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

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 103 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


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

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: foma100_0016.jpg (831 KB, 1333x2000)
831 KB
831 KB JPG
Film Community Links:
35mmc.com
Casualphotophile.com
Emulsive.org
istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
industrieplus.net/dxdatabase
>>
File: baby-bertha-6x9_h008.jpg (132 KB, 400x300)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>3856741
>obligatory reminder that nobody will take your film photography seriously if youre not shooting 4x5 with a 800mm f5.6
>>
File: zorki model.jpg (171 KB, 1600x1200)
171 KB
171 KB JPG
so I did this for my lugless Zorki!

love the camera, hate the leather case.

maybe it would look more fun with another color filament, but I'm happy!
>>
File: 000535340010.jpg (2 MB, 2100x1392)
2 MB
2 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3089
Image Height2048
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:06 12:55:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2100
Image Height1392
>>
File: LegacyPro400_001.jpg (697 KB, 1200x800)
697 KB
697 KB JPG
A few fresh frames 1/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: LegacyPro400_003.jpg (740 KB, 1200x800)
740 KB
740 KB JPG
2/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: Ariana100at800_002.jpg (880 KB, 1200x800)
880 KB
880 KB JPG
3/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>woman puts up a pentax ME film camera kit with some lenses on an auction site like Ebay here in NZ
>theres a 50mm 1.4
>she doesnt highlight or mention it
>its just there in the photos
>hoping to GOD no-one else notices it and just thinks its some shitty hanimar zooms and an old ME

pray for me bros
>>
>>3857776
https://www.trademe.co.nz/electronics-photography/film-cameras/35mm-slr/listing-3035876979.htm?rsqid=b41c13ba544344d98ad7195cac8e5889-001

I just put in a bid for $400 whats that in sheep dollars?
>>
>>3856751
>50mm equivalent
based
>>
>>3857805
its 216mm tho
>>
>>3857803
if you're Jerry Smith I swear to god
>>
>>3857807
I'm fucking with you anon, hope you get it that's a sweet find.
>>
>>3857810
same but id rather not drop 100 on it since theres no good photos of the lens itself
and 400 USD is about 700 NZD if memory serves
>>
>>3857807
>>3857810
Wait that site shows the bidders names? NZ straight lawless lmao.
>>
>>3857812
>>3857810
fuck it I have to pull out, getting too high for my weekly slush budget
>>3857813
nah just usernames
>>
>>3856796
Nice.
>>
File: IMG_20201127_084034.jpg (1.25 MB, 3264x2448)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>3856751
i take my film photography seriously :)))
>>
I just hiked up a fucking mountain with my rb67 and had to turn around cause I left gear at some point on the side of the trail and missed sunset
I'm so stupid
>>
What do you guys think of Fujifilm Superia X-tra 400?
It's price seems reasonable enough so I was thinking of picking some up to use while I'm getting used to my new camera.
>>
>>3857876
Its really good
>>
File: C200_ (13).jpg (674 KB, 1200x791)
674 KB
674 KB JPG
>>3857876
It's fine, contrasty and saturated but not excessively so.
Don't disregard C200 either though, it's even cheaper and has a "strong" look, with contrast and saturation, while also very sharp.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r24 (Oct 29 2020) 30c8121 29.10.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:07 10:42:31
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height791
>>
File: file.png (229 KB, 450x375)
229 KB
229 KB PNG
All images I took with this thing came out overexposed to a point that the scanner can't fix the colors without them shifting. It's either the metering app or the camera, but knowing that it was downgraded into a child toy status for a few years probably means it's not the app. Kinda sad, though I'm scared that adjustment price would be too high, even here in eastern/northern Europe.
>>
>>3857888
>>3857891
Sweet.
I'll keep C200 in mind for the next time I order some film.
Superia is one of the only films I can find in local stores and I don't really want to waste the HP5 I already ordered just getting acquainted with muh Zorki.
>>
>>3857891
>C200 36 in January: 3.90€
>C200 36 today: 5.90€
why
>>
>>3857898
Has it gotten this crazy in individual rolls?
The good thing is it's always available in 10-packs for 40€, so the older price still applies. And with the current film prices, 4€/colour roll is great.
>>
>>3857899
only in the shop I've used to frequent for it. Other shop has it for 4.60€. Hopefully prices go back down when the lockdowns and covid dies down. Where is it available as a 10-pack?
>>
>>3857898
>17 NZD on special in bulk

a hell but one ill live through
>>
>>3857901
Most recently I've been getting it from retrocamera.be. Occasionally out of stock, but the price is kept at that.
For budget films, those are my go-to's:
1. C200 for general purpose, nature etc. for strong saturation and contrast, 40€ for a 10-pack,
2. Pro Image 100 for people and portraits, low contrast and saturation (not as low as Portra but still), with good skintones, 33€ or so for a 5-pack.
>>
>>3857901
Btw, I just checked, fotoimpex.de has it in single rolls for 3,99€.
>>
>>3857909
>>3857916
how much does the shipping cost though? I used to get a roll locally for cheaper than even these deals :(
>>
>>3857919
Depends where you are.
Central-western Europe (Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.), it's roughly 5-7€. And with bulk orders (80-100€) you get either free shipping (depending on where you are), or reduced rates.
Just go on the site and check prices for your location.

But yeah I feel you. Nothing beats having a local shop where you can just drop in and get something for a good price anytime, without waiting for shipping or waiting till you have a bigger order for shipping costs to make sense.
>>
Any 6x7 Anons know if that flip up fine focus lens attachment for the viewfinder works on other pentax bodies?

ive got shit vision and would slut for better macro focus control
>>
File: unknown-19.png (2.45 MB, 2700x1000)
2.45 MB
2.45 MB PNG
>>3857876
It's my go-to 400iso colour film. Love it tons. Tweak the colour channels a bit in post to reduce the green shadows and it looks real nice.
>>
>tfw everything local is stupid expensive
the best local lab has 5-6 films available
c200 goes for 7.5 euros. recently bought a tmax 100 which was (ironically) their cheapest black and white film available at 13.5. ilford xp2 was selling for 15.
even with shipping costs, buying more than 1 film from impex comes cheaper for my shithole of a city.

c200 can be good but i honestly prefer kodak colorplus for my point and shoot (when priced the same). can't put my finger on why i prefer colorplus.
>>
File: 10930012.jpg (1.64 MB, 1940x1287)
1.64 MB
1.64 MB JPG
Done some shooting on TriX, it's alright but I'll stick to HP5 I think, it feels smoother.

1/3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1940
Image Height1287
>>
File: 10930001.jpg (1.8 MB, 1940x1287)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB JPG
2/3 No idea what happened here, looks like the negative got scratched maybe.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1940
Image Height1287
>>
File: 10930007.jpg (681 KB, 1834x1217)
681 KB
681 KB JPG
3/3 People out in droves despite the covid, gotta take advantage of sunny days.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:07 16:29:30
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1940
Image Height1287
>>
>>3856751
post pics, i am genuinely interested in it
>>
File: FILM_VINTAGE.jpg (452 KB, 1280x960)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
What are you guys using to scan negatives? I am getting back into shooting film after a 15 year hiatus and my old scanner is a turd. I am shooting mostly 35mm B&W but also 16mm cut into strips for subminiature cameras.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2448
Image Height3264
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:04:05 14:51:34
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height960
>>
>>3856985
love this
>>
>>3858214
I use a silverfast scanner for my 35mms, but its kinda tedious
>>
>>3857936
Those shots are cool.
>>
>>3858214
Been looking for some of those Ilford HP3 boxes for like forever to fill out my collection. I'm jealous of some of the old boxes you have here anon.
>>
>>3858214
I use an old minolta dimage scan dual III. They’re cheap enough and do a decent job, but lol if you need a new holder.
>>
>>3858214
Plustek 8100.
>>
File: 000067960009 edit resize.png (3.06 MB, 1500x994)
3.06 MB
3.06 MB PNG
35mm fags, if my camera is electronic with no mechanical backup speed then can a low battery lead to straight-up missing exposures? I put a test roll through a Pentax Program A that I bought recently, some shots came out well but random ones were just completely blank. At the time of shooting I thought I heard the shutter firing right, but now I'm not sure anymore. I've replaced the batteries since then and some other functions on the camera seem to be working a lot better now, should I just try another roll and go from there?
>>
File: Ariana100at800_001.jpg (681 KB, 1200x800)
681 KB
681 KB JPG
>>3858214
100% scan with a digital camera and macro lens. You'll be blown away by how much better it is.

>>3858233
>>3858240
Thanks friends.

