[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]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: ektar.jpg (4.03 MB, 5624x5016)
4.03 MB
4.03 MB JPG
Film Community Links:
35mmc.com
Casualphotophile.com
Emulsive.org
istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
industrieplus.net/dxdatabase

Old thread >>3864545
>>
Hi guys I want to get into Ektachrome but noticed these E6 dev kits are only rated for 4 rolls??? That seems terrible. Does it mean it's only enough to process 4 rolls simultaneously, or is the chemistry really only good for 4 rolls in total? That seems so expensive and pointless.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/1181-Arista-Rapid-E-6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Pint
>>
>>3868439
this image is pink.
>>
>>3868454
Anon please it’s his magnum opus
>>
>>3868236
https://emulsive.org/articles/rants/how-to-shoot-expired-film-or-no-you-do-not-need-to-add-one-stop-per-decade
>>
>>3868462
laffed
>>
>>3868444
get the tetenal ones, they give u 30 rolls
>>
File: scaled4.jpg (797 KB, 3000x2927)
797 KB
797 KB JPG
seems I still need to slow down and pay attention to my metering.
>>
>>3868476
You think this is too underexposed?
I don't mind the exposure
>>
>>3868512
It's not, humble brag
>>
>>3868512
I think it was f4 @ 1/125, could have gone a tad slower and maybe taken an extra second to get the flower in focus and not the leaf next to it.
>>
>>3868516
it isn't a humble brag, I'm going back to retake some photos. i nitpick my own shit a lot
>>
What labs do you use to develop? I use TheDarkroom and Memphis Film Lab.
>>
>>3868521
I just walk down to Picturehouse in Chelsea and have my shit developed there or go to Luster Photo in the lower east side. Never got the appeal of mailing shit when I can have my shit developed the day it was shot + what if temperatures range a lot during shipping.
>>
>>3868517
What film?
>>
>>3868522
That’s because you live in NY and have access to plenty of good labs in person. Check out Bleeker Digital if you like Luster.
>>
i made a post with all my scanned MF shots come and leave some thoughts :)
>>3868559
>>
>>3868338

It's amazing once it's sorted out. I had to adjust the RF vertical and horizontal alignment, full lens CLA, clean the VF and load some film in it. The advance mechanism feels like the slide on a bolt action rifle. I believe the Leicavit uses the same thing.

Leica? You don't need Leica that cost more than average Soviet housewife, etc.
>>
>>3868522
>Never got the appeal of mailing
I live in Missouri.
>>
File: 32590017.jpg (3.08 MB, 3090x2048)
3.08 MB
3.08 MB JPG
1

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: 32590030.jpg (3.36 MB, 3090x2048)
3.36 MB
3.36 MB JPG
2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: 32590006.jpg (3.61 MB, 3090x2048)
3.61 MB
3.61 MB JPG
3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: 32580014.jpg (2.87 MB, 3090x2048)
2.87 MB
2.87 MB JPG
>>3868828
4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: 32580031.jpg (2.59 MB, 3090x2048)
2.59 MB
2.59 MB JPG
5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: ok.jpg (2.35 MB, 3090x2048)
2.35 MB
2.35 MB JPG
had to downsize the file it was 5.6mb

6/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:21 22:59:54
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3090
Image Height2048
>>
File: 010050610008.jpg (4.7 MB, 2416x2380)
4.7 MB
4.7 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 7.20.004 (200730)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2416
Image Height2380
>>
>>3868830
I like this one, looks quite cool in the snow.
>>
File: 004.jpg (713 KB, 1000x1000)
713 KB
713 KB JPG
>>3868474
I get 60 rolls out of the 2.5L.kits.

>>3868522
People who mail shit have no other choice. If you have a good lab local, of course you should use it.

Also, lol temp is never going to be an issue shipping film in the UK.

>>3868764
Condolences anon. I lived there for 8 years.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3868530
Velvia fiddy
>>
>>3869001
>I get 60 rolls out of the 2.5L.kits.
How long do you keep your chemicals
>>
Hey guys I was wondering if u could help me out...I’ve looked online about the issue and found one place that didn’t help much.

My Minolta xd11 stopped firing on any setting except B and O. I opened it up to see if there was any corrosion or mechanical failure and it all looked ok. The only weird thing was the aperture mirror on the front came loose and was rattling around the electronics above the slr mirror.

Is my camera doomed? Should I look into repairs or should I just look for another?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Width750
Image Height501
>>
So I've decided to try my hand at developing my own film.
What developer would you guys recommend for developing HP5 film?
There's so many to choose from. I assume they all yield different types of results.
I'm not really picky, the first several rolls will just be for getting used to the process so they don't have to be perfect or anything.
Are there any developers that aren't even worth trying?
>>
File: 004.jpg (1.48 MB, 1600x2001)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
Finally finished moving in have some tmax
>>
>>3869596
Based, fuck the Tri-X crutchfags
>>
>>3869037
6ish months. I mix 1L at a time. The first round right after mixing chemicals is usually 15-20 rolls. Then I coast the last 10-15 rolls over the following months.
>>
File: Ha_Giang_003.jpg (636 KB, 900x1200)
636 KB
636 KB JPG
>>3869553
Honestly it really doesn't matter. I've never liked powder developers and much prefer syrup that you mix ad 1 shot everytime you want to develop.

Rodinal and HC110 are this type of developer and the concentrate lasts for years so you don't need to worry about your developer going bad. They are both highly concentrated. At typical developing dilutions, a bottle of either will do ~100 rolls.

