957
I used replenished Xtol, it was excellent. Full strength benefits over diluted.
>>
>>3692536
jesus you are a faggot lol
>>
>>3692941
If it's stock you can reuse it.

>>3692957
I just was following instructions I found online.
>>
>>3692126
3.5 is fine for a 28mm street/landscape lens

>>3692552
doesn't the datasheet have instructions about reuse/replenishment?
>>
>>3692126
50-85mm is much better for portraits, I wouldn’t worry about 2.8 vs 3.5
>>
Just picked up two 100ft rolls of tmax 100, one unopened, from my school's dismantled photography department.

Are there any bulk loaders you guys can recommend that aren't unreasonably pricey?
>>
File: 14940013.jpg (3.04 MB, 3089x2048)
3.04 MB
3.04 MB JPG
>>3692752
Thankyou. I've fallen in love with this stock, but I'm going to try Provia next before I buy anymore Ektachrome.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.81.014 (190708)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3089
Image Height2048
>>
>>3693101
Shit man, I'll trade you one for the other roll. That's a really shitty deal by the way, shouldn't expect to pay more than $60 for a bulk loader (a bit more for the "box" style ones, which are nicer) and 30,5m of tmx is, if not expired, easily worth twice that.

Just use a darkbag and manual dexterity. It's only like 18 rolls, and you won't have any frames lost to daylight loading.
>>
>>3693103
The colours and tones genuinely made me think this was something from one of my Fuji's.
>>
>>3693104
Both rolls expired in '99 and the tins are rusted to hell, so it probably wont turn out as well as fresh film would.

I'll try to see if I can get one of their manual loaders. They even have an entire colour development tank stowed away in a cupboard, alongside expired chemicals and enlargers.
>>
>>3692530
Thanks, glad you like it. It’s the Rhein river in Switzerland
>>
File: provia100f_crop.jpg (612 KB, 2105x1394)
612 KB
612 KB JPG
Thought I lost all of my old testing work, but here is a crop of Provia 100f detail testing.

I thought people might find this interesting, as you can see that even at the highest contrast, that the contrast in detail just fucks off and disappears into nothing.

And that it is unrealistic to expect fine details to be originally high contrast like the highest contrast target.

At high contrast the target ends at 8 - 9 which is 69 lp/mm to 77 lp/mm.

Which is around 20mp in 35mm format minimum needed to represent that.

Yet at 8-9 on the target its barely visible at all and looks like crap obviously. Though it is technically there.


It is also very false to equivocate it to a 20mp digital image however, on 20mp with digital, it would be much much much clearer and worlds better.
>>
>>3692511
>but it tends to show red more dominantly.

you act like this is a bad thing
>>
leica m6 voigtlander 35mm f2.5 hp5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:07:26 08:25:14
ISO Speed Rating400
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3693204
Leica shooters everybody
>>
>>3690374
I would recommend Zorki 1 (or FED 1, which is identical to Zorki 1). It is small, light camera. It is also durable if you get lucky and don't get the bad version (Zorki 1b). Though make sure you buy camera with a spool and keep an eye on shutter curtains. They tend not to be lightproof.

>>3690381
Zorki 4k has difficult rangefinder alignment. And it is kind of bulky and doesn't fit into pocket with its winding lever. Also speed dial is problem with 4k.
>>
>>3692459
A bit overexposed I think. I think you did meter for darker areas.
It is also nice to see that train isn't delayed...
>>
>>3693110
What a waste of time
>>
>>3693204
>buying an expensive film body just to use cheapo glass
>>
>>3693244
>buying an expensive rangefinder to shoot shitty blank and white test shots of your cat
>>
>>3693244
>>3693247
>Buying a camera you want and getting shat on for what you lens you choose to use and what pictures you take with it
/p/ logic
>>
>>3693248

you’re the one with a new lens in every fgt and the same trash photos. Just become a collector anon this creativity thing isn’t for you
>>
>>3693255
I'm not the Leica anon, I'm just tired of you all shitting on each other over camera brands and the pictures anons have decided to take with said cameras and lenses
>>
>>3693255
u dont have many friends and dont ever go to parties do u
>>
how do I take good pictures and stop wasting rolls on awful snapshits?
>>
>>3693260
Get good and it won’t be an issue anon. You’re the one adding camera info.
>>
>>3693301

youre talking to a different fucking person you retard
>>
>>3693324
It’s ok one day you’ll learn to focus your rangefinder
>>
>>3693244
Not the one who posted that shot, but I recently upgraded to a Leica (from a Bessa) and still also just shoot the 35mm f2.5 Voigtländer, because it’s a really good lens. Tiny and light too. I see no reason to upgrade yet, I’ll probably just add a focal length or two next.