Here's a Fomapan 100 pushed to 800 frame for the lulz

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>tfw my ancient ass light meter up and died on me the day after my camera arrived
reeeeeeee
Are those light meter apps for phones any good?
Would I gain anything by using one of those apps over just sunny 16 guestimating?
>>
>>3858398
damn I ran out of fomapan, I'd love to do this sometime.
>>
>>3858562
get one of these instead

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005001349886750.html
>>
>>3858630
>waiting for shipping from fucking China
That doesn't do me any good anytime soon even if I did have the budget for it right now.
That's why I asked the question I did instead of "what light meter should I throw money at".
>>
>>3858655
The one you have with you
>>
>>3858562
Nah, it's springtime on the northern hemisphere so you can get very good at eyeballing sunny 16. Learn the LV "light value" scale while you're at it, "ultimate exposure computer" is the webpage for that topic. It's also known as EV "exposure value" scale, but I like to say nature has LV, camera and film together have EV, so that matters like film speed don't enter into it. The beauty of using Sunny 16 is that you don't need to compensate for light or dark subjects, much as you would using an ambient (as opposed to reflected) light meter.

Short of it is really that a cloudless sunny summer day has LV 15 (= f/16 at 1/ISO seconds, rounding to lower denominator for negatives and higher for slides, hence sunny 16), overcast is LV 12, and various rules-of-thumb from then on down, like that indoors window-lit scenes are 3 stops brighter than scenes away from a window, and corridors are one stop darker still.

Anyway, the way to learn the sunny 16 method is bracketing, taking notes, and reviewing the negatives and/or contact sheets. I got up to like a 80% hit rate in two rolls' time shooting HP5+ in the late summer of 2014, like this. Also, bracket in two stop increments because negative film usually has you covered for a one stop mistake; that much is really a matter of artistic leeway than an error.
>>
File: Ariana100at800_003.jpg (593 KB, 1200x800)
593 KB
593 KB JPG
>>3858627
People really shit on foma and hurrdurr never push it but...I've been enjoying pushing it 1 to 3 stops for awhile now. It's no Tmax...but fuck it's like $2/roll whatever.

>>3858562
Whatever app unused to have face identical readings to my sekonic l-308. My only beef with using apps is the fact I need to use my phone. One, it can become a distraction and I get sidetracked. Two, if I'm out all day hiking or something it's pretty dumb burning up my phone battery on metering.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: 1Rf5V30.jpg (892 KB, 2000x1333)
892 KB
892 KB JPG
>>3858686
Holy shit autocorrect.

*Whatever app I used to use had identical readings to my sekonic l-308****
>>
>>3857776
M series 50mm 1.4 goes for like 100 bucks, not that big of a find.

It also glows a fuckton wide open.
>>
>>3858686
Foma is a great material to push. Especially since they're slightly under their claimed ASA rating.
>>
>>3858235
>>3858272
Good to know. Kinda leaning toward this due to the small footprint and supposedly decent software. The IR dust detection on some models sounds like it may be worth splurging the extra cash for.

>>3858241
Just a stock photo I found. I have some neat Soviet films/boxes because I have a huge 50+ USSR camera collection. I also have a bunch of vintage Kodak stuff because I don't live too far from Rochester.

>>3858244
Worth a look. Thanks anon.

>>3858398
I have a Russian attachment for this but I think I need to find or make a piece that is missing. The lighting issue is also a concern. Maybe I could make a LED backlight?
>>
>>3858957
Hey maybe you're the guy to ask about this:
So I recently got a Zorki 4, and it seem to work ok, except the shutter speed selector only goes from 125 to 30. B and 30 work fine, but I hit resistance trying to go past 125 toward 1 when going counter-clockwise with it, and I'm afraid to try to force it.
What does that mean?
Does that mean it just sticks there and 125 to 1000 are running at the right speed, or is it reading wrong, or what the fuck?
>>
>>3858966
Don't force anything.

It needs CLA.

https://learncamerarepair.com/downloads/pdf/Hubregt-Zorki-4-CLA.pdf

You can try it yourself, but if you care about the camera have it done by a pro.
>>
>>3858981
That's the thing, supposedly it's already been CLA'd.
Maybe that was just bullshit, but it seems to work fine otherwise. The shutter speeds I can access sound about right (I'll know for sure when I finish this first roll and get it developed), it focuses ok, etc.
Just seems like a weird error to have. I'm not super worried about it, I got it because it was cheap and I wanted to learn old school photography I just wasn't expecting something weird like that.
>>
>>3858966
somebody probably changed the shutterspeed before winding, and maybe fucked up the mechanism
try setting the shutterspeed it had before you played with it and winding it first
>>
>>3858996
I haven't changed any settings without winding it first.
>>
>>3858989

Maybe it was bullshit.

Are we talking a little resistance, or mucho resistance?
>>
>>3858999
It would require more force than I'm comfortable applying to move it from 125 to 60.
Feels like about the same amount of resistance as at the end on 30.
>>
i love my agfa isolette so much but god damn i wish it had a coupled rangefinder grrrr

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera SoftwareIJ Scan Utility
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Created2021/03/20 15:03:34
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2706
Image Height2624
>>
>>3859002
I'd have it checked by someone.

How much did you pay for it?
>>
>>3858998
thats good
an other thing you might have, is that the setting thingy is misaligned (the top thing is rotated)
also, after the 60th to the 1 sec there is a resistance, as you are winding the slow shutter mechanism, if you have a decent amount, but not too much, and hear a winding sound you should be ok
>>
>>3859005
It was a steal so it's not like I got ripped off or anything.
>>3859006
Hmm, I've never run one before so maybe my fingers are misreading it. I'll stick a stethoscope on in the future and give it a listen.
My fingers are trained pretty finely for mechanical stuff so it's entirely possible I'm just misunderstanding what's going on, but I'm still not going to try to force it just in case.
>winding sound
Ohhhh. Hmm, yea I'll definitely have to give the mechanism a listen.
>>
>>3859003
anyone ever tried catlabs 120? not sure if i dont like it or if im just too dumb to use it correctly.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera SoftwareIJ Scan Utility
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Created2021/03/20 14:53:40
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2708
Image Height2652
>>
>>3859010
there's a small screw on the side of the speed dial, set it to the clockwise or ccw extreme (should 30th or 1s) unscrew the screw a bit so it moves, and set it to the correct position, i did this to mine, though it only had a small missalignment
>>
>>3859019
I'll go over the diagrams in that CLA guide and check the alignment after I get done with this roll.
I'm a noob on this thing and so far I'm working blind since I can't see the results yet, but I'll keep that in mind for the future if that starts looking like a possibility.
>>
>>3859018
and another

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera SoftwareIJ Scan Utility
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Created2021/03/20 14:56:14
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2708
Image Height2656
>>
Find a better 35mm kit than this:
>Any nikon body
>24mm 2.8D
>50mm 1.8D
Under 500usd. Even ignoring the price, what can even compete with this??
>>
File: SquareMile1-web.jpg (255 KB, 800x1000)
255 KB
255 KB JPG
>>3858203
this is 4x5 with a 300mm 5.6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V800/V850
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6622
Image Height8324
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:04:08 22:24:53
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width800
Image Height1000
>>
Friends, please help me decide between Canon P and Olympus Pen-FV
>>
File: jwkw.jpg (3.18 MB, 4032x3024)
3.18 MB
3.18 MB JPG
F80 or F90x?

I chose the F90x because it can meter my manual focus lenses but I miss the F80's lighter weight and grip. Did I make the right decision?
>>
>>3859206
I prefer the 35mm f2d lens over the 24mm but to each his own. It's practically my go to lens together with 60mm macro.
>>
if rodinal isn't good for fast films (especially tmax and delta 3200) and it isn't good for stuff like hp5, what is it good for anyway?
>>
>>3859295
The f90x seemed to be the cream of the crop as far as late film slrs go.
>>
>>3859322
boomers use it for their 25 iso landscape shots
>>
>>3859295
Why choose? Film cameras are cheap as heck these days. Just buy one of each.
>>
>>3859227
great systems either way but those are 2 quirky and isolated compared to other ones.

canon p will be harder to find lenses for which are all of the following:
>optically sound
>in good shape
>not astronomically expensive collectors item
>ltm
voiglander color skopar 35mm 2.5 and 21mm f4 are my two favorite lenses ive ever used and they both come in ltm.