>>3869596
Congrats on the new spot! Can't tell if Yaletown or over by the Cambie St Bridge. Bougie either way.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: 000015.jpg (797 KB, 1817x1228)
797 KB
797 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSLP1000SE
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER340-3.5-0E-606
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:03:12 11:56:56
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1817
Image Height1228
>>
>>3869760
lol I had to search those cause I thought it was London. This is NoMad, Manhattan.
>>
>>3869807
This is very good
>>
>>3869553
Any general purpose developer will give very gods results.
ID-11, D-76, HC-110, XTol, etc. .
Personally I find XTol the best general purpose developer performance wise but you can use any of the above and it’ll be fine with very small differences between each other.
>>
>>3869912
>>3869760
Right on.
>>
File: Hwjnaj.jpg (350 KB, 1612x1209)
350 KB
350 KB JPG
GAS is so hard to resist and ended up buying two :|

>>3869228
Probably problem with electronics. Have you tried using a tester to test the board or connections?
I suggest finding a repairman. Minolta xd11 is a great camera anon.
>>
>>3870363
Kino.
How do those M35s handle?
NGL I've given it some thought.
It would be pretty cool to have a reserve camera that's just a little pocket point-n-shit like that.
>>
>>3868828
I like this one. I just feel it would have been even better with a little bit more foreground shown.
>>
File: 000_1830.jpg (1.6 MB, 3781x4121)
1.6 MB
1.6 MB JPG
Expired Pro Image 100, smells really bad after development but im surprised that i got some results from this roll.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 17:33:08
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000_1849.jpg (1.68 MB, 1820x2048)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB JPG
>>3870491
forgot to resize that one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 17:37:35
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000_1851.jpg (1.41 MB, 1833x2048)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB JPG
>>3870492

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 17:37:35
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000_1860.jpg (1.6 MB, 2048x1853)
1.6 MB
1.6 MB JPG
>>3870493

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 17:37:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 000_1854.jpg (1.7 MB, 1922x2048)
1.7 MB
1.7 MB JPG
>>3870494

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 17:37:36
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3870491
>>3870492
>>3870493
>>3870494
>>3870495
Ah yes. The batch from the Triassic period
>>
File: _20210424_220855.jpg (857 KB, 1951x999)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
Rescanning old photos with sprocket holes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:24 22:08:55
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: _20210424_220912.jpg (1.02 MB, 1962x999)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG
>>3870542

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:24 22:09:13
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3870540
True, had to shot these at like iso 6 to 1
>>
File: _20210424_220836.jpg (964 KB, 2004x999)
964 KB
964 KB JPG
>>3870544

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:24 22:08:37
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
I want to like ultramax but can't
>>
>>3870549
Whats wrong with it?
>>
what kinda character does cinestill 800t have?
i mean, like kodak gold has bluish shadows and goldish highlights and pretty normal contrast and bright colors.
>>
>>3870571
The bad kind of character
>>
File: PXL_20210424_111253863.jpg (4.23 MB, 4032x3024)
4.23 MB
4.23 MB JPG
>>3870400
Not him, but I somewhat fail to see the point of them. They're fixed aperture, fixed shutter speed. If you want a reserve camera, why not just buy one of the hundreds of $20 p&s that actually read dx codes and adjust aperture shutter speed as necessary? They'll be way more flexible in use.

>>3870491
>>3870546
Dude what? Pro Image came out in 1997, which means the first rolls probably expired in 1999 or 2000. Your results are super fucked because you exposed it at 1 to 6 iso...not because it was expired.

Hey friends, I'm making a Japan photo zine just like every other film photographer. Wish me luck.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeGoogle
Camera ModelPixel 3a
Camera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.362396382zd
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 08:12:53
Exposure Time41667/1000000 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating98
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness1.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance1.62 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.44 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeClose View
>>
File: 2021-04-20-0006-positive.jpg (1.68 MB, 2159x685)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB JPG
Lookin for some advice here,

I wanna start some kind of project that forces me to go out with my RB67 in order to get more proficient using the camera. Maybe something similar to a '30 rolls in 30 days' type challenge that I've seen folks do with cheap bw 35mm, but I'm not exactly sure how to translate that to MF.
One roll of 120 every day for a month seems a little out of reach with work, but maybe I should really force myself? One roll a week sounds way more doable, but is that enough shooting to really progress with a camera?

Also don't know anything about BW developers, so what do y'all use for fomapan? Hope I'm not overthinking everything

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEpson
Camera ModelPerfectionV550
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution320 dpi
Vertical Resolution320 dpi
Image Created2021:04:22 12:09:17
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3870571
Cool tones, color corrected the closest in look except for the halation is portra 800.
>>
>>3870494
holy light leaks batman you overexposed to the point light got to the sprockets
>>
Snapped a nice photo of the DJ at the bar where I went for drinks for the first time in like 6 months.

Kentmere 400 @ 1600 iso, developed in1+25 rodinal really looks a lot nicer than I thought it would
>>
File: DSCF2750_5.jpg (364 KB, 1213x1822)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
>>3870600
ffs
>>
>>3869754
How do you compensate for the weakening of chemicals? 10% extra FD time per 4 films like it says on the instructions? Did you need to chemically alter colour balance? How did you store the chems?

Sorry for the number of questions, been trying to home process E-6
>>
File: hsjw.jpg (185 KB, 806x604)
185 KB
185 KB JPG
>>3870363
Not good. Battery that came with it lasted less than 5 rolls if you use flash. Good thing its cheap AAA. I only bought them because they are cute and used so they are cheap.

>>3870575
Agreed. For me p&s are not worth it for wasting film. Films now costs $10 in my area so don't waste them on these toy cameras with flash. Girls love them though since they look cute and nice.

Here's the back and hopefully it will deter you from buying them. Hope everyone doesn't have GAS like mine.
>>
Is cinestill and lomo 800 the only colored film worth it shooting at night? I can't recommend ultramax and superia 400 to newbie film shooters because they always forget turning on the flash when shooting at night and behold nothing turns up on their negs and they leave film entirely.
>>
File: PSX_20210424_122455.jpg (1.52 MB, 1500x2000)
1.52 MB
1.52 MB JPG
>>3870602
I just rough it honestly.

First 2 rounds of 3 rolls/ea I use the first set of times.
Next two rounds I use the second set of times. We're at 12 rolls deved now.
Next one or two rounds I use the third set of times. We're at rolls 15-18 now.
Next one or two rounds I use fourth set of times. Now we're at rolls 18-24.
I'll do my last one or two rounds at a 5th set of times adjusted in the same increments as the listed times. This will take me to 25-30ish rolls depending how old the chems are and how snapshitty the rolls are.