>>3693248
This.
>>
>>3693294
Buy a digishitter with two plus dials and put it to bw.
>>
Is there anything I should watch out for when buying off Ebay? I'm finally looking to buy a contax, might wait a bit for the eventual price drop, but how do I discern a fault-y product? Are fakes a thing?
>>
>>3693344
Yeah dude they manufacture a working replica of a 20 year old camera
>>
File: BDSM Food Porn.jpg (92 KB, 700x695)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
Hey guys, I got a Mju II question: On some P&S cameras, you can cheat the exposure up or down on a shot-by-shot basis by changing the ISO dial. Can you do this on the Mju II? I heard something about a hack, but I don't think it allowed for changing the ISO from shot to shot.
>>
>>3693353
No, other than faking the ISO for the entire roll there's no tricks to my knowloegde to be found there. However you can use spot metering, increasingly difficult if you want your subject to be in focus.
>>
>>3693358
oh yeah spot metering. so it focuses and sets exposure for the same point. god dammit. It's an ideal camera other than that. That's the only sticking point for me.
>>
>>3693344
Which contax? S2? Aria?
>>
>>3693363
man arias are so nice
>>
Completely out of inspiration
>>
>>3693353
MJU II you can't but there are lots of P&S that have a 1.5exp backlight compensation setting. Very useful.
>>
File: edit 004.jpg (1.21 MB, 1200x800)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3693244
>2020
>thinking voigtlander lenses are poor quality

lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFuji Natura S
Camera ModelFuji C200
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:09:30 11:41:38
Exposure Time0.4 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating125
Brightness-3.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Id like to shoot a tungsten balanced film but I dont like the halation you get from cinestill. Would it be possible to mask the backplate with something matte to make the halation go away? If I understood correctly, remjet is there to avoid light bounding back from the backplate.
>>
>>3693462
Why not just buy some frozen Ektachrome or Fujichrome tungsten film? It costs the same or less than Cineshit
>>
File: 1.jpg (120 KB, 667x1000)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>3693204
Nice setup. Nothing wrong with the 35/2.5.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEpson
Camera ModelPerfection3200
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1768
Image Height14285
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution1600 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:12:19 18:11:28
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3693420
iktf
What do you usually shoot?
>>
>>3693471
thanks, i've been thinking of upgrading to the 35 f1.4 or try the zeiss 35mm f2 but actually the f2.5 has been great enough and i got it for only $300 canadian
>>
>>3693469
Because I dont want to shoot some 20 year old stock. I could just buy kodak vision but Im going for convenience here.
>>
>>3693485
Seems pretty inconvenient to have to mask off your pressure plate without adding thickness or texture..
I would personally just bulk roll 500T and dev myself. Assuming you have a home dev setup, it would be less than half the cost of Cinestill per roll. Just filter your chems before reusing.
>>
>>3693484
I upgraded from the 35/2.5 to the Biogon 35/2 and sometimes miss how small and light the Skopar was. Save the money and pair the 35mm with a 90mm, or a 21mm.
>>
File: R1-03374-0008.jpg (969 KB, 805x1200)
969 KB
969 KB JPG
>>3693360
handy lil' choocher, that's for sure

[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 Created2020:07:27 00:13:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
Not sure if SQT:

I just bought a bunch of shit for developing my first negatives (ever) It's just B/W so far but I'm wondering about scanning.