olympus penfv youre anchored to oly lenses so its a bit of the same deal.
>>
>>3859297
>>3859297
do you really have experience with both the 24 and 35? if i went back to 35mm my kit would be just these 2 lenses.
>>
>be me years ago
>no idea about film
>have fun with a point and shoot
>buy minolta slr with a 50mm cause cheap
>even if i didn't like shooting film, i wouldn't lose too much money
>ended up liking film
>bought a 28mm and a 35-135mm for less than 100 bucks over the next year

realistically, is it worth throwing more money on pre a-mount minolta lenses or should i be keeping my money and getting a nikon/canon that have a bunch more lenses available to them? i don't really feel like i need something i can't get for my current camera, i'm just wondering if i'm missing anything great in terms of quality.
>>
>>3859206
Any of the point and shoots that give better image quality.
>>
>>3859225
Saved to inspiration folder. I love this.
>>
>>3859350
Pic is both mine. Decided to sell of the F80. I already have two Nikon FE, two Nikon EM and one Nikon FM2.
>>
>>3859322
Tri-X. I use it to push TriX to 6400. Dont listen to the fags, if you dint mind grain and dont mind losing some shadows, its great.
>>
>>3859427
Really depends on what aesthetic you go for. I usually choose cameras based on the lenses I want. So just stick with it until there's not a lens you want. Do the bodies really cost that much money nowadays? I rarely use SLRs anymore, though.
>>
File: img23.jpg (110 KB, 900x887)
110 KB
110 KB JPG
>>3856741
Hey I found a toy at the beach too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width900
Image Height887
>>
File: agfa_0033.jpg (2.54 MB, 3001x2000)
2.54 MB
2.54 MB JPG
>>
>>3859628
what a madman.
>>
>>3859322
git gud and use xtol
>>
>>3859685
To be fair, I do it to shoot 645 and 6x9 at night handheld. I wouldnt do it with 135, the bigger neg size hides the grain.
>>
>>3859728
i use microphen. it's just that rodinal makes a lot more sense financially for the amount of black and white i shoot
>>
how in the fuck was the photos developed in piss thread just deleted? i was about to post the recipe:
>350ml literally piss
>13.3g washing soda
>1.2g l-ascorbic acid
i even provided a series of sample photos and everything. the jannies on this board are incredible
>>
File: sage.png (20 KB, 341x106)
20 KB
20 KB PNG
>>3859772
>>
>>3859773
a thread of photos literally developed in piss? what else could you want? why are we even here
>>
>>3859728
>>3859764
These are both a pain in the ass to mix from powder compared to HC-110, and even more of pain to bring down to 20°C for use. Maybe I've just not found a thermometer that beeps when a target temperature has been reached, or you use lab bottles and stir-bars to mix the powders, but still. Same goes for D-76.

Rodinal is a good "only" developer as long as you don't push or pull process, and a very good developer for slow films once you adopt the combination of Rodinal and HC-110 in your darkroom.

Also, also, if you do use xtol, for the love of rngesus almighty always clip-test your stock solution. Xtol goes off suddenly and doesn't change colour when it does!
>>
I’m almost done with my first roll of film. What should I do with it from there? I’d rather not get equipment for processing at home until after I know if I like the way my shots turn out, but I’m not sure who to send it off to in order for it to be developed.
>>
>>3859772
maybe if you bothered uploading the full size images instead of fucking thumbnails.
>>
>>3859784
I'm in the same boat.
There's a lab within reasonable driving distance of me that I'm going to try.
I've never done business with them but a little bit of driving is better than having to ship it to a distant lab in my opinion.
>>
>>3859785
oh my bad bb
>>
>>3859784
write the speed you exposed it at and the date in sharpie and then store it indefinitely
>>
>>3859785
what is the optimal piss developer photo threads to wormji shill threads ratio
>>
>>3859820
420:69
>>
>>3859830
my man that's a lot of piss developer threads
>>
>>3859780
>Also, also, if you do use xtol, for the love of rngesus almighty always clip-test your stock solution. Xtol goes off suddenly and doesn't change colour when it does!
I usually take a deep breath. It has a weird smell when expires.
>>
>>3859322
>if rodinal isn't good for fast films (especially tmax and delta 3200) and it isn't good for stuff like hp5, what is it good for anyway?
Slow, traditional grain films, or larger formats.

Films up to ISO100 are bread and butter for Rodinal, though there aren't many left. Stuff like PanF+ (still available), Efke 25 (discontinued), Agfa APX 25 and 100 (discontinued), Kodak Panatomic X (ISO25, discontinued) and Plus X (ISO100, discontinued), Ilford FP4+ (still available) works quite ok too.

The main point is about traditional grain vs T-grain though.
Traditional grain with high silver content works best, T-grain not so much and you can get a lot of contrast and some speed loss, at normal dilutions.

The point about slow films instead of fast is more of a side-note. It'll work similarly on fast *traditional* grain films as with slower ones, it's just that the grain will be very noticeable. When you combine that with the fact that traditional grain fast films are even grainier than T-grain ones, and you have Rodinal's effect on top of that, grain will be too big for some uses/people, on 35mm.
But of course this is a function of format. Jumping to medium format, you can use HP5+ and TriX with Rodinal just like you'd use, say, FP4+ or Plus X on 35mm, with similar grain. Going to 4x5" grain becomes almost irrelevant, even HP5+ in Rodinal will give less grain than an ISO25 traditional film in 35mm.

What Rodinal is good for, is having a bottle for "emergencies" cause it keeps forever and you need very little of it, so if for whatever reason you run out of chemicals or they went bad, having Rodinal as a backup can save the day as you'll at least get something decent.
>>
>>3859954
[Cont.]

Long story short, Rodinal is a very old developing agent, and both film and developer tech/science involved a lot since its introduction.
For developers, there have been 2 "major" generations after Rodinal, with concrete advantages.
The first one is the Phenidone-Hydroquinone family, i.e. most general purpose developers (D-76, ID-11, etc.).
The other major generation much later was the ascorbate developers (Xtol, and some niche ones).

In every "generational" step, the new generation can do everything the old one did -pictorially- better or at least as good, in every aspect, at the same time.
I.e. speed will be better (and also better at pushing), grain will be smaller, and with dilution, also as sharp, at the same time.
So in the end there's no pictorial reason really to choose an older gen developer, unless there's something very particular you like about it. Rodinal for instance has the near infinite shelf life.

>These are both a pain in the ass to mix from powder
Mate if you can mix a cup of instant coffee and sugar, you sure can mix any powder developer. It's the same exact principle: heat up some water, pour one sachet in, stir for a bit, pour the other sachet, stir for a bit, done.

>Also, also, if you do use xtol, for the love of rngesus almighty always clip-test your stock solution. Xtol goes off suddenly and doesn't change colour when it does!
This used to be an issue with the packaging of some 1L bags, were the bags weren't sealed properly and the powder oxidised before it was even mixed. It was a limited - but real - issue, but Kodak both updated its bags and packaging (including the 5L ones which weren't involved in the complaints), and discontinued the 1L ones.
This happened quite a few years ago and never heard of any complaints, since.

HC-110 is great for convenience and shelf life, and it does that without sacrificing performance like Rodinal. It's the closest thing to a liquid D-76 with Rodinal's shelf life.
>>
>>3859961
hc110 would be so good if it was available in smaller bottles. the upfront cost of it really puts me off. whereas the sub 10$ microphen and rodinal (i do have some rodinal) are easier to justify on a budget.
i've only used my rodinal twice, both times on 35mm film. once with tmax 100 pushed to 400 because i was in a rush and needed fast film on the spot, and once more with hp5 (and it came out like ass). since then i've been using microphen but i kinda like the sharp, contrasty look i got on my tmax with rodinal
>>
>>3859965
Consider how many film you can develop in 1 l of HC-110 and do the math. Shelf life is very long and it probably won't go bad.
>>
>>3859970
when i'm buying film stuff i don't want to spend too much. so doubling my final bill never makes sense at the time. i'm well aware it would be the best choice in the long run. it's the upfront cost that bugs me.
>>
>>3859965
Yeah I agree with the big bottles thing.
When a single bottle of HC-110 costs almost 30€ in Europe it's hard to justify to a beginner that is just starting out. Even 5L of Xtol costs less than half of that.

>>3859975
Also I'm not convinced that concentrates are more economical than powder developers.
With Xtol in a small tank (300ml), you need 75ml for 1+3, or 100ml for 1+2.
If you use it replenished (which is great at, since it doesn't need a special replenisher, you use fresh solution as the replenisher), you need 70ml/roll.
That's 70rolls per 5L pack. Even at 1+2 it's 50rolls of 35mm. We're talking less than 30cents per roll.
Even with dilution D in HC-110, you need 7.5ml/roll for 300ml tanks, i.e. ~130rolls per 1L bottle. So a bit less than double of XTol, for double the price. So marginally worse, or say practically pretty much the same economy, for HC-110 vs XTol.
>>
I just bought a fisheye for my RZ67II... I shouldn't be spending the money but this was a good deal, it comes with filters, OG pouch and packaging... Can't wait to try it out.
>>
>>3859954
>>3859961

you always da man giannis, as always.

thank you for your insight.

are you a professional photographer?
>>
>>3859975
You're always going to save money in the long run. Buy film at larger quantity for the same reason.