I dev the important rolls in the first 4-5 rounds. Later rounds are for snapshitty stuff. I store my chems in plastic 1L soda bottles in a closet.

>>3870636
Use rechargeables. When I used to shoot multiple flash setups my AA rechargeables would last multiple sessions whereas normal AA would last 1/2 a session.

>>3870637
If you don't want to use flash or a tripod and shoot at night, just don't bother with film. This is a place where film is at its worst. For casual, handheld night shooting digital is 100% the way forward. If using a tripod, literally any film works at night and limiting oneself to high iso doesn't make sense. Pic related: my night shooting mememachine.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeGoogle
Camera ModelPixel 3a
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 12:24:56
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating60
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness3.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.31 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.44 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio2
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3870651
>If you don't want to use flash or a tripod and shoot at night, just don't bother with film.

Was gonna say this too. There's no win in underexposing film.
>>
>>3870651
>If you don't want to use flash or a tripod and shoot at night, just don't bother with film. This is a place where film is at its worst. For casual, handheld night shooting digital is 100% the way forward. If using a tripod, literally any film works at night and limiting oneself to high iso doesn't make sense. Pic related: my night shooting mememachine.

Well I'm talking about the peeps I introduced to film. I let them borrow my film camera and in the end they treat it like a smartphone and shoot selfies on their room and they get upset why nothing turns out. They use it like a smartphone. That's why I'm looking for a color film which they can use with a point and shoot indoors without flash. I guess they are not for film then :/

>Use rechargeables. When I used to shoot multiple flash setups my AA rechargeables would last multiple sessions whereas normal AA would last 1/2 a session.

yup I just swap them up with my AAA rechargeables. Eh I'm just thinking of something I could complain about this Kodak M35. Anyway it's cheap and women like it and they get introduced to film so it's good I guess.

BTW nice lens. I would want to own the 40mm 2.0 pancake someday for my nikon. How does that compare to that?
>>
File: 4234.jpg (953 KB, 668x1000)
953 KB
953 KB JPG
self scanned snapshits

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5937
Image Height3963
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:25 00:13:58
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width668
Image Height1000
>>
File: 4556456.jpg (491 KB, 1000x668)
491 KB
491 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6016
Image Height4016
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:25 00:20:13
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height668
>>
File: 000006.jpg (1.26 MB, 3023x2433)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-3000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:07 16:57:01
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3023
Image Height2433
>>
File: 000007.jpg (1.43 MB, 3023x2433)
1.43 MB
1.43 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-3000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:07 16:57:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3023
Image Height2433
>>
File: 000010.jpg (1.58 MB, 2433x3232)
1.58 MB
1.58 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-3000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:16 15:11:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2433
Image Height3232
>>
File: 000014.jpg (2.12 MB, 2433x3232)
2.12 MB
2.12 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-3000
Camera SoftwareFDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:16 15:12:40
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2433
Image Height3232
>>
File: 00031.jpg (2.41 MB, 3602x2397)
2.41 MB
2.41 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP500
Camera SoftwareFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. FE FDi Service Software / FRONTIER355/375-2.0-0E-350
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:16 16:42:00
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3602
Image Height2397
>>
>>3870690
Real flattering I'm sure she loved this
>>
File: zorki_shoe.jpg (177 KB, 1600x1200)
177 KB
177 KB JPG
>>3870690
did this for the zorki too today hehe
>>
>>3870689
same chick you photographed on deck isn't her?
>>3870690
what's with her skin?
>>3870700
kek
>>
>>3870671
Iso 800 film and f2 is enough to shoot under street lights. Portra pushes pretty good and would be a great choice if it came in T balance. Kodakvision 3 500T pushes easily to iso 2000. In BW department, P3200 pushes up to 12800 with a decent look. Tri-X too, Ive even shot some 6x9 handheld at night at 6400.

But sure, handheld night shooting is not for the casual shooter in any way these days. Back in the film era you had plenty of fast options out of the box.
>>
>>3870580
It's actually easier to burn through rolls in MF, *once* you have the camera with you. It's less than 1/3rd the exposures of 35mm anyway.
The only reason people shoot less MF, apart from cost, is that they don't bring their MF cameras with them as often as they bring 35mm cameras.
If you force yourself to bring a MF camera with you, you'll have no issue finishing a roll.
Maybe do something like 2rolls/week, that's quite reasonable to force you to use the camera some more.

Fomapan is fine with any general purpose developer. Personally I use mostly XTol or sometimes Diafine for ease and contrast control+speed in high contrast scenes.
But just use any general purpose dev, D-76, ID-11, HC-110, XTol etc. . Foma even makes a cheap 1L version of XTol (called Fomadon Excel), for just a couple bucks.
>>
File: Untitled (5)-positive-2.jpg (851 KB, 1000x681)
851 KB
851 KB JPG
>>3870798
Preciate your opinion.

I also just remembered I should have some unmixed D76 powder from ~5 years ago that should still be in a ziploc baggy. I wonder if it could still be diluted and used for developing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2020:03:09 12:03:52
>>
>>3870826
Probably fine, if it is sealed.
But yeah run a test roll (or just a short strip) just to make sure.
>>
ran a few test rolls last weekend through my new fuji GF670. the prices on these are really fucking high, but it's an awesome camera. really lightweight, super easy to take out hiking. can't wait to go travelling with it later this year.

i thought i would never shoot 6x6 on it but it's actually pretty awesome having the option. i've never shot square before but it's nice not having to deal with rotating the camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V800/V850
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 15:25:58
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
Are lightboxes worth it? I'm only using my Samsung Note 9 phone as light source when scanning with DSLR but lately I'm thinking of getting a dedicated lightbox.

Will they produce better scans than using my smartphone? Or basically the same? Am I better of just using the money to buy a tablet like iPad of Samsung tab?

