New board: /vrpg/ - Video Games/RPG
the last slr editionold thread: >>3690208All 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-photographyhttps://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.phphttp://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, unless you don't post photos, we want to see that beautiful grainy goodness![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGB
>itt we cry about being bullied on a photography forum even though we haven’t shot a single frame in 2020
why don't my film snapshots look as good as Fujifilms film simulations?I paid $600 for this t4, what gives?
>>3695537because you aren’t talented
Gonna try one more time until my hope dies: 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?
>>3695542my publisher disagrees
>>3695537How are you scanning and inverting your negatives?
>>3695552>nophoto film frog is so heated he responds to the wrong post
>>3695547Show us your published work then. What’s that? You can’t?
>>3695556>no photo no publisher anon is so nophoto’d that he nophotos
Where 2 buy cheap film?
>>3695578Just search online until you find the cheapest place.Most irl stores have film prices jacked up.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1334Image Height902Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3695546The film advance motor might be fucked, getting another one will be cheaper than fixing it.
>mfw I want a Leica Sofort because it’s not a shitty gay looking Instax>mfw its still a shitty gay Instax on the inside
>>3695526>>3695552>>3695559>>3695560>>3695564annoying samefag who appears in every one of these threads
>>3695618it definitely advances the film after i put in the film, i checked it
>>3695631So close[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1242Image Height2208
Im a beginner and need some advice about film types. I’ll be going to Dubrovnik and some other places in Croatia (so lots of sea) so Im wondering which film is the best for scenery and architecture? I have some ektachrome but im not too confident about shooting it yet.tldr need advice for shooting scenery, thanks if someone can help
>>3695676Just use whatever colour negative stock, stop thinking so much[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:10:29 23:57:43Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height680Scene Capture TypeStandard
Where can I find some good film inspo? Any good instas or youtube channels?
>>3695676Take your pick of any ISO 100-400 color negative film. Ektar 100, Kodak Gold, Ultramax 400, Fuji C200, Superia 400, Portra 400, etc.You cannot go wrong with today's filmstocks.
>>3695710go read a book
>>3695676I think Portra would suit the pastel color palatte of Croatia with its turquoise sea and beige buildings. Very forgiving film too.
>>3695710Browse through the Magnum Photos archive
Does CA itself decrease sharpness, even if you remove it in post?
What the fuck, why is 35mm so expensive now? It used to cost around $20 for a pack of 10 but now they're lik 30 for 5. Bullshit eBay and Amazon.
>>3695837>It used to cost around $20 for a pack of 10Just getting out of the 20 year cryo chamber now anon?
>>3695710why do you need film inspo? whether a photo was shot on film or digital has no effect on the photo's merit.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width6000Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2019:11:05 17:44:07Exposure Time1/20 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating100Brightness-2.2 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceOtherFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>Thought with a resurgence in film photography, and kodak showing a desire to expand offerings it would be smart to buy some stock >Today happened Made 90 bucks, gonna put it towards either a 35 or 50mm lens for my F3
>>36958372 years ago I could get fuji 35mm bricks for $3 a roll, now it's $7 and harder to get
>>3695631not as annoying as your constant whining and lack of shooting. isn't there like a rangefinder specific forum you can go fawn over gear on?
>>3696102Lol, so you own what...10 shares?
>>3696118i probably post the most new photos in every /fgt/
>>3696102make sure you buy from a US seller so it goes back in the market>USA, USA, USA
>>3696132>nophoto post sure ked
copped 9 rolls of ultramax for AU$60best cheap film going imo
>>3695714There are all be good. Portra is for new persons not. Gold is cheap and beautiful.
>>3696207Superia 400 is superior imo[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:07:29 15:26:13Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3696221I always found it a little blue for my liking, especially as I like to photograph people tooalthough to be fair I find kodak gold too yellow yet it's a quick PP fix>pic related, kodak gold[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.Camera ModelSP-3000Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:06:16 20:01:04Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3695799+1 for portra
>>3695837I pay $20 per roll and an extra $24 to develop and scan it. You are lucky.
>>3696221Wish my Superia looked like this. My little point and shoots always overexpose it and it looks like ass.
>>3696235>$24 to develop and scan it.What kind of lab charges that amount?
>>3696239An Australian one. ($24 is about $17usd). It's $30 for b/w.
>>3696239probably australian, it's pretty expensive to dev/scan here, luckily mine's all free I just pay for film sometimes but usually get free film too
>>3696243Lmao youre getting ripped. If youre in melbourne youve got filmneverdie and that other place near the station after flinders that has the dfo shops. If youre in WA leederville cameras is $19 scanned and developed and printed and only 5 for developing. Fitzgerald and churchill imaging exist too but ive never used them.
>>3696235>I pay $20 per roll and an extra $24 to develop and scan it.Buy your shit from decisive moment and send your shit to rewind photo lab you fucking idiot stop cucking yourself.
>>3696252fitzgerald's is trashfilmneverdie is maybe opening a store in perth soon too, don't ask how I know thatracquet studios in QLD is where I get mine done and they're pretty great
>>3696255Ty for the advice on Fitzgerald's, ive heard their customer support is shit but im guessing their developing is sub par too?Looks like fnd is the one i was talking about near southern cross. I remember some other one thats hidden and has merch advertising that you found them.
>>3696255>racquet studiosFuck please stop sending your shit there they're literal scam artists.My friend bought a Nikon FM something from them in "working: order" it took a month to arrive at their house even tho the live 10 minutes from the CBD, and the shit wasn't working the shutter didn't fire at all.They also sell $3 Alibaba "vintage" camera straps for $50, not to mention every camera they have listed is absurdly overpriced, what a bunch of fucking cunts.Please support a lab in Brisbane like Fotofast who have been a film lab since forever. Racquet are a bunch of faggots profiting of the hype of the film train.
>>3696243>It's $30 for b/w.At that price im expecting my film to get drum scanned and get another free roll.
>>3696260FND is solid but (for now) only in melb, though they do post ins>>3696261I've been using them for almost a year and everything I've ever got back has been great (though I haven't bought a camera from them, I wouldn't buy a camera from any store, gumtree/ebay all day unless you enjoy being ripped off)their dev/scans have all been great, not the fastest though I agree
>>3696261Fotofast is the one who charges $24 for C41 and $30 for b/w with a high res scan. Had a few bad rolls but could have been the film, no idea.
>>3696265Also do any Aussies have a mail in option that does E6? Foto Fast outsources it and it takes 2-3 weeks.