>>3859986
Remember the shelf life of XTol. Except for few occasions, I use dil. B at 10 ml per film. That makes 100 films per bottle, so as you say ~30 cent (eur). What also makes HC-110 the better developer is its versatility. You can use it as a normal developer with short times even when pushing, or you can use it as a compensating developer at high dilutions. HP5+ stand in Rodinal looks like ass, but in HC-110 (1:100) it's ok and the negatives print well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r15 (Feb 28 2019) 1fa95fd 28.02.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019.05.06 14:46:51
Image Width2592
Image Height1800
>>
>>3860016
>thank you for your insight.
Cheers anon.
>are you a professional photographer?
Kek anon developer autism ain't for professionals, it's for hobbyists and Insel Adams.
My field couldn't be more removed from photography really.

>>3860060
>Remember the shelf life of XTol.
True about that. But it's easily 6 months, and you can stretch to a year in filled to the brim soda/water bottles.
I don't think it's unreasonable to run 50 films in 6 months to a year. But thing is, even if you run less than that, say just half, it's still 60cents per roll.
People get put off by the big quantities of XTol and to a lesser degree D-76, because they're concerned they might not be able to use it all and they'll have to waste lots of *volume* of developer.
But even then, powders are so cheap, that despite the wastage you may end up still cheaper than other developers.
Wasting a big 1L bottle might appear a lot, but all it means is instead of 30cents per roll you're spending 37cents per roll.

>What also makes HC-110 the better developer is its versatility. You can use it as a normal developer with short times even when pushing, or you can use it as a compensating developer at high dilutions.
Yeah I have no issue with HC-110. It's a true general purpose developer, with all the benefits and versatility of one.
All general purpose developers have versatility, and you can finetune the grain size vs grain sharpness/accutance balance by increasing dilution. You could take it all the way to stand. For Xtol it would be ~1+8 or so, for ~30mins.
But truth be said, XTol is not the best for compensation, because it's "too good" for normal development. Part of compensation is not just developer exhaustion, but also some restraining action by side products of development. And XTol is really well buffered and is not affected much by such restrainers (talking about highlights mostly). So it'll develop more in the highlights than typical compensating devs. On the plus side, no bromide drag.
>>
>>3860075
>I don't think it's unreasonable to run 50 films in 6 months
Agreed, but that's 100 a year, which is a bottle of hc-110. As soon as I shoot less than I can develop in my powder developer, before it goes bad, it's not worth the hassle for me.
I haven't tried XTol so far and I'm still happy with D-76.
During the time I use that D-76, I still got a bottle of hc-110 open with no worries about it possibly going bad.
>>
>>3859772
Whos piss did you use?
>>
>>3859807
Shipping to a distant lab is very convenient. I use TheDarkroom and the Memphis Film Lab. Not sure which I prefer, Memphis is a bit cheaper.
>>
File: 61JuN44nEUL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (58 KB, 1500x1133)
58 KB
58 KB JPG
>>3860075
>>3860092

I bought a few 500ml HDPE bottles a few years ago to store stock ID-11, microphen, etc. and lately I've started decanting stock fix into them too. Works great but I sometimes think that when I pour the chems into the empty bottles I'm just introducing a load of air and possibly damaging shelf life. Probably overthinking it, I've not had chemicals go bad in the years I've been doing it. But I thought about getting some more in smaller sizes for liquid developers or just smaller batches of ID-11. I like 1:1 so it'd be easy to get some 300ml bottles and just top up to 600ml and be ready to develop.

Pic related, similar to what I got. Cloudy and screw lid to protect from air and sunlight.
>>
File: _4103040.jpg (4.52 MB, 5184x3888)
4.52 MB
4.52 MB JPG
"Digitise your negatives with a macro lens"
they said
"it'll look better than any scanner"
they said

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23596
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 15:56:33
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4103038.jpg (4.01 MB, 5184x3888)
4.01 MB
4.01 MB JPG
>>3860488
I'm using my camera, and I'm putting the negatives on a fucking desk lamp, because that fucking Nikon film holder is perpetually out of stock and doesn't even fit my camera or its focussing distances.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23596
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 15:55:36
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4103041.jpg (4.08 MB, 3888x5184)
4.08 MB
4.08 MB JPG
>>3860490
Plus, I can only capture the frames in the middle of each film cut out, as the edges just fall off the freaking desk lamp

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23390
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 15:57:27
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4103051.jpg (4.2 MB, 3888x5184)
4.2 MB
4.2 MB JPG
>>3860491
can't for the life of me correct the white balance for B&W film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern22982
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 16:05:46
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4103044.jpg (3.3 MB, 5184x3888)
3.3 MB
3.3 MB JPG
>>3860494
It's also great when the film is still not totally flat and parts of the image fall out of focus...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23328
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 15:59:35
Exposure Time1/1250 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _4103031.jpg (4.81 MB, 3888x5184)
4.81 MB
4.81 MB JPG
>>3860495
You anons are very strange people, if you really like using macro lenses to get digitalisations

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23828
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 15:53:24
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating160
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3860488
How do you do your lighting for this?
>>
>>3860504
See >>3860490 - I put my negatives on a freaking desk lamp with like... a 40w equivalent LED bulb in, then I set up my camera above the desk lamp and focus it manually and then capture.
>>
>>3860507
>on a desk lamp
Like, you turn the lamp head upside down so it's pointing up?
Do you put paper over it or is the film resting on the bulb or what?
>>
File: _3112764.jpg (4.9 MB, 5184x3888)
4.9 MB
4.9 MB JPG
>>3860509
>Like, you turn the lamp head upside down so it's pointing up?
Yes.
>Do you put paper over it
No. I tried that previously, but I ended up with getting paper grain in shots.
Pic rel was a previous attempt at trying to understand how to do it with a desk lamp. I initially thought the paper would be good at diffusing light, but.... you can see the paper didn't do the job well.
>is the film resting on the bulb or what?
The film rests on the rims of the light shade.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23498
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:11 17:02:37
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3860518
Ah I see what you mean.
Also, lol yea that paper grain is pretty pronounced.
>>
>>3860452
If it works, it works.

I usually don't like "darkroom" style bottles for film dev chemicals (I mean stuff with wide brims, accordion ones, etc.), because they often don't cap tightly and they leak. I haven't found one that doesn't.
Even when you buy some chemicals that come in such bottles originally (say fixer, colour chems), once you break the seal and remove the little tinfoil/plastic seal from the brim, they leak air.
The absolute worst are the accordion type bottles, they leak tons of air from the very wide brim, and to top it off when I looked it up, even the material itself is not really impenetrable by air.
Soda/water bottles work like a treat and cost nothing, plus they're easy to squeeze to half volume or less as your chemicals are getting used, so you always have a totally filled to the brim bottle. As a side benefit, when you do squeeze them, then holding the squeezed shape also acts as a quick visual confirmation that no air leaked.

>>3860488
Yeah and if you noticed there's a distinct lack of examples by the people that say that.

The few ones that do it properly with good results, omit to say that a proper camera scanning rig takes more space, equipment, and usually budget too, vs a film scanner, to give a decent result.
Even without counting the camera, you'll need a decent light table with uniform light, a film holder to keep your film flat, a copy stand, and a macro lens or at least extension rings to use the lens you already have.

In your pics I can see there's potential in the sharp parts, but sharpness and light is very uneven, so you need a way to hold the film flat. And also a proper light table. A lamp will only give you constant headaches trying to balance colour film.

>>3860494
This shouldn't be an issue though, why do you even care for WB in a monochrome photo?
Just convert to mononchrome.
>>
>>3860494
Crop just the image, set your black and white points and desaturate unless you like the blue
>>
>buy a minolta maxxum 7000 with a tokina 28-70 for 50$ for shits and giggles
>camera works great but the focus ring is really sticky and so the autofocus doesn't work
>even normal focusing is extremely annoying
>normal 36 exposure rolls last me a week or 2 on my other cameras
>buy a 24 exposure colorplus just so that i can say i tried the camera out
>thinking it will last me more than a month due to the aforementioned focus issues
>shoot the entire roll in 2 hours

i kinda liked it desu. ignoring the focus issues, it was fun. the "antique store" i bought it from also has a beercan for another 50 in perfect working condition. might pick that one up too. worst case i can keep it for my sony mirrorless and get an adapter.
>>
File: _3112764-02.jpg (3.07 MB, 3237x2147)
3.07 MB
3.07 MB JPG
>>3860518
Could be used in another creative way. It's a little hard to get the color out of the paper texture with out changing the rest of the image.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern1355
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 13:14:49
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3237
Image Height2147
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 100%Crop.png (859 KB, 1175x709)
859 KB
859 KB PNG
>>3860488
Shown here a 100% crop from my 10 year old canon 5600 shatbed scanner set to something low like 1600dpi and with some sharpening and work in LR (I made a sharpening preset for myself) it looks okay for web use considering the £45 I spent on it on ebay. Not a great frame but detail dense which is why I chose it as an example. I shim out the scanners film holder with some cardboard and the extra pressure keeps things flat so I get uniform sharpness across the frame. 8x10 prints are a push but they look passable, smaller is fine.