This is the lightbox and mount I'm planning to buy. A film photographer friend will also use it so we pretty much share for it. Also planning to do scans of some of the film photographers on my area for a cheap fee as compared to a nearby lab if anyone wants to.
https://cinestillfilm.com/collections/scanning-finishing/products/sunray-copybox-iii-panorama-negative-slide-holders-camera-scanning-starter-kit-lightbox-for-slide-negative-film-scans?variant=37560255250604

It would be great if anyone has bought the same lightbox and mount and shared their experience with it. Thanks fgt
>>
File: jobokits-054-s_large.jpg (21 KB, 480x480)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
>>3870891
Here's the pic btw and the stand is currently out of stock.
>>
>>3870891
fuck off tranny
>>
>>3870895
Based

Fucking tranner will scan his ass photos using his micro four penis camera. Gtfo /p/ you disgusting degenerate. What an attention seeking tripfag. No one likes you here.
>>
>>3870901
woah woah woah there's nothing wrong with MFT other than the lack of a mirror, no need to shit on it because of a tranny faggot
>>
File: image_2021-04-24_213607.png (653 KB, 1054x738)
653 KB
653 KB PNG
why no proimage 100 in 120 reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>
File: DSC_1269_compressed.jpg (394 KB, 1580x2000)
394 KB
394 KB JPG
Was keen to test the 45mm f4 lens with my pentax 67 on people and the sort of distorted look is awesome imo
>>
>>3870774
Pushes pretty good isn’t the same thing as looks good. Like sure portra 800 looks the least bad at 800 than other films. Still looks way better overexposed and/or overdeveloped.

>>3870994
Love this shot anon, the 45 looks great for this scene but you probably can’t get much closer to someone.
>>
File: DSC_1310_compressed.jpg (791 KB, 2363x3000)
791 KB
791 KB JPG
>>3871061
>Love this shot anon, the 45 looks great for this scene but you probably can’t get much closer to someone.

I disagree to an extent, I do more "fashion" sort of stuff so distorting isn't too bad as it's not traditional portraiture I guess
Pic related was shot with the same lens and it looks unreal imo
>>
>>3871137
Hey Phineas, whatchu doin?
>>
>>3871145
lmao I had to google who that is
>>
>>3869807
Relaxing view and photo. Saved. Any info about it, location, etc?

>>3870680
It's simple and has smooth colour. Pretty nice.

>>3870994
Great view!
>>
>>3870680
comfy
>>
Anons, I think I saw a photo in this thread of an Asian girl in front of a window. She was wearing glasses if my memory serves me well. I thought it was really beautiful but didn't save it. Any idea where I could see that photo? Thanks.
>>
>>3870685
this is gay and forced
>>
>>3870688
missed focus
>>3870689
a lot better
>>
>>3870971
Because it's shit?
>>
>>3871167
>forced
What the fuck does this even mean
>>
>>3871169
Whats the best, gold 200 or Pro image or colorplus?
>>
>>3871177
proimage
>>
File: PSX_20210404_150416.jpg (1.03 MB, 1923x1442)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>3870888
I think if I ever decide 120 is really really worth shooting again...I'd pick up a gf670. I've shot a roll on a gf670w and it was a shockingly nice camera. I'm the opposite of you, I'd be buying it mainly for 6x6 with the bonus of shooting the odd 6x7 roll. Keep posting photos from yours!

>>3870676
There's no film for that. Tell them to shoot during the day or with flash I guess.

I imagine the Voigt 40/2 pancake is optically superior to the Voigt 40/1.4. I'm actually on the hunt for one of the rare Voigt 40/2 that was made in FD mount. Would pair perfectly on my T70.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeGoogle
Camera ModelPixel 3a
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:04 15:04:16
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating233
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.16 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.44 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio1.7
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
File: film.jpg (1.26 MB, 5504x3096)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
i was given this film for free by my local lab. expired in 2008. no manufacturer info at all on the box other than a "made in the USA". according to the lab, they sold those by the dozen when film was still popular and it yields "surprisingly good photos".

i'm gonna shoot it at 50 iso due to age. other than that, what am i in for?
>>
>>3871243
>super 35mm

wut
>>
>>3871249
super 35 is a cinema film format. my best guess is that since it was a cheap film, they used this branding to make it seem better than it is
>>
File: sugar16x9.jpg (917 KB, 3023x1700)
917 KB
917 KB JPG
>>3870685
I like this one, I think a 16:9 crop works best tho.
>>
>>3871243
>"made in the USA"
Kodak Gold 100. (Make sure it says it's C-41 process.)
A fine consumer film, nothing crazy.
>>
Anyone using either a fuji cam and/or the Canon FD 50mm 3.5 macro to digitize and care to share experience? Pic unrelated, some flatbed FP4 now that it's sunny outside again to stave off nophoto.
>>
File: DSCF0173.jpg (732 KB, 1561x1005)
732 KB
732 KB JPG
>>3871294
I use an x-e3 with a pentax m 50/1.7 and the macro bellows. I can fill the whole frame up with that setup focus peaking works bretty gud and I usually stop down to 5.6. my light pad thingy has a couple scratches that will show up so I have to find a clean spot. The only issue really is finding a way to keep the film flat, I'm using the film masks/holders for an epson v600. Probably should get a dedicated macro lens but what ever.

This was shot with that same lens.
>>
File: DSCF0173-01.jpg (571 KB, 2001x1289)
571 KB
571 KB JPG
>>3871306
Hold on

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:25 10:50:12
Image Width2001
Image Height1289
>>
>>3871306
Thank you. I'm having trouble with my current set up just not resolving enough detail. I think my older Fuji+Lightroom doesn't play well with detail so what should be nice sharp grain ends up looking mushy and it's pretty much worst case scenario for the wormy/detail issue people can have. But I'm not using a macro lens currently, just a 28mm prime with extender.
>>
>>3869596
Comfy as fuck. Would very much enjoy that cityscape view, especially at night.
>>
Any place to develop in Sweden? What's the average cost?

Local store takes about 20-25 euro for develop and scan per roll.