I know a lot of people use their DSLRs, I have the Nikon 5300 I think but do you NEED a macro lens? I only have like 16-140 kit lens and 50mm as well as my 50 and 35mm for my SLR. Also, I saw this Kai video (I know) where he used a paper sodacup from McD or whatever and taped it to the DSLR and used a monitor as backlight and it actually looked alright compared to having to buy one of those EXTREMELY expensive "negative rollers" -- Speaking of. I actually found one of those made by some English guy, it was mostly 3D printed but it was pretty cheap and had different kinds of sizing depending on what you shoot etc. anyone know what I might be talking about?

What about "scannerbeds" or whatever they are called? What are some recommendations that aren't insanely expensive and work well? I don't want to buy some new plastic shit that doesn't work well and ruins your negatives as I've read some do.
>>
I just scored a pack of provia 400x (2016/06) for only 40 bucks just as im about to buy a hassy 500c. Im super excited to try both, But unfortunately with this corona mess the 400x will have to stay in the freezer untill more places are open in my country.
>>
>>3693690
great story anon
>>
>>3690208
thoughts on the Olympus OM-2n?
>>
>>3693471
How do you achieve such a big contrast.? Do you retouch it?
>>
File: IMG_0018 - Copy.jpg (4.45 MB, 4530x3588)
4.45 MB
4.45 MB JPG
I took this on a Pentax K1000 in 2007 for my high school photography class. We had a darkroom and got to develop our photos. No idea if they still have it now, probably not. But it was the coolest fucking thing to enlarge and develop my own photos.

I hope you guys get to do that too, don't be afraid to set up your own darkrooms.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanoScan LiDE 110
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2014:04:02 20:20:03
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width6040
Image Height4784
White BalanceAuto
>>
File: mt_st_helens.jpg (83 KB, 548x767)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>3690208
What would cause a heavy grain to appear in photos such as this one?
>>
>>3693787
Size of film
Half frame camera, 110, ect.
>>
>>3693787
>>3693793
Xrays too
>>
>>3693690
don't shoot it all at once. cherish each frame
>>
>>3693091
>>3693100

Since no one wanted to reply in that thread could you?
>>
File: 28-07-18-foma#19.jpg (85 KB, 667x1000)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>3693735
I shot it at night and pushed the film (Tri-X in that case) to 1600. Night shots usually have stronger contrast and pushing additionally increases contrast. Here's some Foma 400 at 640.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3333
Image Height2267
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:07:29 03:41:46
Image Width3333
Image Height2267
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
>>3693481
Usually street urban landscapes and portraits
This lockdown is killing me because there's only so many times I can take a self portrait or my local area
Really stuck for ideas
>>
Why are film photography youtubers all the same now? It's getting so boring.

>Lo-fi hip hop
>Presents photos with a shutter sound
>Side of pastel buildings desaturated
>Tail end of a car peeking out of a driveway
>Too laid back, trying too hard to be chill

We need people like Mike Janik to come back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqkMC7SkRkM
>>
>>3693877
I only watch Steve O'nions (cos of funny name, LF, and S-tier B-roll), SFLAB (explicit britsploitation innit), and David Hancock (best gearfag, ThinkPad user, almost certainly our/g/uy). Everything else is either obscure, or performance for desktographers.
>>
>>3693877
Don't forget pushing their faggot zines
>>
>>3693877
Old Cameras is really comfy. He doesn't adapt to the annoying pro youtuber style, but also isn't as active since it's just his hobby
>>
My shutter curtain appears to be fucked at 1/125. Kill me.

>>3693878
It's bad when that's almost everything that isn't a 3 hour workshop on bromoil transfer.
>>
>>3693690
Nice stuff. Try to use some for long exp stair trails if you live close to some good dark skies.

>>3693877
Hasn't it always been that way? Seriously lol @ watching random nobodies on YouTubes talk about photography I don't get it.
>>
>>3693853
Super nice shot, thanks for the tip
>>
>>3693851
Halation
>>
>>3693528
>do you NEED a macro lens?
Kind of yes. You can use a dslr to scan without a macro lens but you will be limited by how close you can focus and therefore have the negative only fill a small portion of the frame and not be using your full sensor. So the resolution of your scan would be affected severely.