As an indonesian, i suddenly feel privileged after checking film prices in australia.
>>3696266racquet doestell em "B from Lekker" sent you and they'll sort you out, they're pretty backed up anyway so 2-3 weeks might be your wait regardless
>>3696269Just emailed them, they don't have the chemicals they said currently and are outsourcing e6 developing and scanning in house. Wonder where these labs are all outsourcing to.
>>3695837Its the corona tax, once supply and demand stabilizes hopefully the prices will go down.
>>3696263Give Fotofast a try I personally haven't used them since I do everything at home but all my film friends use them and they love the results they get.Besides they aren't doing scummy business practices.>>3696265>$24 for C41$24 for high res scans in under 1 hour or $24 for pro res scans in 2 days, both options are bad unless you need your photos ASAP.For a 4 day turn out its $15 for high res and $21 for pro res.> $30 for b/w with a high res scanNope its $24 for high res $30 for pro resAll 2 day turn outs are cheaper at Fotofast compared to Racquet and 4 day turn out are even cheaper than that.>>3696272>Wonder where these labs are all outsourcing to.Rewind Phot oLab
>>3696223I like the cooler tones of Fujifilm, I find their film stocks to give a more authentic look.>>3696237Yeah you gotta shoot the stuff at box speed t'll give you nicer richer colours, overexposing film is 100% a meme box speed will always give you the best results[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:11:04 18:46:16Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3696277>rewindlooks a bit dear for e6 and a scan[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerXImage-Specific Properties:
>>3696284Pretty much all labs that don't do in house E6 send it to Rewind, but hey that's what you have to pay when you send your shit to a lab. It's around $4.70 for E6, $4.15 for C41 and less than 20c for B&W if you do it yourself.
just finished my first roll with olympus trip 35 and c200. pretty pleased with muted look
>>3696344thanks, pretty amazed by sharpness of the trip 35's 40/2.8 lens.
>>3696267What are indonesian film prices?
>>3696190>don't post photohurrnophotopost>post photocomment ignored / heyshitpicturefag/fgt/ in a nutshell over the past few months>>3696243>>3696252>>3696260>>3696261these prices are ridiculous. why don't you guys just scan and dev yourself? are chems not at all affordable? like holy fuck even at $100 a basic 1L c41 kit will pay itself off in 5 rolls.
>>3696386Same for 120 film, slightly cheaper on 35mm, bulk loaded film never cost more than 70k and we also have cira film which is basically cinestill half the price. Film dev and scan cost around 45-90k depending on the film and the lab.
>>3696397Thats not that amazing, what's youre local film scene like? Australia's seems to be doing ok but its fairly solitary if that makes sense.In fact it lines up with average hourly rate in Indonesia, just as Australia's lines up with our minimum wage.
>>3696403I should've said film development prices, but everything else seems expensive from here.
>>3695616>tfw snatched a 10 pack of Ektar 100 for 90CHFfeels goodI'll post some pics as soon as I get them back from the lab in a few days
Will the Mju II zoom prices go up in future? I have the Zoom 170
>>3696392So the issue is that your photos are ass. Maybe /fgt/ isn’t the problem?
>>3695837Every cheap drugstore around me has been out of colour film for several weeks. I really hope those 3x Gold 200 for 8 euro come back soon. Don't want to go to a photography store and pay like 12 euro for something not much better. Thankfully there's still plenty of APX 100 and APX 400 about, although black and white's getting a bit boring.
What is the best box camera? Not necessarily most features or best lens. But which do you consider to be the best?
>>3696606Are you pretty much limited to shooting ISO 50 film? I have an Agfa box which as far as I have figured out have f/11 and f/16 and 1/50 s or bulb. Velvia would fit the bill, but I've heard these lenses leave better results in b&w .
>>3696594Kodak Brownie No 2. Takes 120, has a single meniscus lens which gives soft vintage look. Suggest getting a later model made of metal instead of cardboard, because cardboard does not take 90+ years in attic well - neither do mirrors in finders, deal with it. Millions were made so finding a really really cheap one in passable condition should not be difficult.
>>3696617If I had to describe what color film looks like through a brownie lens, it would be thick and milky. No bueno.
>>3696623>I'll find some scans I like enough to put out here and get back to you. I can find a disgusting unedited scan of some color if you want to see for science too.I'm a different anon but I want to see too
What program do you all resize with? I usually stick it in Paint and change the pixel size. Is that ok or is there a better way?
>>3696683Thanks a bunch
>>3696480>Mju II zoom priceslol no. nobody cares about the zooms
Anybody used a waist level finder for f3? How is it? Is 35mm too smol?
>>3696817Why would you?
>>3696830Easier to compose
>>3696833How would you know?
>>3696948Then why would he be asking how it is lmao
I’m preparing to start developing black and white film at home. I’ve got several rolls of fp4 and hp5 in 35mm. I will develop it in ID11/D76. Question is what is the real world difference between stock, 1+1 and 1+3 dilutions? Will 1+3 give me more workable “flat” neg? Or should I better go for 1+1 for the time convenience?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone SECamera Software10.3.2Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2017:07:17 17:05:46Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/2.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating25Lens Aperturef/2.2Brightness5.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.15 mmImage Width2221Image Height1857Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>36973211+3 will give more grain compared to stock. A bit bigger and a bit sharper defined grain. That’s the main difference.If you want somewhat flatter negatives, cut back the developing time by 10% at any dilution. You can overexpose next time by one stop and cut back development by 15-20%. Alternatively, at larger dilutions, like 1+3, you can get a bit of compensating effects (shadows slightly brighter, highlights slightly more preserved), if you do reduced agitation. The effect comes not from the dilution per se, but the high dilution gives ling dev times which in turn give you the opportunity to do reduced agitation.You could try agitating (say turning upside down the tank slowly two times) at the 1min mark, then 2min mark, and then every 3minutes.Honestly though, start with 1+1 and normal dev times. Next film overexpose one stop and cut dev time by 15%, again at 1+1. And then start messing with dilutions and reduced agitation etc.
>>3697374Thank you kind anon
Opinions about Canon P? What should I expect price wise?
>>3697448It's the canon /p/ for a reason. However! Due to its popularity for being a good cheap camera it is no longer cheap. Just like the k1000 and the ae1. Hot tips. Find a canon 7 with a broken meter. Functionally the same but may be cheaper than a p.Opinions on them? I've had a p, a 7, and a bessa r. P was first and I loved it. Very simple and satisfying. Great selection of affordable lenses. I loved the Jupiter 8 and now I guess I'm a sonnar fan. Learning to sunny 16 or meter with your phone, and then really consider what you're metering and what that means, WILL make you a better photographer.