Got 2x120 2x135
>>
>>3871137
I think it works for the fashion look. Also your subjects are pretty enough to get that close.

>>3871345
I’ll try to shoot some but I got totally cucked on my view. I used to be like 10 floors higher and I now literally look at the H&M and Macy’s buildings. Not very aesthetic.
>>
File: wojak_small.jpg (2.26 MB, 4000x3666)
2.26 MB
2.26 MB JPG
OK who of you was this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:25 13:14:21
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height3666
>>
File: shell_small.jpg (1.83 MB, 4000x3640)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:25 13:17:39
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width9348
Image Height8506
>>
>>3871389
this gas station is always at least $.50/gal more expensive than the shell .5 miles further up memorial
>>
>>3871394
How you think they pay for that sign
>>
I've been thinking about getting a new film camera since all I really used is my Pentax K1000 and a couple other point and shoots for when I want to capture things in certain ways. Is the Pentax K1000 a viable camera in the long run or should I go out and look for more cameras or upgrade to something better?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 4.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:03:25 03:30:05
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3869760
it's really cool how everything is super low contrast except for her.
>>3869596
envious of that view. have apartment prices gone down post 2020 craziness or are you just paying a lot for rent?
>>3870580
that's what, ten shots per roll, so like one shot a day and you get 3 days where you get to take 2 shots? that doesn't seem like enough. why bother going out if you're just going to take one picture. I think a roll a day is far more reasonable. you could stretch it to 5 photos a day or a roll every 2 days if you really wanted to.
>>3870601
I think you need to brighten up this scan a bit
>>
>>3871491
>have apartment prices gone down post 2020 craziness or are you just paying a lot for rent?

Uh both desu; if you were ever thinking of renting in Manhattan the winter that just ended was a great value.
>>
>>3871452
you gotta answer 2 main questions. what are your issues with the k1000, and what's your budget? if it does everything you want it to do, your money would be better spent on things like film, developing, scanning... something like buying a dedicated scanner is going to improve your images more than buying a new camera, especially if you don't see anything wrong with your current one.
>>
>>3871495
I'm out on LI for the forseeable future, I was just curious.
>>
Just got an email from my lab that, of the 7 rolls of film I sent them in my last package, 5 got entirely lost in the mail and the 6th got crunched and probably totally exposed to light.

Feels bad, man. :(

(The one roll that made it through okay is, of the set of seven, the roll I was least excited about getting back. Of course.)
>>
>>3868439
alewife?
>>
>>3871591
yep!
>>
>>3871580
Nice lab there, sonny boy
>>
>>3871594
>Nice lab there, sonny boy
It was the post office, not the lab.

(The mailer I used had a tracking number and the USPS refused to acknowledge it existed for about three weeks, which is consistent with the parcel getting shredded in their machines. Also, the lab sent me photos of the package they received, which has the standard "Sorry, we fucked up your mail. XOXOXO, USPS" letter taped to it, which I've seen previous times when the post office fucks up my stuff)

The lab was actually pretty good. They asked if I wanted them to take a shot at developing the crunched roll of 35mm or just refund me the money, and they automatically refunded me the cost of the lost rolls.
>>
File: 2021-04-20-0009-positive.jpg (1.11 MB, 1000x820)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
>>3871294
My FD 50mm f3.5 macro is currently on it's way to me, but ebay seller didnt provide tracking for it. Should be in by middle of this week, so maybe the next /fgt/ I'll have some initial thoughts and scans to share with ya

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEpson
Camera ModelPerfectionV550
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:22 12:10:42
>>
>>3871593
I love that station, the architecture, the atmosphere, great photo m8
>>
Unless I'm changing a roll can I just leave the darkslide out of my camera all the time? Or am I like supposed to reinsert it when not taking photos?
>>
>>3871580
my biggest fear and why i drop shit off usually even though its a 90 min drive there and back
>>
>>3871655
Depends on the camera but you run the risk of accidentally exposing a frame. Done it whilst futzing around my rz :(
>>
>>3871658
I guess my question is am I supposed to leave it in, because I'd rather not.
>>
>>3871664
It doesn't matter no
>>
>>3871373
damn you're better off doing it at home if those are the prices....
>>
File: IMG_20210425_145312_164.jpg (701 KB, 1440x1800)
701 KB
701 KB JPG
Canon AE-1
Kodak gold 200
>>
File: IMG_20210424_134055_817.jpg (749 KB, 2048x2558)
749 KB
749 KB JPG
Canon AE-1
Kodak gold 200
>>
>>3871772
>>3871768
im so sorry..
>>
>>3871452
theres plenty of great k-mount lenses, even some modern manual focus ones. you should look at that first. then you can upgrade the body when the k1000 eventually breaks.

either way, on 35mm you wont see much of a difference if youre not printing in the darkroom, or using a super-high end scanner and high resolution film.
>>
File: Pn400N_016.jpg (1.36 MB, 1200x800)
1.36 MB
1.36 MB JPG
>>3871294
I've been using that lens with Nikon es-1 on my sonymeme for about 3 years now. Works great, SUPER sharp lens.

>>3871491
Thanks anon. Pretty happy with that shot as a memory snapshit.