As for a film holder, I recommend the lomography Digitaliza ones. They work really well. I use them and an ipad as a light table, and use a piece of cardboard to lift the holder off the ipad a bit more to avoid any pixels showing.

You'll also need a tripod if you haven't already got one. Put your camera on that, line up the negative to be parallel to the sensor, set the self timer to 10 seconds, and expose to the right. BW is easy to scan and invert; colour you will need to be careful to not clip any colour channels and you will probably want to use Negative Lab Pro or a similar program to invert your negatives.
>>
>>3693887
Cant blame them desu they sell shitloads
>>
>>3693856
Im in the suburbs and basically usually confined to my house with no studio or anything.
I like nature but taking pictures of already beautiful things is demotivating because I have no say but when to click the button.

Maybe since youre so used to being out and about you can play around indoors. Get a little weird or do some still life shots, be a little surrealist?
>>
>>3693853
This is a great shot. How did you even take this? I cant even take a shot in my room with 800 speed. Id need to open up the lens to 2f and id still need a tripod or something. This is complete darkness other than the one light source lol
>>
>>3693931
How do you shoot star trails on film?
>>
>>3694065
The same way you do on a digital camera? B or T mode.
>>
>>3693787
in that case, it looks like heavy dodging of shadow areas of negative in a darkroom print
>>
File: 49950976147_f1b5b6c76b_5k.jpg (1.39 MB, 1600x1600)
1.39 MB
1.39 MB JPG
Not my photo. Wondering what it is about it that instantly tells me its taken on film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: 28-07-18-foma#18.jpg (149 KB, 1000x667)
149 KB
149 KB JPG
>>3693934
Thanks. Just try pushing to 1600 for the beginning.

>>3694063
Also thanks. I shot this at f/2 and 1/30s with a 35mm. Here's another one from that roll.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3333
Image Height2267
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:07:29 03:48:12
Image Width3333
Image Height2267
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height667
>>
>>3694104
Do you expose for the light sources or the shadows?
>>
>>3694133
It’s film bro just average and you’re good
>>
>>3694133
In the first one I exposed for the highlights and kept the settings for the second one.
>>
>>3694002

Oh wow, that's a lot of extra steps.

Do you not think that "soda cup" + PC monitor thing could work? or?
>>
>>3694160
Also me. Forgot to ask.

I just developed my very first B/W film it seemed to go great, well except for the fact that i poured out my fixer.

1 thing I'm unsure about though is that this app I used "mass dev chart" had a "final wash" and a friend of mine mentioned that too but the little guide booklet AND the photographer I followed (real sir robin) had the wetting agent as the last step with 0 "final wash"

Is the final wash thing a slightly unnecessary thing?
>>
>>3694102
the fact its a piss poor scan that's obviously struggling save shadow detail. plus the light leaks on the right side. plus the pubes.
>>
>>3694160
I'm not sure how your soda cup setup would work. For b/w it should be okay in theory though as long as you can get your film flat and aligned with your camera nicely. You'd still need a tripod though to get a proper exposure without having to crank ISO. For colour film I would be wary of that sort of setup as generally you want good CRI in your light source as it will affect the scan colours.

>>3694164
The way I develop my film (think I got it from Eduardo Pavez Goye's video) is after pouring out the fixer I do 5 water rinses at the end with 20 inversions each time.

Then I fill with water and do a couple drops of photoflo and let sit 30 seconds before dumping it all and hanging my film.
>>
>>3694147
>>3694156
Thanks for the info! I got some hp5+ so ill mess around with it
>>
>>3694243
>I'm not sure how your soda cup setup would work
https://youtu.be/AgOTk4ApEYs?t=178

I know it's digitalrev and they are kind of a meme but the results are at the end of the video but I honestly can't tell if he's meming on idiots like me at the end with the scoreboard or if he legitimately thinks DSLR scanning is the best.
It is indeed just B/W I'm scanning right now, so that's a good start I suppose.

>pouring out the fixer I do 5 water rinses at the end with 20 inversions each time.

Right I saw something similar as well but for example this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT9Hspa2iJk

Doesn't have any "final" wash at all. So it is a 100% necessary step?
>>
>>3694275
Why not try it with the soda cup setup and see the results you get yourself, then if it is disappointing you can buy stuff for a better setup.
>>
>>3694282

Yeah I need a macro lens as well, haha.