Admit it, you have been hoarding film because of corona, haven't you? On Fotoimpex stocks of daily snapshit films like ColorPlus200, Gold200, Ultramax400, C200 and X-tra 400 have been sold out month ago. Some other places have also nothing to sell until late August.
>>3696594The best best box camera is the Zeiss/Goerz Box-Tengor from what i've heard.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width969Image Height1024
>>3697564Good thing I live in America
>>3697564I am using up my stockpile more than I've planned, but maybe that's for the best anyways.
>>3697564I got 2 bricks of Colorplus on ebay for best offer and it was a lot cheaper than at Impex. Same for BW films.
>>3697564I have so much 120 left but my stock of 35mm is running low. Having trouble finding Tri-X
>>3697594I too bought some film from eBay, 3 weeks ago. Didn't knew then Australian post have "some problems" with international mail. Maybe I'll get my films some day.
>>3696274I think that many companies would face class action suits for freezing production lines on purpose
>>3697522thanks for the comment, seems like its somewhat rare too sadly I got fallen with love every bit of that camera.
Why are mf lenses so slow?
>>3697806CLA your lens or git gud?
Which is better for a complete noob trying to get into medium format, TLR or rangefinder?
>>3697806Because physics, if all MF systems had f/2 or faster lenses they'd be significantly bigger since they'd need a larger lens mount throat diameter (How big the lens mount is).The Mamiya RZ/RB67 has a throat diameter of 60mm and the fastest lens for it is f/2.8, while the much smaller Mamiya 7 has a throat diameter of 49mm with the fastest lens being f/4.>>3697973Stick with 35mm medium format isn't very practical for a "complete noob", but if you really had to get one a rangefinder is a way better option waist level viewfinders are a pain to get use to
>>3697999To be honest, F4 on a 6x7 rangefinder is hard enough to focus already. I had the 110 F2.8 on my RZ67 and it was also a bitch to focus. At least that camera had a very nice bright screen.
Get a bronica sq-a, Pentax 67, or mamiya 654. Those guys have prism attachments. You might be able to get better focusing screens too.
>>3698081Also this the DoF wide open is already thin enough, couldn't even image the difficulty of focusing a /f2 or faster lens on 6x7 would be.Pic related was shot at f/8 on 6x9 for example (yes ik I've posted this photos heaps, I don't have any other MF scans that show DoF)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 120Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:06:18 21:01:07Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3697973SLR with prism finder.What's your budget? Interchangeable lens RFs are easily 2-3 times the price of an SLR, also the lenses are pricier, no point even considering them if they're out of your budget.
PENTAX 67 SOON FRENS!!!
>>3697999>waist level viewfinders are a pain to get use toDepends on the person. Some people hate them, but I love using a TLR and the whole experience of looking down into it. I'm a bit slower than using an SLR and need to be careful about verticals but it's not difficult or unpleasant at all. Plus people tend to react better in public to a TLR.
>>3697973medium format rangefinders are only useful for photos of things that don’t move
>>3698139This. Also get rangefinder or tlr out of your brain.Just pick up a Mamiya RB67/RZ67/645 Bronica Etrs/Etrsi or Pentax 67 with a nice lens and enjoy uncucked gimmick free medium format
>>3698142He’s probably on a budget which to be fair the Fuji’s get you into 67 for the lowest cost. It’s just that the concept of a smaller portable MF camera that gives up focusing accuracy given 2020 film prices just doesn’t really make sense.
>>3698186>on a budget >Fuji’s get you into 67 for the lowest cost.Cheapest 6x7 system by a fucking mile is the Koni-Omega, those Fuji rangefinders go for over 1k now... besides OP never mentioned what format they're after. SLRs are the most noob friendly way to get into MF
>>3698190I had a Koni-Omega and honestly couldn't get on with the ergos of it.I dislike how the price of the Fujis have gone up. Disgusting and we have the film Youtubers to thank for likening it to the Mamiya 7.I love my Bronny so its just what I have stuck with. I would probably be just as happy with a Mamiya though
>>3698190Standard price for the 690s:https://www.ebay.com/itm/184376267602
>>3698194Was really considering getting a Koni Omega or Fuji 670 as my first MF camera but went with a Fuji 690 bc I got one for like $300 aus bucks.6x9 honestly is such a shit format and the Fuji rangefinders fucking suck, no lightmeter, 8 shots, too big to be a walk around camera, not enough options to be a do it all camera, only redeeming quality is the lens which is sharp as fuck.The GS645 on the other hand looks super neat, built in light meter, super small and compact, good for just walking around with.Am currently using a Bronica GS-1 and love it.>>3698196Mate at least search for the right camera I was referring to the 670s, not the 690s.https://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Near-Mint-FUJI-GW670-II-6x7-Medium-Format-Film-Camera-From-JAPAN/373112824150?hash=item56df41e156:g:4YQAAOSwIGlen6OZ[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 120Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:06:18 21:15:05Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3698211and? He asked about medium format rangefinders, mate.
>>3698238Even though they are significantly cheaper than the 670 variant the GW690s are still overpriced as fuck for what you get.If they're keen on a rangefinder a 6x6 or 6x4.5 bellow rangefinder (in working order) is a much better option as a first MF camera.Cheaper, smaller, lighter, more frames and an aspect ratio different to 35mm.
>>3698251I mean I think, unless you really know what you’re doing, all the Fuji rangefinders are trash. I’m just saying they aren’t all a grand either.
What would it take for a major camera brand to start making film cameras? Ebay prices continue to go up for film cameras across the board. It seems like especially with MF SLRs there aren't any models that fly under the radar anymore. How high do prices have to get before companies consider it worthwhile?
>>3698339Nikon is still selling F6's I believe. They only very recently announced a callback.
>>3698343They aren't producing new ones to my knowledge.
>>3698339Look at what they were sold new for to get an indication. It's a big number.
>>3698339I wonder about this sometimes too but like, look at the target demo. Hipsters? Weirdos like us? Wannabe fine artists? Fiduciary duty prolly thinks otherwise.
>>3698348Yeah I guess that's the problem. You couldn't produce an FM2/FE2/FM3a at a price they're selling for used now.
>>3698348Also like, people didn't buy a new SLR every 3 years which digicucks 1000% do now.
>>3698357only if you go for a specific niche, see Leica M-A and M-P.