>>3871655
1) it's possible you could get light leaks if you leave parked on a shelf for weeks with no darkslide in
2) this is a nice way to lose/misplace your darkslide. Dunno what camera you have...but some darkslides are stupid expensive to replace.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3871784
What?
>>
File: 1615049953999.jpg (2.59 MB, 1512x1003)
2.59 MB
2.59 MB JPG
I got a box of expired Ektachrome and the first roll I shot was all pink, I know that's pretty standard for expired slide film. I was thinking what would it look like if I got a roll of it cross-processed? Anyone here tried that?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMinolta
Camera ModelXG-1(n)
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2021:04:26 13:26:15
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
ISO Speed Rating160
Image Width3024
Image Height2005
>>
>>3870768

It is.
>>
>>3870768
doesn't clean her face well enough and the make up causes pimples that she further covers with more make up
>>
>>3871853

Probably that, also I didn't take them out in post like a retard
>>
>>3870971
buy an adapter
>>
>>3871815
that blaring line in the film didn't arise any suspicion as to what he was apologizing for? fix your camera
>>
>>3870363
Thanks for responding! No I haven’t tested the board, it all lights up so I figured the electronics were ok. A repair man here is kind of expensive but I do definitely want to get it fixed. It’s been great these few years I’ve had it.
>>
>>3871373
20 euro to dev/scan 120 film is kinda alright. I pay 20 usd to dev/scan c-41 and 28usd for e-6
>>
>>3871867
also, the 10cm of consistently missed focus suggests the mirrors out of alignment

or shoddy technique
>>
>>3871867
More likely the scanner
>>
>>3871402
Kek

[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 Created2021:04:18 03:02:04
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1400
Image Height924
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3871772
>>3871768
nice pics clean ur scanner pig
>>
>>3871986
nice grain! what film is this?
>>
>>3871999
Fuji C200, the absolute cheapest colour film you can find, but with very high sharpness (and also resolution).
Sharpness is exaggerated a bit due to resizing.
>>
>>3872021
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh of course.

I love it, have 10 rolls in my fridge. I was really sad when it wasn't available for the past few months.
>>
>>3872041
True, C200 and ProImage 100 are my go to cheap colour films for nature/street and people respectively.
And actually C200 is cheaper than pretty much all B&W films, only matched by Foma, which is insane.
>>
>>3872044
same!

proimage has just the right amount of that cheap kodak warmth, gold and color plus are too yellow/orange for me.
>>
File: ProImage100_ (6).jpg (406 KB, 1400x927)
406 KB
406 KB JPG
>>3872047
Yeah I agree.
A bit more saturated and maybe slightly warmer than Portra, but still with subdued reds and low contrast so skin looks fine.

[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 Created2021:04:05 17:40:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1400
Image Height927
>>
File: proimage002.jpg (679 KB, 1541x1000)
679 KB
679 KB JPG
>>3872061
yer a cool dude giannis, I've interacted with you many times in these threads and you always give good insight!

here's a proimage shot from a few months ago!
>>
>>3872069
Cheers anon!
>>
File: foma200_0025.jpg (528 KB, 1396x1000)
528 KB
528 KB JPG
>>3872075
did you also suggest fomapan 200 at some point?
>>
File: Fomapan200_ (12) copy.jpg (296 KB, 1200x800)
296 KB
296 KB JPG
>>3872076
Yeah I like it, it's like an ISO200 version of Delta 400.
Low grain (it's "hybrid" t-grain and traditional grain), honest speed (unlike the Foma 400 for instance), normal contrast, great price.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r20 (May 5 2020) 863405b 05.05.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2020:05:26 20:51:05
Image Width1200
Image Height800
>>
>>3872090
nice view from the bimhuis! :)
>>
>>3872096
Kek you from here anon?
And yeah it's photogenic in the 3.5 days per year it's sunny.
>>
>>3872101
no, I'm not, but I came to Amsterdam once for a festival at the Bimhuis, so it's like the only place in town I really know, and I recognized it immediately!
>>
>>3870637
>>3870651
I shoot Portra 800 at night a bit. Cinestill 800T works well too. I never use flash, just handheld. Works out decently with my setup.
>>
>>3872090
So... a good film for snapshitting? How is it for wet printing? Does it still crap up your fixer, i.e. leave fluff in there afterward, or eat it up quick like t-max does? t. differentfag
>>
>>3872119
Sure.

It's a good one, smaller grain than traditional grain films (like FP4+), slightly more than TMax 100 or Delta 100.
Similarly with fixer, it exhausts more and needs more time than TriX and HP5+ etc. to get rid of the pink tint, but less time than TMax films and exhausts the fixer less than TMax films.
That said, TMax 100 is pretty much the "worst" film for fixing by far, so it's not a very high bar to beat kek.

But yeah Foma 200 is "in the middle" between traditional films and t-grain ones in pretty much all aspects - grain, fixing, flexibility, reciprocity, etc. .
Nothing weird like fluff or weird dyes coming out in the developer or anything.
The only films that left a noticeable, strong yellow dye (I'm guessing it's the sensitisation dyes) in the developer are the Rollei Retro 80S and Retro 400 (original Agfa aerial films), along with all their rebrands of course (HR-50, Infrared 400, etc.).
>>
>>3872163
Thanks. I forgot to ask one thing: do you develop it in Xtol 1+1 as usual, and also what's your opinion of that film in (say) Rodinal or HC-110? I've got a five liter bag of Xtol powder, but ICBA mixing it and cooling it down for half an hour before developing.
>>
>>3872201
>do you develop it in Xtol 1+1
Most of the time yeah.
If I had to choose a single dev that is jack of all trades and master of some, it'd be XTol.
Occasionally when I need a good push (with traditional grain films) while *also* controlling contrast (not blown highlights), I'll use Diafine. And for some niche stuff, Perceptol.
Btw Foma 200 in Diafine doesn't gain speed, but neither loses it, so the only effect is compensation in highlights.

Rodinal I haven't tried with Foma 200. It's decently small grained and not completely t-grain, so I guess it'd work ok-ish. Maybe give it half a stop more exposure.
HC-110 works a treat, as do any general purpose devs.
>>
>>3868830
This is awesome. Nice one.
>>
>>3872228
not the guy you're replying do but you seem to have an idea about bw developing

I bought some hc110 + ilford rapid fixer and developed a roll of hp5 but it came out pretty grainy
I could only get my water down to 23C so I developed using dilution B for 4.5mins but I think I fucked up by doing the same agitation that I do for colour ie 4 inversions every 30 seconds.
>>
File: DSC_1320.jpg (374 KB, 1345x2000)
374 KB
374 KB JPG
home dev'd, must've cucked it because it's very grainy for hp5
>>
>>3871749
>>3871957
I ended up sending it to UK.