1 more question. I heard a video mentioning that you need bottles that don't let light through. Is that true? Does mixed rodinal or fixer get affected by light?
>>
>>3693877
because everything on youtube is garbage
>>
>>3693851
film is just different. There's really no reason to expect that a completely different technology would produce the same results. A digital sensor has absolutely nothing in common with a piece of film.
>>
>>3693438
yeah but one with a lens that good? And that's affordable?
>>
>>3694292
I love the Stylus Epic and agree the lens is good...but it's nothing special.

A lot of the early 2000s zoom p&s have comparable lenses and many have exp compensation. Look into the Canon Sureshot 90/115u. Another contender is the Konica Lexio 70. I can post comparison scans using the same film between my Stylus Epic vs Konica Lexio 70 if you're interested.
>>
>>3694288
Use Rodinal as a one-shot developer. Store your chemicals in a dark place.
>>
>>3694346
Fucking Rodinal fags. It's all about Pyrocat HD
>>
>>3694102
Had to double check because it just looked like digital noise, but thats just the awful scanner...

Anyways what gives it away:
- Blacks that are "almost" black
- Shit tonne of hair/pubes all over
- Gray-ish whites

Looks to be medium format or something.

I don't think its that great of a picture though
>>
What are the best electronic/digitally controled film SLRs?
>>
File: A7R02802FM3aHP5.jpg (799 KB, 1366x2048)
799 KB
799 KB JPG
>>3692126
The quote the based god:
>This is Nikon's sharpest manual-focus wide angle lens.
>No other Nikon 28mm lens performs this well
>Optically this is an almost perfect lens, and one of the most perfect lenses you can get to fit a Nikon camera.
>Like all Nikkor manual focus AI-s lenses, the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AI-s is built to the highest mechanical standards of any lens ever made.
>The 28mm f/2.8 AI-s is diffraction limited by f/5.6. That's lens designer speak for "really, really good!"
>I've never seen a sharper lens on my Nikon.
>If you want great sharpness and perfectly straight straight lines, go get one of these lenses new or second hand. You'll love it.

But sure, quibble over the $150 difference if you want, you absolute fucking plebeian.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM2
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)100 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/10.0
Brightness-19/640 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceFlash
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1366
Image Height2048
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3694353
Do I have to mix this stuff myself? I rather stick with HC-110 and D-76.
>>
File: DSC04474F100RVP100.jpg (536 KB, 1080x1570)
536 KB
536 KB JPG
>>3694425
The F100 is the best.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:03:10 15:09:04
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-8.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1080
Image Height1570
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
>>3694468
seconding F100 even tho his shot is trash
>>
>>3693787
Yep this: >>3694086
>>
>>3694425
F6 is the best but really expensive. F100 is similar but not quite as advanced. Canon EOS 1v and and F5 are also really good and complete tanks if that matters to you. Best bang for buck is probably N/F80. Basically a slightly nerfed and more plasticy F100, but you can get one for like $20 from ebay. At least as far as Nikons go these will all work with modern lenses except AF-P. VR works too
>>
>>3694468
beautiful shot anon
>>
my minox 35 gt sort of died. the light meter works but the shutter speed indicator doesn't which makes it nearly useless for the type of use i want.
i haven't done a lot of research on film cameras so can you guys recommend me a camera with similar features?
that would be: fits in pocket, has manual apperture and shoots with apperture priority.
>>
someone offered to trade a mamiya 7 (body only) for my fuji x100f
I'm considering doing it because I never use the fuji and would probably sell the mamiya to fund a digital work horse set up for non film gigs
am I missing something or is this deal heavily in my favour?
>>
>>3694964
Enjoy your broken mamiya 7 body
>>
>>3694969
it's fully functional, he just doesn't shoot MF anymore and wants an easy digi point and shoot
>>
File: xa minox.jpg (78 KB, 1024x683)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>3694650
The original Olympus XA is pretty similar and is a rangefinder instead of a zone focus camera like the Minox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographerunknown
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: DSC04479F100RVP100.jpg (853 KB, 1549x1080)
853 KB
853 KB JPG
>>3694574
thx bae