Was Brownie anon one of the banned? Can't see his posts anymore and we were promised scans
what is this green thing on ASA ring and how can i clean it? would cinegar work? ASA ring is semi-stuck (turns but hardly)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height958
>>3698357Yeah Nikon has the FM10 for $570. There's so many 35mm SLRs out there that they will probably be the last to get any serious redevelopment. I think it would probably start with something much more premium and specialized. Pentax sells their 645z for about 5k. How hard would it to put a film back on it? I think you can use certain film backs on a Phase One already. I believe a few companies make new large format systems as well
>>3698377>I believe a few companies make new large format systems as wellI don't think Linhof ever stopped producing LF cameras.
>>3698376What camera?My guess is the usual mix of dried up grease & brass corrosion.
>>3698386 Olympus Trip 35.Theres similar green spots on hot shoe too, any idea how could I clean it?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height958
>>3698377The Mamiya based Phase bodies can take digital backs as well as film backs I think. Not sure if you can get a film back to mount on a 645III though. A lot of the hasselblad H system can mount film backs too.These 2000s medium format cameras which can take both in general aren't that great though, they are proper studio cameras. If you want a studio camera they would be a good match. Some of the Mamiya/Phase old 645 stuff is very affordable.
>>3698391Try isopropyl alcohol
>>3698458I think the switch from film to non film occurred at the 645 AFDiii to 645 DF but I kinda forget. I should probably look into compatibility as I may try to swoop a P65+ back next year...
>>3695512I'm going to shoot a friend's album release party soon. At the moment colour film supplies have completely dried up where I live since a month, and I have to order online, which presents me with a choice: I'm probably going to be shooting in a pretty dark environment; which 400 ISO film will best tolerate being shot as 800 ISO or lower? I can't find anything 800 or above at prices I'm willing to pay. I'm probably just going to peg my shutter speed at 1/60 and my G 45mm at f/2.0. I've used all the choices before, besides 400H, but not yet tried to compare their low light performance. I'm scanning on a Dual Scan IV. My priority is image retention in very underexposed areas. If anyone knows a good site besides Macodirect and Fotoimpex for German delivery, please let me know. Cheers![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3000Image Height4500Pixel CompositionUnknownImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2020:08:01 01:37:42Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1500Image Height2250
>>3698492Is flash an option? I'd go for Portra 400 and push it if necessary. Check eBay.
Is the minolta maxxum 7000 a good first film camera? Can get one fairly cheap and I've been wanting to get into film for quite some time now
>>3698492Use flash and any colour film, or use bw and push to high iso
>>3698503any properly working film camera is a good first film camera. the maxxum 7000 is pretty nice, just make sure it works fine. load some film and go have some fun.
>>3698339kickstarter and 3d printers are making shitty manual cameras. hipsters are the only market with numbers. everyone else can just buy used
>>3698492What’s the lighting at the venue going to be like? I’ve shot a lot of punk & hardcore bands at smaller venues that have really shitty lighting, and even pushing to 3200 might very well not cut it at all. If you can, grab a flash and use it. Color film might also look like ass if the lights aren’t great, so be careful with that. It might also throw off the metering. Outdoor venues are usually easier, last one I shot with Foma 200 pushed to 800 and got some decent results, although I wouldn’t recommend that film necessarily - it’s just what I was bulk loading back then.Portra 800 isn’t great but it’s useful when you need the speed, and if your lab doesn’t do pushing. Natura 1600 was great for stuff like this but it’s nearly impossible to find now and costs way too much.
Picked up another batch of developed film from the shop and it's only trash yet again. I'm worried that I won't survive this much longer bros. Why does everything turn out to be shit...
>>3698673Everyone goes through a patch like this anon.What genres do you shoot?
>>3698675I'm ususally doing street stuff but for film I'm just doing fuck-all. Pics of cats, of buildings, of people (...). It just never turns out good. Everything looks so vivid and amazing and great through the viewfinder but once I get the pics back it's just garbage. I think it'll change soon enough but for now it's really frustrating.
>>3698678Are you scanning or the lab?
>>3698678Sounds like maybe a lack of direction is the problem? Trying to "Shoot whatever" can be fun but sometimes ends up feeling and looking meaningless.Whenever I felt this way (happened most recently during the Covid slump I think we all felt) I go back to black and white film. Just throw in some ISO 400 B&W and focus only on interesting composition and framing, it really helps me Venter myself and find my way back.Maybe try that?
>>3698673I've had this on the last 3 rolls bar my slide film roll which had a few fluke good ones on it. Very uninspired not travelling around as much thanks to corona.
>>3698681Centre I meant centre
>>3698682>relying on inspiration instead of discipline never gonna make it senpai
>>3698680I'm getting my film developed in the lab and then I'm scanning them at home. Developing a roll of film, including small prints only costs 4-6€ per roll here.>>3698681Mhhhm I'll give that a try. I actually bought a b/w film today. I think not worrying about colours would really help. Hopefully I'll be able to go somewhere else than my hometown soon. Lately I've been trapped in routine every day.Kot related.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 7300Camera SoftwareSilverFast 6.6.2r5Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2521Image Height1693Horizontal Resolution1800Vertical Resolution1800Image Created2020:08:01 16:55:41Image Width2521Image Height1693
>>3698734Lol ironic how /p/ is quick to deride working photogs as “sellouts” but all the hobbyists are “trapped in routine.”
>>3698779Anon is trapped in a daily routine, not a photography workflow routine you faggot.Try projecting less
>>3698779>>3698802Yeah. It's moreso the routine of running errands, studying, eating, studying, sleeping, rinse, repeat. It's hard to thrive creatively in the field of photography if each day is the same. I think I just need a change of pace and a change of perspective[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 7300Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution1800Vertical Resolution1800Image Created2020:08:01 22:01:15Image Width927Image Height1366
Found this Contessamat SBE today for free but never shot film before, is it any good? Any recs on 35mm film to try?
>>3698883>is it any good?Heck yes Carl Zeiss lenses are some of the best made.>Any recs on 35mm film to try?Kodak Tri-X for Black and White and Fuji Superia 400 for colour, both are the best for beginners imo[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2019:10:30 00:32:30Color Space InformationsRGB
if dubs i buy a practically new t2 for 1.2k
>>3698899Double dubs. Now you gotta buy one for me aswell.