It's just test films for cameras I recently got.
>>
File: bad.jpg (1.19 MB, 1228x1818)
1.19 MB
1.19 MB JPG
bought a Canonet QL17 GIII last year for my introduction to film and photography in general and quickly realized that I should of bought something with interchangeable lens. I was looking at the Nikon FE/2 but with the prices rising on SLRs, should I just dive into medium format? I was looking at M645 1000S and the Pentax 6x7. Or should I suck it up and learn with what I have.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Image Created2020:08:22 20:04:22
>>
>>3872363
I started off on medium format, I hate having to commit to 36 shots before being able to change films or develop.

Get an rb67 and you wont regret it
>>
how to develop old Kodachrome movie film someone forgot to develop?
>>
>>3870491
you got a lot of newtons rings (rainbow colors)
try putting film so it bends up on scanner
>>
File: HP5+200 (5).jpg (538 KB, 1400x909)
538 KB
538 KB JPG
>>3872298
Anon is that (>>3872328) you?
HP5+ and TriX are relatively grainy films in 35mm, and that was exacerbated by the increased temp and agitation. Usually I do two agitations per minute for B&W.
If you want less grain and can afford to lose some speed, you can try pulling one stop. As long as you're not shooting a totally flat scene of course.

Alternatively you could try a fine grain developer. Like old school fine grain with proper solvent action, cause if you take marketing at its word every developer under the sun is "fine-grain, with exceptional sharpness etc etc.".
Perceptol *at stock* is unbeatable for that. Just slow working Metol for the developing agent, and a chockfull of sodium sulfite as a solvent (this is what makes the grain small). Stock gives the finest (and softest) grain, the more you dilute the bigger the grain, because you reduce the concentration of the grain solvents.
It's not expensive either, roughly the same price as other 1L powders, around $8-10.
The downside is you lose one stop of speed.

I don't think you'll see any dramatic difference from other general purpose developers wrt grain compared to what you're seeing now.
So either you pull, or use a solvent developer like Perceptol at stock, or you change HP5+ for Delta 400.
Or you could just stop worrying about grain.


As a sidenote, HP5+ at Perceptol 1+3 pulled almost a stop at ISO200 (that combo gives ~ISO320, I shoot at 160-200 and cut dev time by ~15%), is one of my favourite combinations ever and the virtually the only reason I keep Perceptol around.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r18 (Dec 18 2019) 621e5df 18.12.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2020:04:11 01:49:26
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1400
Image Height909
>>
>>3872369
Impossible unless you have a couple hundred thousand to spare to fulfil the minimum orders for the raw chemicals to mix the K-14 solutions, because some of them aren't use for anything else so they have to be custom ordered.

Realistically, you can develop in B&W, google it, many people have , with usable results.
You might need an extra bath to remove the remjet backing.
>>
File: foma200_0014.jpg (430 KB, 1396x1000)
430 KB
430 KB JPG
>>3872228
>>3872201

this >>3872076 was developed in rodinal!

also this, same roll
>>
>>3872381
what dilution? agitation every minute or what
>>
>>3872377
>a couple hundred thousand to spare to fulfil the minimum orders for the raw chemicals
i bet nile red could do it
>>
File: Requiem09.jpg (1.24 MB, 2700x1802)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
Dear film frens:

I am looking for the smallest 35mm RANGEFINDER focusing camera that I can put my hands on. It needs to have an option for a FULLY MANUAL MODE. I have an Olympus 35 RC which I like. I do a lot of backpacking and want to see if I can improve my kit. Can anyone ID something smaller?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 12.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern838
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:07:22 15:33:39
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length85.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3872538
the canonette q17 might fit the bill, only issue, which I find really dumb, is that the light meter doesn't work unless you're in shutter priorty.
>>
>>3872538
Contax T.
No manual though.
>>
>>3872510

1:50, 10 minutes, one inversion every minute, constant agitation for the first minute.
>>
File: scan0037.jpg (648 KB, 2157x1213)
648 KB
648 KB JPG
I have a question.
What is in your opinion, the best developer for Tri-X?
I've been using DDX and honestly not a massive fan of the results. it seems a little too grainy to me, and my negs come out pretty dense which I feel makes me lose some highlight details. Like the negs are pretty hazy when I scan them and usually need to apply some contrast to fix the issue but I feel doing so makes you lose all those nice tones Tri-x tends to give. This also contributes to blowing the highlights even more and losing some shadow detail. Is what I'm looking for good midtones?

I'll post a pic of the kind of look I'm trying to achieve from Tri-X, but basically, it's this hard to describe very pleasing gray it gives.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMinolta
Camera ModelScan Dual IV
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2157
Image Height1213
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
>>
>>3872510
rodinal is actually fomadon r09, so I just follow the datasheet!
>>
>>3871166
Anyone? Still missing that photo.
>>
File: ofggzxr4c4j41.jpg (286 KB, 1440x965)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
>>3872560
do I just like the look of tri-x pushed?
>>
>>3872566
these are more the tones I'm looking for.
>>
>>3872566
Try overdevelopment instead of pushing anon. In other words, shoot at 200 develop at 800.
>>
>>3872566
>>3872568
Wait sorry I just re read you first post completely disregard what I said I’m an idiot.
>>
>>3872538
I think pic related is the smallest you can get.
>>
>>3872560
This photo fucking rules, anon.

Also, I don't shoot film but these threads are great. Really chill and interesting. Cool shit, guys.
>>
File: TriX200_ (26).jpg (355 KB, 1001x666)
355 KB
355 KB JPG
>>3872560
Develop less.
Change the times, start by reducing dev times by 10%.

In general, TriX, like any B&W film, will give better results with pulling. So, shooting at 200, developing 15% less than normally.
This protects the highlights, gives good shadow detail, and reduces grain. (The grain reduction happens partly due to less dev time, partly due to the fact that with more exposure, a greater percentage of your image will be made up with the finer grains of the slower, more sensitive emulsion layer, rather than the coarser grains of the faster layer - all modern films have multiple layers for better results btw).