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:03:10 15:22:17
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-8.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1549
Image Height1080
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
>>3693787
that looks like a copy of a print
>>
File: Kodak Tmax P3200-0085.jpg (551 KB, 1000x684)
551 KB
551 KB JPG
>>3694650
>>3694973
Can vouch for the XA it's been my beater camera for like 3 years now absolutely love it.
If you know what you're doing it's 100% worth it to give the viewfinder and rangefinder mirror a clean with a cotton swab and isopropyl alcohol. It'll drastically improve the brightness of the viewfinder and rangefinder patch.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:10:30 00:31:32
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: Vietnam 05.jpg (1.89 MB, 1200x1200)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
>>3694650
Just buy another minox

>>3694973
I'm not even a pixel peeper, but every XA I owned had terrible lenses. Easily the softest P&S I've used.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5847
Image Height5847
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2020:01:04 10:49:08
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height1200
>>
>>3694650
There’s nothing like a Minox anon. Other cameras can be relatively small, pocketable, etc. but Minox is on a different league. I mean you shot it and you know, it can fit in a shirt pocket without looking like a dork.
Best thing to do, get another Minox. Or a Balda clone (same manufacturer).
If you shit gold, there’s also the Contax T (no number). It’s the closest to the Minox in ergonomics and size, plus it has a rangefinder for focusing.
>>
>>3695144
>but every XA I owned had terrible lenses. Easily the softest P&S I've used.
That's the one and only downside to the XA (and that the meter only goes up to ISO 800 and not 1600 like on the XA3/XA4).
If you're mainly a black and white shooter you won't notice it, >>3695073 is nice and sharp. With colour wide open like pic related it's pretty terrible, the softness and chromabs are very noticeable.
The ergos, compactness, and overall shooting experience with the XA makes it worth getting imo.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:05:04 17:56:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3695162
Sometimes the softness and chromabs aren't noticeable at all wide open like pic related, maybe it's just sharper at close focus??? Idk

>>3695157
>Contax T
Wouldn't mind trying one of these but after spending $450 on a TVSii and it breaking on me after 4 rolls I've been turned off from Contax P&Ss.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:05:01 01:23:05
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3695166
There’s the camera repair shop I go to in midtown and I’ve only been there twice, and both times the guy was explaining to a customer with a contax how his camera couldn’t be fixed but could be sold for parts.
>>
File: IMG_0688.jpg (1.91 MB, 4032x3024)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>3695192
Yeah once the flex cable in the lens breaks it's non-repairable.
Back in the day when you could still send these cameras back to Contax for repair they'd just replace the whole lens assembly. Since they're no more spare lens assembly available the only way to fix them is with a donor body.
My Fuji DLSuper Mini Zoom (Tiara Zoom) died because of the same issue as well and I've had multiple Konica A4s and Big Minis that have died because of the flex cable to the film back where all the buttons are have broke.

FUCK any camera that heavily relies on electronics that was made before the year 2000.
>>
>tfw when the instax mini is the most popular medium format camera and the only "film" medium format still in production
I dont get it, thr f6 is still popular so why noone make medium format film with modern function?
>>
File: DSC02135.jpg (1.92 MB, 1818x1210)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB JPG
minox guy here. thank you all for your replies.
i visited a local, old school camera shop and decided to fix my camera (at some point). the guy barely looked at it and knew what the problem is. he explained it to me but i didn't understand.
I was quoted 50€ for it as it is a simple repair. i was also offered a "deal" of trading it + 20€ for another minox with a flash and a case.
my camera is in mint condition (even if pic related doesn't do it justice). it has shot 2-3 films when my parents first got it as a gift and another 4 films since i got it in october (it still had the original battery in it, dead but not leaking). i will not be accepting his "deal".