>>3698899double dubs means you gotta buy a Gold T2
Having a gud week out at the cottage[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeGoogleCamera ModelPixel 3aCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:08:01 19:51:08Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating58Lens Aperturef/1.8Brightness3.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.50 mMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.44 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio2Scene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>>3698892I'll try those out, thanks man
>>3698899I feel like that’s not a bad price
>>3699033Poorfag has never seen a multipack of Portra or Velvia
>>3695546unless your'e really good at tinkering with micro-electronic circuits, it's probably a lost cause. Luckily you can find zoom point & shoots nearly a dime-a-dozen. You'd be better off looking for a replacement.
>>3699035I buy propacks of the real stuff
>>3699049>being wrong >changing the subjectwe’re done here
>>3698899Dubs I buy a Contax G2 that I have no use for
>>3699051Thank you based god
>>3699049>photo from googlenice larp
>>3699061what you gonna do with that kodachrome
>>3699033Nah, 135 is the most fun to shoot. Barely touch 120 anymore. Should sell my stash to loosers like you.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeGoogleCamera ModelPixel 3aImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4032Image Height3024Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopImage Created2020:07:29 10:27:17Exposure Time14998261/250000000 secF-Numberf/1.8ISO Speed Rating1776Lens Aperturef/1.8Subject Distance0.30 mFlashNo FlashFocal Length4.44 mmImage Width4032Image Height3024Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>3699068I too would like to know
>>3699068>>3699081Keep em frozen forever, or if someone manages to reverse engineer the K-14 process I'll have a glory day shooting them.I have 2 rolls of 64 and a roll of 200.>>3699073Sold all my expired 120 film (besides that pack of 400X) and some expired 35mm at the start of quarantine.
This thrift store find is my first film camera. Every thing seems to be working properly. I just need to get some film and give it a go[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS M50Lens Size15.00 - 45.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.0.3Lens NameEF-M15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STMImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2020:08:01 20:33:17Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramLens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo FlashFocal Length29.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width6000Image Height4000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeISO Speed RatingAutoSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeUnknownImage SizeLargeFocus ModeUnknownDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingNormalMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed352Color Matrix135
>>3698503Yes they're very good for a first camera. You could pick up a 7000 and a 50 1.7 for around $50 easily.
>>3699142you can try kodak colorplus 200, gold 200 or fuji c200 for first roll, they are cheap and good options. have fun
>>3699156>>3698728I'm not trying "to make it". I don't work towards a career in the photography industry. I'm using it as a creative output and as something to calm my mind.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 7300Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution2400Vertical Resolution2400Image Created2020:08:02 12:17:31Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1366Image Height907
>>3699073135 looks like ass, theres no going around it. You shoot it because youre veither a rangefinder hipster or a poorfag, no exceptions.
>>3699050How was I wrong? 135 is too smol aka wrong format you sperg.
>>3699213>having this mindsetMust suck 2 b u m8
how do i resist the urge to shoot an entire roll on continuous high an ruthlessly mog everyone around me?
>>3699262For me? It's knowing each exposure costs $3. Nice to have though, last time I used it in conjunction with bracketing. 3 round burst fire, lol
>>3698507>>3698567I only have a very weird flash that I purchased to go along with my Olympus 35 RC - a Helios 32. Unfortunately I fear that its trigger voltage is completely inappropriate for my G1, being as it was made for old manual cameras. It worked on my 5D II fine, but 5D's can accept basically any flash trigger voltage. Are my fears reasonable, or should I just give my old flash a try?
>>3699265>each exposure costs 3$ damn, do you get them developed and scanned/printed all in shop or do you just shoot expensive ass film?
>>3699273Dev and scan with Scandi prices and slide film. Portra with scan and prints, about $1.50/shot, plus you can get it back the next day.
>>3699273Bro I’m at $1.85 and that’s lab dev and scan for 120 how are you paying that much for 135?
>>3699265What the hell? I buy and get my standard colour film (Gold 200) developed at the chemists for a total of 5.20€, and then scan myself - so 14 cents a frame. You pay 20x as much as I do, presumably for different film but still.
>>3699289Britbong here. I get my colorplus developed by a post in service. Recently shot some Ilford XP2 which is C41 process B&W film. Sent some in with my colorplus and they refused to process it unless I paid more.Why is this? It's processed in exactly the same way as the colorplus so what's the issue? Am I being scammed anons?
>>3699301You need a special license for color plus in the UK
>>3699311Please no loiscense meme senpai
>>3699301Maybe they're very picky about XP2's clear base. Without tweaking the minilab's settings, it'll produce scans with a weird colour cast which don't look like black & white at all. Ask them if they'd like the extra charge just to develop, or if it's about the scanning.And like, shoot real B&W next time. Dev gear's like twenty squid at an estate sale.
>>3699323I do shoot and develop HP5 myself. I use a paterson tank and Rodinal, I just wanted to see what XP2 was like.Also I'm too much of a pussy to try home C41. I'll fuck up the temps and don't shoot enough color to use it all up before it deteriorates.Thanks for the info about XP2 though anon.
>>3699319Ok ok, just show me your 4chan license and ill be on my way
>>3699327Just develop XP2 like Tri-X in regular BW chemistry and you're good. Photo is XP2 in HC-110.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2017:11:01 20:16:45
>>3699301You dodged a bullet anon.They prolly saw “Ilford” and “Black and White” and thought it’s a traditional black and white film.I mean it wouldn’t get destroyed in B&W chemistry, since it’s designed to give ok-good results as (Traditionally developer) black and white too, with the clear base and all, but looks best in C-41.So either ignorance, or a deliberate scam to get hipsters to pay more, since B&W costs more (done by hand usually).My money’s on ignorance.
anyone know if this little dot on the lens (top right) is a concern or is just some sort of glare
>>3699378That foreground is doing nothing for you.
>>3699646Does it show up in photos? That's really the only question that matters
Can someone recommend a good cheaper 100ish speed bw film?
>>3699651dunno, trying to buy off ebay and noticed it
>>3699654Kentmere 100, Fomapan 100Anons will say they aren't great, but they are. Just treat them delicately because they're very easy to scratch
Turns out the material (aluminium?) on reflector discs does reflect a substantial portion of UV.
>>3699142Great find! The SuperProgram was my first film SLR. Love the ergonomics, accurate metering, and button based UI.
just checking, "dirt in flash room" won't affect pictures will it? don't know why the seller put that as a defect.also leave me alone i want to buy into the meme[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiImage Width1125Image Height740
>>3699775just get a kyocera t proof. and no youll be good these arent contaxs you can get beat on them
>>3699783i like the profile of the slim, t proof is chunky, is the latter that much better?
>>3699792I never realized the slim was, uh, slimmer desu. Yeah get that then.