Macro scanning can be killer but it's so ridiculously finnicky. I've tried coupling the end of my camera lens up to my enlarger head so I can focus finely, and even with the film held nicely flat and a condenser built in I can't get good results consistently. My advice for home digitizing would be buy any flatbed that can do more than 6 frames at once so you're not sat next to your computer for a long time and work with the sharpening in post knowing that you're not going to get great results but that it won't be as painful as trying to DSLR scan.

I wonder if anyone's tried putting a plug in light table on top of a regular scanner and doing it that way.

>>3860526
I've heard the same about the accordion bottles. Which is a shame because it's a good idea. All my HDPE plastic ones are malformed from being squeezed but they don't seem to leak. I went with deep soda/water style screw caps for that reason.
>>
File: _3232819.jpg (2.03 MB, 5184x3888)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB JPG
>>3860526
>Just convert to mononchrome.
Monochrome conversions always seem so artificial in software.
Pic rel is a monochrome conversion from the same camera and lens, but of a film related subject (a broken medium format, Soviet rangefinder). I feel like it looks.... artificial.
>>3860533
I'll try desaturation in future, thanks.
>>3860540
While ture... I guess you could still implement such a paper texture digitally anyway - Luminar 4 has the ability to add textures to images. It's actually the tool I use to turn negatives into positives - but I just change the settings a bit. All I really need for the texture is just a .png file of a white 4:3 image I created in gimp to create a "difference" of.
Pic Rel was from the earlier attempt with paper, but B&W.
>>3860542
I have a Canon Lide 300 which I obtained using grocery store loyalty points, because the previous Epson flatbed scanner I had shart the bed and stopped even scanning normal documents. The Lide 300 was a stopgap for maintaining document scanning to .pdf - I did attempt to scan some strips of negatives, but the scanner can only output .png, .jpg and .pdf, and really only .tiff has the flexibility for turning negatives into positives while white balancing the film medium out.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23202
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:23 14:03:43
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating80
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3856985
Great
>>
File: _3112760.jpg (4.95 MB, 5184x3888)
4.95 MB
4.95 MB JPG
>>3860558
>Pic Rel was from the earlier attempt with paper, but B&W.
Sorry, I'm fucking dumb. I forget you can only attach one pic per post.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23610
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:11 16:59:20
Exposure Time1/400 sec
F-Numberf/5.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _3112769.jpg (4.35 MB, 5184x3888)
4.35 MB
4.35 MB JPG
>>3860561
I knew the paper was shit when I managed to get this image without the paper behind it... the image size was also smaller because there wasn't any additional texturing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelPEN-F
Camera SoftwareLuminar 4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Color Filter Array Pattern23416
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:11 17:06:35
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceCloudy Weather
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3860542
>I've heard the same about the accordion bottles.
I mean I don't mind them for paper chems cause due to the wide neck I can pour straight from the trays without funnels or anything. And if paper chems go bad and ruin a print, no biggie you just lost 5' and a sheet of paper.
Wouldn't trust them with film though.
>All my HDPE plastic ones are malformed from being squeezed but they don't seem to leak.
Yeah they're absolutely fine then.

>>3860558
Anon are you baiting me?
I meant convert the camera scan to monochrome, it's a B&W film anyway, no colour would show up if you printed on paper in the darkroom. It's not supposed to have any colour whatsoever, even if the base is slightly tinted sometimes (usually insufficient fixing and washing).
>>
File: 100%Crop2.png (1.3 MB, 1597x883)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB PNG
>>3860558
flatbed gang, another 100% crop of a 35mm frame. This one hasn't been sharpened properly so you can see it's soft but there's plenty of detail in the file. Putting a bit of time into making sure your film is flat and the scanning settings are good makes a big difference. Flatbed's have the advantage of easier to do frames in bulk, and also uniform sharpness corner to corner compared with a budget DSLR scanning set up of something like a regular lens + macro tubes.
>>
Any recommendation for a 55mm red filter?
I have a roll of Ilford SFX 200 that I didn't really understand when I bought it. I know it will just behave like normal B&W film otherwise, but that seems like a waste of an opportunity.

Any recommendations for filter brands and storefronts in Europe at least?
>>
>>3860568
>compared with a budget DSLR scanning set up of something like a regular lens + macro tubes
I'm just using my mirrorless camera with a 1:1 capable macro lens. admittedly, it's at more like 1:1.3-1:2 because of the sensor crop, and film shots being in 3:2 aspect ratio. I got the lens anyway, because I planned to take normal macro photographs anyway...

Still, I've been thinking of the PlusTek OpticFilm 8200.
>>
File: FP4_003.jpg (779 KB, 1200x800)
779 KB
779 KB JPG
>>3860488
>>3860490
>>3860562
Buy a good damn Nikon ES-1 or ES-2 and make your life 100x easier.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
Are there any one shot developers with great shelf life that work well with hp5+? Everything I read about rodinal says it’s shit for that film. Understand I do like grain, so I’m not looking to minimize that, but good contrast control is needed.
>>
>>3860579
HC-110 fits that bill. In principle you could re-use the working-strength dilution, but it's so cheap that there's no point; your photos will be dearer to you than some 15 eurocents per roll.
>>
>>3860577
I mentioned that Nikon film holder....
It's only compatible with the focal length of the Nikkor 60mm macro and is intended to thread into that lens.
I'm using an Olympus M.Zuiko 60mm macro... which is equivalent to 120mm focal length, meaning I'd need longer tubes, and a way to step up from 49mm filter threads to 62mm filter threads.
All that... and the cost of the ES-2 is half that of a Plustek scanner, and almost the same as a god damn prime, or cheap zoom lens. It's all insane.
>>
>>3860587
Cool. I’ll have a look. Thanks!
>>
I saw that lomography is making a film back that allows for Instax wide film to be used on Hasselblad 500 and Fuji's GW.

Can you scan the slide like you would with normal film? And will the quality be comparable to normal MF film?
>>
>>3860610
>Can you scan the slide like you would with normal film?
No. As the image is essentially a self-developing colour positive on a backing, it acts more like photographic paper. You would instead have to scan it like a print on a flatbed scanner.
>And will the quality be comparable to normal MF film?
The quality of film doesn't change exacty by film size. 135 Kodak Ektar 100 is going to be the same film as large format sheets of Kodak Ektar 100. The difference in quality comes from enlarging what is already a big sheet of film vs a small frame of film. And the same goes for scanning.
I'd expect that Instax on MF bodies would look more comparable to Instax out of a higher end Instax camera. Of course, optical qualities of the lenses would matter a great deal, so MF Instax would certainly come out better than Instax.... Instax...
>>
>>3860616
>The quality of film doesn't change exacty by film size. 135 Kodak Ektar 100 is going to be the same film as large format sheets of Kodak Ektar 100. The difference in quality comes from enlarging what is already a big sheet of film vs a small frame of film. And the same goes for scanning.
You're wasting your time answering that retard in a helpful way.
Also the extra quality also comes from the larger negative being less demanding of the optics. You don't need as much resolving power in the optics when you're projecting a larger image. Same reason MFT demands high quality glass.
>>
>>3860610
>Can you scan the slide like you would with normal film? And will the quality be comparable to normal MF film?
You scan like a print, even easier than scanning film.
Resolution will be that of a print. So much lower than film, that is designed to be enlarged.
If I remember correctly, instax's lp/mm resolution corresponds to a bit higher dpi than what you'd print a normal photo (300dpi), so something like 400dpi or so.
This mean you can scan and enlarge *a bit* (i.e. printing at a bigger size than the original), but not close to what you get enlarging film, which can easily do a 8x-10x enlargement.
>>
File: qtptj.jpg (15 KB, 400x400)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>3860624
>You're wasting your time answering that retard in a helpful way.

Kek

>>3860632
Thanks for the explanation Gianni's, i am still not sure if I'll get a film camera sooner or later but the GW690 is tempting, i really want to shoot Ektar.
>>
>>3860432
One the one hand it would be easier to ship the film, but on the other hand just taking it to the place myself would be faster and give me a good excuse to travel to somewhere I usually don't to look for things to photograph.
>>
>>3860639
Yeah the Fuji RFs are great and good value for money.
Check the whole range (GSW and GW) as well as the interchangeable lens ones (G690BL, GL690--->this has better viewfinder closer to the fixed lens ones).
They also offered different "formats" like 6x7, but the cameras are exactly the same, and so are the lenses, the only difference is the film gate size is reduced and gearing is changed to wind for a 6x7 frame instead of 6x9, so not really worth it.
>>
File: 000207590018.jpg (3.04 MB, 3089x2048)
3.04 MB
3.04 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: nothing.jpg (1.18 MB, 2710x2130)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
haven't shot anything in over a year, and I moved to a shitty ugly midwest nowhere town, considering selling most of my gear

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution236 dpcm
Vertical Resolution236 dpcm
Image Created2021:04:10 18:33:30
>>
>>3856741

Why is slide film smaller grained than negative? Why does it often have more vibrant colors? Is it the developement process or the emulsion or what? If you developed slide stock in a negative process, would it still have as small grain?
>>
>>3860745
> trying to do interesting photography in the midwest

The struggle is real...
>>
>>3860824
Good photography is in the composition, not the subject
>>
>>3860848
Agreed, but it’s still nice to have interesting scenery at hand.
>>
>>3860848
Lmao enjoy your cat photos.
>>
>>3860861
Pure flatlands like the midwest has are quite rare in the continent, you just don't know what to do with them because you are used to see them.