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-5000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:28 17:50:11
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias-2.3 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length20.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3695278
i forgot to clarify. i'll be fixing it as the cost of fixing it is lower than buying something equivalent or even the same camera (when considering shipping and other costs).
the xa looks good and was even recommended by the camera shop too, so i'll look into buying one at a later date to preserve the minox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 10.0.19628.1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2020:05:16 07:29:08
>>
>>3695264
because casuals don’t shoot medium format
>>
>>3695264
What's the point? There is tons of good medium formats out there on the market. What do you need it to be new for? I also highly doubt the F6 is actually popular, they just have it around but they are never doing an F7 for example.
Say you were to do a new 120 film camera in 2020, what mount do you pick? Where do you get shutters from? Where do you an AF system from if you want to do a modern one?
The less modern the more viable it is to make at this point. It's infinitely easier to make 4x5 cameras than a fancy medium format one. A medium format field camera is most viable but nobody wants those anyway.
>>
>>3695362
Lmao please show me how more people casually shoot MF than 35mm I’ll wait
>>
>>3695373
You sound lost anon
>>
>>3695264
>tfw when the instax mini is the most popular medium format camera and the only "film" medium format still in production
What is Instax Square? What is Instax Wide? What is Polaroid i-Type? What is Linhof Technorama? What is Hasselblad H system film back? What is Horseman SW series? What is Diana? What is Holga?

>I dont get it, thr f6 is still popular
It's really not approx. 270 have been sold a year since 2015, really only extreme film enthusiasts are buying them, more Lomography cameras are sold than Nikon F6s are.
There's no statistics but I reckon more Leica M-As and MPs have been sold (since 2015) than the Nikon F6.

>>3695365
Holgas, Diana, anything Lomography, Instant Film, literally any faggot who posts in this general who shoots with MF.
Anyway your argument is moot and you're a goalpost moving faggot.
>>
>>3691130
Lost my MX Super with a 35mm smc in the reservoir after I tipped my kayak, I miss it even though the shutter speed buttons did sort of annoy me a bit. It was cute and I loved how tiny it was in the hand
>>
>>3691536
Me too

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width446
Image Height626
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3691487
What about old film scanners by canon, minolta or nikon?
>>
>>3695406
Just get a Plustek
>>
>>3695298
Im casual id like to
>>3695361
Scarcity and inevitable destruction of older models means it is unviable to base supply around existing models, just as you wouldn't any other good
>>3695392
Clearly polaroid is implied by instax.
>>
>>3695392
You sound upset anon
>>
>>3695436
you don't bring anything to the conversation
>>
>>3695278
>>3695296
I like your mentality anon that guy was just trying to get more money out of you, he probably would have sold your Minox for a profit.
You won't regret picking up an XA as a companion camera to your Minox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:10:30 00:00:56
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
who is this anon dickbag who has been routinely ruining every /fgt/ with shitty comments? theyre p fuckin' annoying and have ruined the only thread even checking in on this board.
>>
>>3690736
ignore them, your photos are cool
>>
>>3695459
anon anon
anon
>>
>>3695459
>nophoto

Wouldn’t wanna ruin your amazing contributions
>>
>>3695459
gb2reddit cubcake
>>
How do you develop and scan your negatives?
>>
>>3695479
Yeah most trip photo threads are a fucking cancer nowadays, just mindless trolling (besides Alex threads those are always comfy and chill).
No one really comments on photo threads anymore and it's fucking sad, that recent Aerochrome thread >>3689291 is one of my favourite threads currently up, with very minimal trolling.
>>
>>3695478
For black and white I develop myself, a simple setup isn't that expensive. Honestly, I sometimes enjoy the development more than the shooting.

For colour, I'm lucky to have pharmacy near by that still does film in house, just check that they do it actually there, some will say they do film but will just send it off and it'll take ages. You can develop colour at home, but it's a little more finicky, you really need to control temps.

For scanning I've just use an Epson 550 flatbed. It does OK but it'snkt anywhere near as good as a professional scanner
>>
Bread gay? It sure sure, time for a thread bread bump
>>3695512
>>3695512
>>3695512
>>3695512
>>3695512
>>
>>3695479
>NatureGuy
>good

lmao
>>
>>3695406
I don't know about Minolta or Canon but the one Nikon dedicated film scanner I know of costs several thousand dollars.
>>
>>3693748
wow. i love this. it looks so intimate



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.