>>3699213135 looks very good if you know what you are doing. especially if you shoot slide.
>>3696594The best I ever had was an Agfa box. 6x9 format and the lens is surprisingly sharp, especially for b&w
>>3699830The difference between 645 and 135 slide is night and day.
>>3699845What's the shutter speed on it?
decided to start shooting colour film and sending it by mail after only shooting b&w only because no c41 developing labs in my city in Australia ATM.Whats the best place to get Dev + scan in Sydney?
>>3699858Not him but you might want to consider a folder camera in general.Usually they have much better lenses than box cameras (3-element tessars for most of them that perform fine stopped down), and a full range of speeds, usually from 1sec to 1/500 or 1/250.They’re also very portable and light.Check stuff like Agfa Isolette etc. There are some “point and shoot” ones that offer just 2-3 shutter speeds and slower apertures and cost like $20. But you can get a decent one with full range of shutter speeds and an f/4.5 lens for $50 or so, and not have to bother with respooling to 620 spools like for most box cameras.
>>3699879>Dev + scan in Sydney?Rewind Photo Lab, they're they cheapest in Australia
>>3699655Could be fungus could be dust could be anything really. Looking at where it is in the lens I doubt it will actually affect any image since it's so close to the edge. In general I'd consider that lens to be very clean looking from that image.
>>3699654Fomapan 100 is sweet.>>3699854>shooting film for resolutionLOL
Post more slide film. Can't stand the negative film instagram look anymore.
>>3699931Kodak E100VS.I have 15ish rolls of E6 I'll be deving this week so will b dumping all those snapshits soon enough.
Vice just posted a video with black women shooting mamiya 645s and pentax 67s expect another price hike I think
>>3699937Why are the film gods never based
>>3699654Ultrafine extreme 100 & 400 are the best cheap b&w films I've used
>>3699966Lmao people are out there making art and someone wants to document it.
>>3695512Any links for a homemade developing tank? Money is tight
>>3699999Dev tanks are like $20-$30 man. If you can't afford $20 you can't afford to shoot film period.
>>3698936what a bunch of trash
>>3700007be of help to an anon or stfu. Maybe he does not funds to throw at less important stuff due to current economy. This board is fucking rotten.
>>3699999You're going to need homemade reels too which is the bigger issue. Making a tank isn't the problem.
>>3700028I am being helpful. Buy a dev tank for $20. Even building a ghetto one would probably wind up costing more than that. Dev tanks aren't just a simple tank with a screw on cap. There are light traps so you can pour chems in/out without exposing the inside to light. There is a central shaft that holds the reel tight so it doesn't float up and cause your film to be half out of the chemicals. They are worth buying.We're talking about a one time purchase here. $20 will get you a properly designed and made dev tank that you can use for decades. A bottle of fixer and developer costs more than a dev tank does... 4 rolls of most film costs more than a dec tank does... Of all things, why someone would choose to cheap out on a dev tank makes no sense.
>>3700028>Maybe he does not funds to throw at less important stuff due to current economy.but he has the funds to shoot film? LOLgood luck making a homemade tank + reels for less than this
>why do you shoot film?why do people even ask this? do they expect me to go on a 50 minute rant about how film has "soul"? i shoot film because i want to shoot film, that's litterally it. it's really fucking annoying getting asked that question every time anyone sees my camera, and i hope i'm not the only one who feels this way.
Thinking of buying a super 8 camera but don't know where to start
>>3700063I honestly hate how film cameras are a "conversation piece". I hate it when people notice my camera and I always try to make it unnoticeable when out
>>3700067lmao no one notices you or your camera you barney
>>3700063>>3700067I never get asked about my cameras by random people. When colleagues/family ask I don't have an answer better than 'I just enjoy it'. I say it's like preferring a stick shift or growing your own vegetables. Just something nice to do that's a bit more engaging than the alternative.
>>3700071Not him, but I cannot confirm this. Once, I was standing near a construction site when some lorry came along, stopped and started honking. I wasn't anywhere near and after some time I noticed he meant me. When I went to the driver to ask him what was the matter, he asked me if my camera was a Leica. He spotted it from at least 20m and it doesn't even have an obvious red dot.
>>3700071Well, yeah they do otherwise I wouldn't have made my post? I walk around with a Yashica mat or hasselblad 500cm. Not your usual looking cameas.
>>3700076lmao imagine wanting something this badly
>>3700028Dev tanks save money. Like 6€/roll compared to having a lab develop it. Scanners save even more because they don't consume chemicals. With bulk loading, running costs can be as low as 0.07€/frame (calculated in 2017 for Fomapan 400). All of these have the net effect of being able to shoot more film, or to print more.DIYing a tank is the opposite, primarily because lost film costs money and a DIY tank is going to have its share of failures over its lifetime. It's a false economy, like making a habit from developing in caffenol; but most of all, all of those pictures were taken with intent to keep them and to look at them, so there's hardly a price on that. Filmfags can't chimp, so gear reliability is king.As for proper advice, look for dev tanks (entire darkroom setups, really) at estate sales and the like. Particularly in the UK this stuff comes up literally multiple times per year. I won't say it's because of Ilford, but.
>>3699301XP2 works fine in B+W chems, treat it as HP5 and you won't go far wrong.
>>3700067Oh no actually meeting people with similar interets to yours with no obligationsbhow horrible
>>3699999use a £/$ 1 washing up bowl or similar if you're that strapped for cash, or a saucepan will do as well. once you put the film and dev in put another bigger one over the top to prevent light leak. You will have to agitate and change chem in the dark though. It's a pain the the ass but can be done.In all seriousness just spend $/£10-20 for a second hand one - much easier.
>>3700072Try 4x5 and you cant get a moment of peace
>>3700074Yeah because this happened.Do you often make up stories to justify your Leica purchase?
>>3699999Holy digits.Try a salad spinner that won't let light in, I always wondered if one would work so give it a go for me?
>>3699929Look, MF is just a lot cleaner in every way, I dont know why youre even arguing this.
Bit the bullet and bought a Pentax ME on Ebay. Is there a massive difference in film quality from the cheaper to more expensive end, or will cheapish film service me fine?
>>3700193If you're shooting large format in public you're pretty much asking for strangers to talk to you
>>3700307Eh, I'd say experiment with cheap film stocks, see if there is anything you don't like about them (grain, dynamic range, exposure latitude), and then try another film stock. Try just searching some film stocks on Flickr or watching back to back comparisons on Youtube.Color:https://youtu.be/pitm2n2CWIYB/W (400 speed, other videos exist for other speeds):https://youtu.be/zG02lCyAuqgWorst case you can edit your scans in lightroom to suit your vision.