>>3860864
Enjoy your random and forever wasted shots from a bygone cool place
>>
>>3860903
>random and forever wasted shots
The engagement instathots get is proof that subject is the number one priority.
>>
>>3860577
My only concerns with the es2 is that I have to cut my negatives.
>>
>>3860903
Yeah it definitely sucks going to cool places. Meeting cool people too, also sucks.
>>
>>3860906
Obviously subject is paramount in coomer photography, if that's your dish then go ahead, photography like most of the board and "successful" photographers (remembered for their technique and publications) do is almost independent of subject.
If you are biased by what an audience asks and wants then you are a whore with a camera.

>>3860908
Of course not, but it does when you go there in the first place to take photos. If i am going to a cool place i go there to eat, drink and enjoy myself with the friends, not to take pictures.
If you go somewhere for the purpose of capturing a cool scenery then no one you meet and nothing you consume matters.
>>
>>3860907
How do you store them?
>>
File: 111.png (269 KB, 611x379)
269 KB
269 KB PNG
Swedish gril introducing the Pentacs K1000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvyX0C_-zL4
>>
>>3860903
Expanses of flat land in North America are hardly rare, but I agree with you that I have no idea how to incorporate them into interesting photography.
>>
File: 007.jpg (588 KB, 1000x1000)
588 KB
588 KB JPG
>>3860745
I lived in the Midwest. It's rife with shooting possibilities. If you're looking for grandiose scenes you're doing it wrong.

>>3860907
...h-how do you store your negatives anon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
I'm thinking of getting a super 8 film camera, and the best one available at a decent price is the Canon 310XL. The problem I have is that the only decent daylight filmstock I can get is 50 ISO while the camera only has options of 25, 100 and 160 and the ISO is automatically set by the cartridge. I've read about "pushing" and "pulling" film, but since to my knowledge I can't manually set the ISO to a specific setting I don't think it's possible (and I don't know how it would work with motion picture). So what the fuck will the camera do if I shoot with the ISO 50 film stock? Would the end result be completely fucked by under-/overexposure? Would the camera implode?
Sub-question: I'm also looking at a camera for stills to see how the light would work before wasting my super 8 film on it, what specs should I look for to get the most like-for-like result? I assume similar film stocks at least, but what else?
>>
File: IMG_0754-Edit.jpg (1.83 MB, 2048x1911)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB JPG
Superia 400 +1 is pretty comfyq

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 80D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.1.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:05 12:12:35
Exposure Time1/2 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
>>
>>3861122
damn, that is very nice
>>
>>3861122
Noice.
>>
File: GrandCentralDownsized.jpg (1.3 MB, 3102x3100)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
Still trying out my hassy I bought about 2 months ago now. Experimenting with a few different film types. The first and largest hurdle I have to overcome is slowing down.
>>
File: GreenWoodStatueDownsized.jpg (2.58 MB, 5078x5074)
2.58 MB
2.58 MB JPG
>>3861231
This was Ektar

This is Portra400
>>
>>3861231
the colours here are lovely
>>
File: LampDownsized.jpg (864 KB, 3000x2998)
864 KB
864 KB JPG
>>3861234
thanks, heres another Ektar 100
>>
>>3861239
super
>>
File: Vision500T_ (10).jpg (468 KB, 1400x923)
468 KB
468 KB JPG
>>3861104
Most likely it will be coded as ISO40 by Kodak, which means your camera will recognise it as ISO25, since it (probably) lacks a notch detector for the 40 setting to it slips to 25.

ISO detection is a mess in super8 cameras because of the many different ways ISO and daylight vs tungsten detection happened.
I mean there's a standard, but there's huge variety in how cameras behaved if they encounter not the exact coding they expect and are capable of.
What they do with filters and adjusting the meter and whatnot (especially if the meter is not ttl, like in the 310XL for instance).
This is complicated by the fact that Kodak "codes" even the tungsten cartridges as daylight.

In any case a very rough rule of thumb is to go to the ISO range of the camera for *daylight* cartridges, and choose the closest setting below the film's actual ISO, this is how the camera will meter.

But to be sure, you could also check this:
>https://www.super8camera.com/manuals/super-8-notch-ruler.pdf
or also google for you camera and film combination specifically.

50D is a beast and will be fine at ISO25, especially considering some scenes might be backlight etc. . Also, since the camera meters not through the lens, you can get a 1-stop ND if you're so inclined, but it's not worth it really. Even if a camera with a basic averaging meter had a manual ISO, I'd set it to 25 for 50D.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r24 (Oct 29 2020) 30c8121 29.10.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:17 00:16:02
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1400
Image Height923
>>
>>3861072
that's a very nice shot anon.
>>
>>3861300
Do you work in the film industry or something? You always struck me as a good tech if not the best photographer
>>
File: 000_1778 (1).jpg (1.54 MB, 2048x1737)
1.54 MB
1.54 MB JPG
>expired ektar
Is there a software that can automatically detect and remove dust from film photos?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.1.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3860577
But this doesn’t look good
>>
>>3861233
Kino but this would look way better with the green curve pulled down
>>
>>3861471
dunno what that means these are as is, mostly unedited
>>
>>3861440
Dunno about in post but some scanners, e.g. epson flatbeds, can do it for color. Those suck balls for 35mm though.
>>
>>3861519
It means your white balance is a little off. An easy way to tell is to look at the film border that is supposed to be black.
>>
>>3857876
imagine ultramax but worse in every way
>>
I asked this in another thread jokingly, but actual question:
What does an Industar-50 do sharpness wise at like 50-100 meters?
I roll past 20 and hit ∞ before the images ever line up. Fair enough, I expect that, but what does that actually look like on the film?
>>
>>3861001
where do i buy one of these
>>
>>3861543
A Swedish gril?
>>
>>3861544
shes finnish you idiot but yes, w2c
>>
>>3861546
The post said Swedish.
How am I supposed to tell the difference.
I don't speak Swedish or Finnish.
>>
>>3861549
let me guess, youre american?
>>
>>3861550
Obviously.
>>
>>3861537
OH duhhh i was mid set at the gym and for some reason that completely went over my head for no reason
>>
>>3861542
You sure you got the rangefinder coupled lens? There's an Industar-50 that's for m39 SLRs as well, that one will never work on a rangefinder because the flange-to-focal distance is wrong.
>>
>>3861561
How would I tell the difference?
>>
>>3861561
Or rather, what would I see in the rangefinder at 50 meters with the right lens vs the wrong one?
>>
>>3861562
That the rangefinder spot doesn't move at all if it's not coupled. At 50 meters you'd see the spot align on objects very far away.

Tiny aluminium lens, right? f/2.8? Very cheap?
>>
>>3861567
Nah dude the double-images move.
The lens is moving the rangefinder tab.
>>
>>3861567
>spot align on objects very far away
Ok, good.
That seems to be in order.
I'm asking what the focus sharpness actually ends up being on the exposure at 50 meters when the lens is rolled all the way out to infinity.
>>
>>3861570
At infinity the lens will be in sharp focus on objects farther away than (say) 20 meters regardless of aperture setting. The Industar lenses are Soviet versions of the tried-and-true Tessar formula, which is quite sharp from f/5.6 and tighter, surprisingly sharp even.
>>
>>3861582
Oh ok.
Neat.
It's not like I'm stressing about it or anything I'm just curious as to how it behaves.
I want to gather as much theoretical data as possible to inform my decisions on what kind of shots to take for this first test roll.
>>
File: Schuur_001.jpg (3.94 MB, 3842x3026)
3.94 MB
3.94 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:11 22:51:39
Exposure Time0.4 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3842
Image Height3026
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Schuur_002.jpg (4.21 MB, 3925x2988)
4.21 MB
4.21 MB JPG
>>3861601
Old barn on the road. Shot with Mamiya 645 Fomapan 200. Noisy as fuck.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:11 22:52:21
Exposure Time0.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3925
Image Height2988
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Schuur_003.jpg (4.44 MB, 3970x3003)
4.44 MB
4.44 MB JPG
>>3861603