>>3700211I'm just saying not everyone cares about what's 'cleaner'. The whole argument you're making is pointless because film is outdated tech that has been beaten for a long time now. It's like arguing that a Civic Si is faster than a Civic. Either way its a god damn Civic dawg nobody except other Civicfags care.If I actually jerked off about about resolution and 'clean' images I'd be shooting with a GFX50 or something equally overkill...not retarded film.
>>3700318>outdated tech You should let all the published campaigns know that.
>>3700317Ah amazing, thanks anon. Appreciate you taking the time to get the links. Look forward to showing you my shit pictures
>>3695578Look for camera shows in your local area. The one in mine is usually good for a handful of $1/each expired rolls.
>>3700195Why would I make up a story like this on an anonymous board? I bought it 6-7 years ago and I'm still satisfied enough to barely use another camera.
>>3700318It is fine to talk like a retard about your cars or whatever in here but this is a film thread. Nobody cares about your ... posting.
i've been shooting a lot with my f4 these days, one thing i noticed is that the rangefinder shows me the green "on focus" dot when to me it looks slightly back focused. should i trust my eyes or the camera more?
>>3700533And nobody cares when you say 120 film is 'cleaner', larp
>>3700007Im not in the US, takes money to ship it to my country plus some extras. >>3700028Thank you. If I could truly get a 20$ one I would, but 40$ or even more is the true price, and I can't put out 50$ now just for a hobby.>>3700042 >We're talking about a one time purchase here Okay then maybe I can stretch out the cash, maybe. i doubt it. At least by the means that I have I can find a cheap one. I'd rather develop in the dark. >>3700045I get my film for 1 dollar a roll, expired. People have forgotten about it completly and they dont mind giving it out to me. >>3700192Thanks for the advice anon, i'll look into it. >>3700198I will. Let's see how it goes either by that method or the one the other anon said.
>>3700542What kind of focusing screen are you using?
>>3700572 it's the basic B screen that comes stock on all f4s.
>>3700542I'd be inclined to trust the camera. Your viewfinder's diopter setting may be just that tiny bit off; see if you can't bring them in line. If not, or if the finder text stuff goes blurry when you do, it's possible there's a back- or front-focus issue.
>>3700587I can't bring them in line with the diopters unfortunately, it always look slightly out of focus. it's more obvious when focusing on a sign or something like that, but it's always there. how do you even fix a back focusing problem on a camera like this? do you just live with it?
>>3700542Get a measuring tape, lay it out on a table, stand a pencil up at exactly the 1 metre mark, line your cameras film plain at the first mark of the tape measure, focus with the split prism so the pencil is in focus.If you've done all that correctly your focusing scale should be at exactly 1 metre, if it's not then either your focusing screen or your mirror isn't aligned properly.
>>3700588Backfocusing is an issue on trash 2.8 autofocus screens
>>3700591This is hardly accurate for critical focus
>>3700596>This is hardly accurate for critical focusFirst of git gud secondly not the point.If the image in the ground glass is out of focus to the point of it being noticeable then something is obviously horribly misaligned.
>>3700607Lmao imagine needing a measuring tape to tell if your focusing screen is misaligned. Great advice anon keep it up!!
ok so my 2x fidelity 4x5inch filmholders are on their way and will arrive soon...my question is: can i just take like 50 negatives with me inside the box, a changing bag and an extra box and store my exposed negs into the extra box everytime i shot oneor do i need that many filmholders ?are there any risks like negs getting scratched etc.
>>3700997I don't shoot LF, but from what I've heard using the changing bag to change films in the field is an absolute pain in the arse wrt things like dust control when getting new film in. You'd need a tent or a hotel room for that, ideally. And it's increased handling between loading and development. Many landscape shooters complain about the weight of film holders, yet don't change in the field; and that should say it all.
>>3700615I don't get the point you're trying to make here.Anon asked if they should trust their eye or their focusing screen, I gave them advice on how to tell if the focusing screen is accurate or not, you're just being dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead.
>>3701196>you're just being dickhead for the sake of being a dickhead/fgt/ in a nutshell lately
>>3695512Opinions on Kodak Ektar 100?Just ordered a few rolls in 35mm for a trip to the Australian country side, did I do good? I've got some rolls of Fujifilm Superia 400 I can bring if not.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 WindowsPhotographerAshley PomeroyMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2014:02:18 19:25:20Exposure Time30 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length75.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3000Image Height1891RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3701201It's a pretty good film. Gives an interesting look which I'd simply describe as the closest thing to slide film you can get as a colour negative.
>>3701201I really don't like it. It's very finnicky with light temperature and I find it difficult to scan and get nice colours. The only time I've enjoyed results from it is using it during blue hour.Just my experience. Plenty of people love the stuff. I'd rather just shoot something like Pro Image for C41 or Provia for E6.
>>3701201I mostly shoot black and white, but from the bit of colour I shoot I generally prefer Ektar to portra.
>>3701201I like it anon.Think of it like Portra 160 with increased saturation, but not too increased contrast. It also works fine for human subjects.Saturation and contrast is not over the top, if you want the "punchiest" one with regards to those, maybe you'd like Fuji C200 more.Latitude is also very good, but you shouldn't treat it like Portra, i.e. overexposing carelessly and expecting a nice pastel palette. If it's uniformly overexposed, it turns bland. I find the latitude works best if you expose properly, and let the latitude take care of strong highlights, like reflections or the sun in the frame etc. . Graininess is small, both due to grain size and "softer" grain definition, which makes for a smooth look. Don't take that to mean higher resolving power, there are other films that score higher there (even Portra I think). But it still has very good resolving power, as most modern films.I have a couple Ektar scans in my thread if you wanna check them. If you want to emphasise saturation and warmth, bring down exposure a tad in post, and add some yellow in the shadows (makes foliage pop out more).[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r20 (May 5 2020) 863405b 05.05.Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2020:07:26 22:04:36Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1200Image Height794
>>3701201Hands down my favorite colour negative film stock. It just gives such good looking results when exposed correctly. Good contrast, nice saturation but not over the top like superia 400 in red spectrum. You will like it for that australlian reddish/orangeish soil. Picture is Ektar on half frame Olympus pen camera[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.Camera ModelSP-3000Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-016Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2020:08:05 17:31:59Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height2048Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3701266>australlian reddish/orangeish soilIt's called clay and iron, retard
>>3701189I see..well for now i have 2 holders which means i can have 4 films...it'll do the job for the beginning..After experimenting i will then use the changing bag in the field and later get more filmholders whenever i canThank's for the reply and advice though !
Who else here team #newinbox?
>>3701318Not me because paying the (usual) premium NIB entails is retarded given how I treat my gear.Nice grab though anon!
>>3701357Dude you would think I’d have fucking learned this but I guess not.
>>3701318Why are these always so expensive on eBay?
>>3701370Hipster tax. They are good cameras but like everything film related that's half decent hipsters ruined it.Apart from Zenits they can keep those lol
>>3701377I like how 'hipsters ruined' the price of film cameras.The most hipster thing one can do is think they are somehow above 'hipsters' despite liking and wanting the same shit.
>>3701382Anons right tho... well documented fact bruh
>>3701384So, someone getting into film photography now and seeking out the good gear is a hipster...but someone who got into film photography 5 years ago and sought at the good gear isn't a hipster?
>>3701377>Hipsters >Autofocus MFlol just say a hipster fucked your bitch and you’re still mad about it
>>3701382>>3701388No not at all, those seeking to get into film photography are not necessarily hipsters. Nor where those who have been into it for any amount of time.I am merely describing the small demographic of people that will shout from the rooftops (metaphorically speaking) that they shoot a Mamiya and evangelize certain film cameras on social media, yet in reality shoot very little and do not shoot film because they want to. But for the "aesthetic" and make it a part to their identity.Usually they call it analogue too which is a massive fucking laugh.You know the type of people I am talking about. And nice try trying to trip me up and make me say a classic hipster trope of "using something before it was cool".
>>3701393That would be impressive considering I am gay and have a boyfriend
>>3701388Hipster is just a word anon uses for anyone you gets something he can’t have (when he wants to avoid a ban for racism).
>>3701395>Very small demographic >Drives market indicators Really digging yourself a hole here anon.
>>3701370What’s in that photo plus the 80mm was under a grand. Seems a pretty fair value imho.
>>3701400The same small demographic is also made up of Instagram influencers and Youtubers so try again
>>3701409Lmao all IG influencers are hipsters in your little brain
>>3701398Film users in a nutshell
>>3701409Imagine actually thinking this is what dictates the price of used gear
>>3701413Twisting what I said a little there huh?
>>3701422It unironically does though
>>3701422Im not saying it is the only thing. But it's an undeniable factor
>>3701426Aww what's it like being new?
>>3701429>price hikes every time DigitalRevTV did an AnalogRev episode>price hikes when Kylie Jenner showed off her Contax on Jimmy Fallon>price hikes ever since filmtubers started getting popular 2015~Only bring up newfaggotry when you aren't one yourself
>>3701201I just shot 2 rolls of 9 years expired Ektar 100 (not stored in a freezer), wonder how its going to turn out.
>>3701440You realize film in general has had a huge comeback in the last 5 years yes? You think it's because of a digital rev episode, or the other way around?
>>3695512Film thread best thread fuck /vid/
E100[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:08:05 22:15:41Color Space InformationsRGB
>>3701442>You realize film in general has had a huge comeback in the last 5 years yes?Nah mate I've been bumping the /fgt/ for the past 2 years for the fun of it, I don't actually own a camera nor know what film is. I'm actually a winemaker from Namibia who specialises in growing Shiraz
>>3695512Does anyone have any experience with TW ZOOM 85?A friend of mine want to change his canon tw zoom 85 for my shirt but he never used it, is it a good one to start with films?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width634Image Height483Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3701514As long as it's working it'll be fine
>>3701520But is it a nice one? I was looking to buy an analogic camera but dont want to waste films on a bad one (35mm here are expensive as fuck)
>>3701542It's a 90's point and shoot by a respect brand anon it's fine just use it.
>>3701551Thanks mate :)) i was thinking of buying an instamatic or an olympus 35ef but ill pick this one instead then
gay bread goes bumppppppppppppppppppp>>3701564>>3701564>>3701564>>3701564
Question about Fuji Superia X-Tra 400. How do you all meter/expose for it? I hear a lot of people suggest shooting it at 200 iso or even 100 and metering for the shadows. Curious what everyone else was doing on here.
>>3701591What do you personally want out of it? Take a few rolls and experiment to find the look you prefer. I wouldn't default to others' opinions when it comes to subjective things like this. Experiment and enjoy, find what fits you best.
>>3701665Just trying to avoid the color shifts I've seen in the shadows of some examples of shots online.
>>3695512hello lads, I'm new to film. I just picked up a yashica electro 35 for 15usd on ebay. Not sure if this was a good deal, but anyways, hope to post some stuff soon.Any tips for a beginner btw?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknown
>>3701201Where are you heading? I shoot ektar and i find it works well with Australian weather
Question guysBought a 3d printed mod54 copy from ebay (film holder reel for 4x5inch sheets)But how much chemicals do i use here ?My paterson tank gives me the amounts for 35mm & 120 etc..Do i just fill it with water until the sheetholder is covered and take that amount to develop ? And what if i develop 4 at once or just 1
>>3701873That camera has auto exposure only right ? Check if it's working..if it does..go shoot lol
>>3701873If the there's no battery the shutter will fire at 1/400th, so you could load some 400 iso film and use sunny 16. Those cameras need a specific battery to operate but if heard of using 4 lr44's and some aluminum foil.
>>3702014yeah its got auto exposure which kinda sucks since this means I can't raise the iso on expired film. Oh well, hopefully it's working properly, I think it was picked up from an estate sale and later put on ebay>>3702092thank you for the reply, I didn't know you could use this without the battery. I just looked up sunny 16, so thanks for that.After a bit of realization, I think this might not be the camera for me. Can you guys recommend any other cameras that don't have auto exposure only? I was thinking fujica (since I can adapt my x lenses) or something similar of sorts. Maybe something sturdy and not too ugly that's still functional today and (hopefully) doesn't need repairs
>>3702122Iirc auto on that camera just controls the shutter speed based on the aperture (ring around the lens) and iso (dial on top) you set on the camera. You can still use the expired film just chose the desired iso. Most old cameras operate that way if they have a built in meter, some let you adjust shutter speed for manual exposure.The problem with adapting x mount lenses is that they are for an apsc camera, which means you would get alot of vignetting. You can go the other way around as in vintage lens on your fuji camera though.
>>3702122Change the dx code on the film..takes 2 minutes only