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:11 22:53:22
Exposure Time0.4 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3970
Image Height3003
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3861537
You don't know how to use the eyedropper tool lmao
>>
File: DSC_41770.jpg (3.16 MB, 2002x1599)
3.16 MB
3.16 MB JPG
>>3860913
Anon some of us are brought to specific places by others to do take photos. It's called a photo shoot. If you wanna believe the bastion of creativity lies in some flyover state go for it I'm not gonna stop you.
>>
>>3861613
You were commissioned to shoot... pipe?
Looks like good pipe and all, but, wut?
>>
File: dsc70_7714.jpg (3.28 MB, 2001x1334)
3.28 MB
3.28 MB JPG
>>3861616
>I only lay the finest pipe

No I just like posting film shots in the /fgt/
>>
>>3861423
Nah man pure hobby.
I got into photography from the backdoor (technical side, optics) as a uni thesis project about differential equations, how they're applied in practical problems etc., case study was aberration correction/raytracing for pictorial use, got exposed to photography "by accident" looking up examples of lenses and what images they produce, then got into photography etc etc. .
That's why the tech side is stronger than the photographic one lel.
>>
>>3861233
I did it on my phone with snapseed
>>
>>3861539
Wrong
>>
>>3861601
>>3861603
>>3861606
Kino
>>
>>3861641
Snap...SNEED?
>>
>>3861300
Fantastic, thanks for the help. I could also get the Kodak ektachrome 100D color reversal film but I've read that if you plan on digitalizing the footage it's better to go with color negative. Is there any basis to that?
>>
File: scan_20091104-0001_v1.jpg (186 KB, 950x633)
186 KB
186 KB JPG
I just loaded a 36-exposure roll of Fuji C200 to my Spotmatic. That roll expired in 2018 and was stored in room temperature. What should I expect from it?

Pic unrelated, but an old photo I took in 2009. Spotmatic & 50mm Super-Takumar. Film could be either Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarexsane
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width950
Image Height633
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2009:11:04 17:55:01
Image Width950
Image Height633
>>
>>3858688
This is lovely. Provia or something?
>>
>>3859225
nice one anon, is 300mm like 120 35eqv?
>>
>>3862013
Thanks. Velvia 50 in an XA2
>>
>>3861992
Im guessing the thinking of the person that told you so, is that if you plan on projecting, you *need* positive film. If not, you can *also* use negative and skip the inconveniences of positive.
Namely the fact that positive film has much more limited dynamic range than negative (even more so when compared with cine negative). Plus it’s more expensive to boot and comes in only one speed.
>>
>>3862058
Every time these days I see a sharp 135 frame, its pretty much guaranteed its from a XA series. I dunno why but they have extremely snappy lenses.
>>
>>3862139
The XA2 yes, the XA no. The XA lens was very optically compromised to fit the RF mechanism in while still maintaining the sliding clamshell design. Comparing an XA2 frame to an XA frame is night and day in terms of sharpness in my experience.
>>
>>3862141
So XA2 is zone focus?
>>
>>3859225
Hnggggg
>>
>>3862146
Yup, but if you use the middle one you're set for most situations
>>
>>3862146
>>3862141
You guys mean Olympus XA2?
>>
>>3857898
i believe prices in almost everything have gone up because of covid shortages
>>
Do lenses made for Pentax K digis have backwards compatibility with film bodies? I have an MX and got a deal on a Samyang 35mm 1.4, will it work? Im mostly concerned about aperture, the old bodies have a mechanical lever that keeps it open when focusing.
>>
>>3862207
Yup
>>
>>3862218
There are three major and one minor source/-s of incompatibility between digital-era lenses and film bodies. The big ones are coverage where some lenses don't cover a 36mm by 24mm frame, mount compatibility where newer lenses do some things like aperture setting and communication using electronic means which older bodies won't have (such as Nikkor G lenses on bodies older than a F5 or F100), and finally sometimes the lens mount outright won't lock. The minor incompatibility is that digital-era lenses have more distortion than film-era lenses because the manufacturer would rely more on digitally-applied corrections than one could do in the darkroom.

Mostly, unless there's forum yak about a certain lens being particularly good on film, those Samyang lenses won't work on film bodies. Just stick with the classic ones, there's plenty of great glass for Pentax K-mount.
>>
>>3862221
I found some video in the meantime where they use it on a film body, all good. I'm really looking forward to it desu, its got great reviews as a digi lens, beating even distagons in all round sharpness.

Altough I dont know how deep Pentax wells are, it could be bad with film bcos of that. Guess Ill just have to see. Ive got 2 weeks time to return it, plenty time to find out.
>>
>>3862221
Contd

I usually prefer to only buy Pentax M series lenses, they work best with M bodies and are compact as hell. Sadly the fastest 35 in circulation, the M f2, has very bad radial astigmatism that turns every point light source into a cats eye.
>>
>>3862008
No worries man.
>>
File: Schuur_006.jpg (4.15 MB, 3946x2882)
4.15 MB
4.15 MB JPG
>>3861606
cont.

Actually met the owner by accident and his father. Building was condemned and +100 years old. The old guy grew up with 13 brothers, the other guy with 8.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:11 22:57:37
Exposure Time1/4 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3946
Image Height2882
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Schuur_005-s.jpg (2.85 MB, 3938x2974)
2.85 MB
2.85 MB JPG
>>3862458
Kinda fucked up because I measured for 400 but had 200 film...

>>3862207
Own two (one needs to be fixed). Lovely camera and really nice to shoot with.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3938
Image Height2974
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:12 23:58:06
Exposure Time1/2 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3938
Image Height2974
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Schuur_004-s.jpg (2.55 MB, 3943x2986)
2.55 MB
2.55 MB JPG
>>3862460
Really like the texture, main reason for shooting these. Weather was overcast so shitty lighting.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3943
Image Height2986
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:12 23:57:56
Exposure Time0.4 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3943
Image Height2986
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
Anyone got experience ordering film from Amazon? The prices are quite tempting... Which makes me doubt.
>>
>>3862463
Kino
>>
>>3862463
>overcast so shitty lighting
Don't you be dissing on nature's softbox now, ya hear. Underexpose if you're afraid of boosting contrast in the darkroom and/or scan processing program.
>>
>>3862478
The prices on Amazon.ca are shit, but on the bright side you could probably shoot it all and then tell Amazon it was all fucked and get your money back with zero issue lol
>>
What's the best way to get a darkroom set up?
I bought some plate carriers for my Mamiya C330 a while back, but I haven't gotten around to actually making plates yet.
So far I've just been developing film in a dark tank that I load in my closet.
Obviously, making plates requires a bit more space.
>>
>>3862209
let's hope the prices go back down after covid...
>>
>>3858688
holy shit I love this.
>>
Leitz minolta cl (dead meter) + m rokkor 28mm f2.8 for around 400 usd worth it?
>>
>>3862804
I'd say yes, but I bet the lens has the common white spots. Recently saw some CL with 40mm Cron for 500eur and almost bought it.
>>
>>3861122
Because retards have no ruined basic film terminology I now have to ask...

+1 meaning overexposed a stop?
Or
+1 meaning pushed a stop?
>>
>>3862804
The 28mm is meant for the Minolta CLE.
The CL's widest frame lines are for 40mm.
>>3862823
Hmm.... how much would you pay for a CL, working meter, with a Leitz 40mm and Leitz 90mm?
>>3862920
+1 means pushed a stop.
In this case, 400 pushed to 800.
>>
File: Pic-30.jpg (4.86 MB, 3248x4891)
4.86 MB
4.86 MB JPG
Where can I get some good inspo for nude photography that isn't coomer bait? I don't have access to a library at the moment

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 1300D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:11:05 15:45:52
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3862959
Matt Osborne's MrLeica.com
>>
File: edit-01-08-18#4.jpg (140 KB, 667x1000)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
>>3862941
>how much would you pay for a CL, working meter, with a Leitz 40mm and Leitz 90mm?
~800eur
I got the 90mm Elmar-C and, while it's an overall nice lens, it's slow.
I don't care about the meter and wouldn't mind it being broken. A working meter is no reason to pay more to me.

[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 Width4800
Image Height3324
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution600 dpi
Vertical Resolution600 dpi
Image Created2018:08:02 01:53:48
Image Width4800
Image Height3324
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width667
Image Height1000
>>
File: Portra-160.jpg (2.37 MB, 2000x1663)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB JPG
Shot these today. Exposure was around 15 seconds at f16. Id like to know which one you like the most.

Portra 160
>>
File: Ektar-100.jpg (2.03 MB, 2000x1663)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB JPG
>>3863028
Ektar 100
>>
File: Velvia-50.jpg (2.23 MB, 2000x1676)
2.23 MB
2.23 MB JPG
>>3863029
Velvia 50
>>
>>3863030
This one.
>>
>>3863028
>>3863029
>>3863030
Velvia>Portra>Ektar
>>
>>3863038
this
ektar and portra are too cool, velvia is comfy
>>
>responding to film sim posts
>>
>>3863049
Didn't even notice it's posted in filmgeneral.
>>
>>3863049
how can you tell? genuinely interested to know
>>
>>3863077
By not being the low iq no caps poster shitting up every /fgt/
>>
>>3863028
Doesn’t look like portra (weird blues in the sky, warm instead of greenish shadows).

>>3863029
Doesn’t look like Ektar (sky not cyan enough, sand too cold and low saturation, Ektar is very strong in warm reddish colors).

>>3863030
Doesn’t look like Velvia at all. Yellow shadows, on a slide film? Really? It should be very blueish or magenta for velvia.

Bro if someone sold you these as film pics ask for your money back ASAP.
>>
>>3863049
>>3863077
He's wrong. Look at the way the little waves on the water break the reflection up. Those are three distinct exposures presumably with a medium format camera that had interchangeable backs.

They could also be three distinct exposures with different film simulations, certainly. It'd be silly to burn MF velvia on a film comparison.
>>
>>3863028
>>3863029
>portra is warmer and more saturated than Ektar
do digishitter larpers really?
Sometimes I feel sorry for them, they show such little knowledge so the can’t have actually used those films at all, and this is quite sad :(
>>
>>3863097
You’re saying you can’t take three separate photos on digital? You’re saying that three separate photos is evidence of film?
>>
>>3863030
Man i wish my velvia 50 had that amount of dynamic range.
>>
>>3863140
The key is a 15 second exposure anon.
>>
>>3863142
You mean 28 seconds right? Because of the reciprocity failure.
>>
>>3863143
Hold on lemme check the exif from that shot.
>>
>>3863143
Fuji says that their slide is good for up to 30 sec without reciprocity failure, I always expose whats metered for under 30 and get bang on exposure with Provia.
>>
>>3863156
But provia is not velvia, and velvia's datasheet recomends overexposing at 4 second shutter speed or longer.
>>
>>3863094
cringe

>>3863097
Oh so you're saying there's no way to really tell but you're inclined to believe it is film because of the exposures and amount of effort required and the differences in waves-- meaning long time has passed between shots to guess that film back could have been swapped out. Yeah I bought some Velvia 50 last weekend and it's only Tuesday and I've already burned though all 10 rolls.
>>
>>3863166
Good to know. Why is it so much worse? Provia will have pretty predictable exposure up to three minutes which is pretty crazy for film.
>>
>>3863193
>Why is it so much worse?
Most film stock aren't engineered to for eposure longer than 30 seconds like acros and provia. Thats film photography for ya.
>>
>>3858688
great
>>
>>3863095
>>3863102
sorry guys, I think it was my trash editing coming through
>>
>>3863028
>>3863029
>>3863030
>15 second exposure
Wut?
>>
>>3862460
>I measured for 400 but had 200 film...
i do this all the time on purpose
>>
>>3863297
>Lower caps anon false flags to save his ego after getting fooled by a 4:5 crop. Colorized, 2021
>>
File: Portra-160.jpg (2.11 MB, 2000x1663)
2.11 MB
2.11 MB JPG
>>3863361
I think youre confusing one other person.

Here is the unedited portra, maybe you guys can have a go. Sorry Im learning
>>
File: Ektar-100.jpg (1.81 MB, 2000x1663)
1.81 MB
1.81 MB JPG
>>3863364
>>
File: Velvia-50.jpg (1.96 MB, 2000x1676)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>3863366
>>
>>3863364
>>3863366
>>3863367
What was your exposure and aperture?
>>
>>3863371
I think the velvia 50 was 15 sec at f16
>>
>>3863373
I'm not familiar with that film.
Is such a long exposure time common?
>>
>>3863373
Velvia 50 has magenta color shift at long exposure.
>>
>>3863297
>>3863373
Can you post a photo of the negatives and the slide?
>>
>>3863095
>Doesn’t look like Velvia at all. Yellow shadows, on a slide film? Really? It should be very blueish or magenta for velvia.

The yellow shadows are from light bouncing off the yellowish sand onto the underside of the structure. It's pretty obvious...

>>3863465
No it doesn't. It shifts green. That's why the datasheet calls for magenta filters beyond 4s.

Glad to see there's still substantial levels of retardedness and misinformation in these /fgt/ threads.
>>
File: mono-0600.jpg (67 KB, 600x453)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>3863570
> It shifts green. That's why the datasheet calls for magenta filters beyond 4s.
Lmao, its magenta correcting filter not magenta filter. The retard here is you kek.
>>
Bros just got my first roll developed and scanned but the files the lab sent me are quite small, the files are 1818x1216
Is the lab shit or something? Can I squeeze more resolution pit of the negatives if I get it scanned somewhere else?
>>
>>3863553
Theyre film sims, hes a retardo
>>
Any decent cheap place to develop film in Sweden or Northern Europe?

I have three rolls from previously untested cameras. Just wanna see if they worked so I'm not keen on paying big bucks for them.
>>
File: aniki ponder.jpg (92 KB, 576x768)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
Any advice on cleaning the insides of a camera bag? The old man that I bought it from had a crusty old Pentax leather case in it and it's rubbed off a lot of shite on the lining.
>>
>>3863664
What do you consider cheap?
>>
>>3863682
Find some way to blast air in at high pressure.
>>
>>3863682
Cheap compressor or tire compressor
>>
>>3863750
What are the prices everywhere? In NYC I usually get 20 dollars per 120 roll to develop and scan up to 25mb. I'm curious to see what other locations compare like in price.
>>
>>3863682
hydraulic press, a tire full of air and a hose
>>
>>3863030
>>3863029
>>3863028

This is why slides are the superior photo format
>>
>>3863750
I've only got experience in Asia where it's been dirt cheap. The 'local' store here had a price list of like 30-40 bucks per roll with scanning.

I don't have much in Europe to compare to, but since it's just test rolls I was hoping cheaper. I paid less than that for some of those cameras...
>>
>>3863850
Yes, thanks to its superior shadow detail over color negatives.
>>
>>3863856
Kek nigga those are Norway tier prices.
If it’s a test roll and you don’t mind shipping, send me over and I’ll dev them for you.
>>
>>3863632
you posted a Rockwell meme so I dunno if you're memeing or not but in case you're serious...

no motherfucker.

a magenta correcting filter ADDs magenta to BALANCE the green shift

pic related: velvia 50's datasheet says to use this filter (10M) for 16 second exposures. do you even Velvia bro? smdh
>>
File: Scan019lr.jpg (680 KB, 1000x1250)
680 KB
680 KB JPG
april snow on rpx 400 pushed to 3200
>>
File: Scan010lr.jpg (339 KB, 1000x667)
339 KB
339 KB JPG
>>3863970
>>
File: Scan005lr.jpg (376 KB, 1000x800)
376 KB
376 KB JPG
>>3863971
>>
>>3863972
This one looks cool
>>
>>3863972
This one works really well graphically. Other two are decent attempts but pretty garbage.
>>
>>3859225
This is excellent anon, best in the thread for me
>>
>>3863970
>>3863971
>>3863972
woah, these are really really neat
i really like the second one, personally
would buy prints desu
>>
File: goncern.png (9 KB, 253x199)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
>getting several rolls back from the lab today
>didn't change camera's dying battery until like halfway through the second roll
>the last time I shot with its battery this low, several exposures were just completely missing after dev
If half of my shots are fucked/missing because of my own negligence, I'll jam my remote shutter trigger up my dick
>>
File: baseline.png (390 KB, 503x388)
390 KB
390 KB PNG
>>3864404
Exactly what I expected to happen has occurred. At least the roll that I did with the fresh battery looks alright, I guess
>>
>>3864451
I've been there. Ruined a Cinestill roll and an Ektar roll cause I was dumb.
>>
>>3864404
>>3864451
>>3864473
On that note, what's a good (working, affordable) battery measuring tool for CR1/3 lithium cells? None of the testers I've seen go up to the 3V that said cells put out.

I've had fucked-up underexposures on my Leica M7 because of its behaviour where low voltage from the batteries makes it flakey (i.e. goes to the 1/125 or 1/60 speed in auto mode) rather than show the battery check status on the LED display. So rather than guestimate how many rolls I've still got left and risk further fuckups because nowhere sells paired CR1/3 cells, I'd like to use a tool of some kind to check the remaining chooch factor every (say) ten rolls.
>>
>>3864656
A handheld meter?
>>
>>3864804
Well shit, I hadn't even considered that. And I do need a multimeter for other things as well. ... really, anyone over the age of 12 should own one of those.
>>
File: img130.jpg (190 KB, 1080x608)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
ilford xp2 - olympus om2s program

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:14 03:39:10
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
snagged a Praktica VF today, however the instructions I got with it are uh, optimistic with their idea of conveying information.

Is their a point to setting the film speed? it doesnt seem to do anything as this camera has no inbuilt metering. Is it just so I know without having to remember?





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.