Don't go chasing developers before adjusting technique first.
Technique affects things much more than developer choice, let alone when choosing between general purpose developers.
The most "classic" combination obviously is TriX in D-76 (you can substitute with ID-11 in Ilford's range). You can try it if you want, but I think the issue is dev times and maybe secondarily agitation.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r15 (Mar 1 2019) 5e078a5 01.03.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Width1001
Image Height666
>>
Is thedarkroom the only place I can get my film developed if there's no local places? Are there any places to get my film developed for cheap
>>
>>3872585
But pulling doesn’t do nearly as much for scans.
>>
>>3872586
fuckin diy man it's not as difficult as you might think
>>
>>3872585
Tri-X is a crutch
>>
>>3872585
cheers, I've read online some post about a guy that claims tri-x is a 320 speed film. but all he did was kinda be smug about it not really explaining his claim. I've already kinda started trying to dev for less time but I haven't been to consistent about it. my reasoning for it was that my water temps would be slightly higher than the recommended 20C so dev would happen faster, hence having to compensate for it with shorter dev times.

couple things I don't do which people say to but I really don't see the point:
>not soaking my developer bottle in 20C water to bring it to temp
this one probably I should do honestly. but I figured if I have 4 parts at 20C and adding 1 part of dev at like 22-23, probably doesn't matter too much.
>only caring about the temp of my dev
stop, fixer, wash, I don't really bother with having them at the right temp since the chemical reaction doesn't affect the actual development. (am I wrong to assume this?)
all the stop bath does is neutralize the developer, so does it matter if neutralizes faster or slower depending on the temp? from my understanding, the stop bath pretty much stops the reaction within seconds.
fixer is the same reasoning, all it does is remove the undeveloped material, so temp shouldn't matter if you just fix for long enough, ( I do about 5min of fixing ) could probably cut that in half just fine.

But to go back to the pulling subject, assuming I want to shoot Tri-x at 320, do I just take the box speed dev time and cut it short by X amount?
>>
>>3872589
do scanners like thinner or denser negs?
>>
File: TriX400_ (6).jpg (727 KB, 1800x1196)
727 KB
727 KB JPG
>>3872560
Oh and also, it's common to use filters with B&W, to get good tonal separation in B&W photos.
A made up example, imagine red boat on turquoise waters and blue sky. Amazing (colour) contrast if you shoot colour, but it's gonna be all roughly the same gray in B&W.
By using, say, a red filter, you'll turn the boat a bright white, the see almost black, and darken the sky. The opposite using a blue filter.

Here's another one that's maybe closer to the look you're after.

>>3872589
Of course it does! It works exactly the same in terms of grain, shadow detail, highlight retention, etc. .
If you mean it's more *helpful* with wet printing because contrasty negs are a bitch to print on the enlarger than digitally, then sure.
But otherwise the benefits remain the same, no matter if scanning or enlarging.

>>3872598
They're all the same anon.
Most people aren't able to tell the difference between, say, TriX, HP5+ and Kentmere 400, when developed in the same dev to the same contrast index and ISO.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r15 (Mar 1 2019) 5e078a5 01.03.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:27 19:12:35
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1800
Image Height1196
>>
>>3872603
Denser, always. Especially when you consider the ability to edit in photoshop. Giannis may disagree with me (and he’s not wrong) but I always recommend a denser negative. Would much rather start with a flatter image and add contrast in post than run the risk of muddy, faded shadows. My lab agrees. You have 6 stops going one way and like 1 stop going the other way, which way would you rather lean towards? And we aren’t even factoring in color cast for color net film...

>>3872603
With a thicker neg I can set the scanner for the shadows for a light, airy, image or the highlights for something with more punch. With a thin negative I’m limited.
>>
>>3872602
>this one probably I should do honestly.
Yeah.
Try to keep it in the ballpark of 1-2degs at least.
Being 5 degrees off and deving for the same time as if your temp was the "correct" one, is equivalent to 1 stop push, if not more. It means grain will increase, base fog will increase, highlights might blow.
>4 parts at 20C and adding 1 part of dev at like 22-23, probably doesn't matter too much.
True.
You don't need to bring the chemicals to the correct temp btw. If the chemistry is within 18-25, you can just measure the temperature the chems are at (working solution), plug it into the calculator in the massive dev chart site, and it'll give you the correct times for that specific temperature. It works a treat.

> I've read online some post about a guy that claims tri-x is a 320 speed film.
Meh this is bullshit.

People just like different looks and/or use different developers.
For instance I think HP5+ looks best when pulled a stop. Or giving it a half stop overexposure and developing normally. But I don't go around saying that HP5+ is a 300speed film.
Because ISO is a strict standard that is measured in an exact way, no room for interpretations.
If you use the manufacturer rating, and develop in the same way (developer, dilution, times, agitation) as specified by the manufacturer for the ISO rating, you'll get exactly that. Other developers will give a bit more, or a bit less.

What most people mean with those "personal" ISOs, is that they have a workflow and enjoy best the results that they getting using that ISO, and *their* developing times, developer, agitation, printing technique.
If you like the exact same look they like, and are going to use the same developer and times as them, as well as meter as they do, then yeah go ahead and use their rating for the best results (for you). Otherwise stick to the manufacturer recommendations and only start adjusting when there's something you don't like in the results.
>>
File: 2823).jpg (677 KB, 1612x1209)
677 KB
677 KB JPG
Should I sell one of these? Pretty much collected the other two as parts camera.

>>3871889
If the repair cost more than a new used one just buy another one. Use the old one as a parts camera

>>3871159
>>3871165
Thanks got lucky. Also partly due to just editing using Negative lab pro.
>>
>>3872603
Dense, as in full.
Thin ones still work *comparatively* better on a scanner than enlarger, but thin negatives don't work well anywhere really.

Cheaper scanners will start struggling with super dense negatives (or slides). Like, properly overexposed several stops. For colour, you can't get that much density in 99% of cases cause it's just dyes, with B&W you might, with severe overexposure.
Pulling, even several stops, is nowhere near the density to cause issues with scanners.

>Giannis may disagree with me (and he’s not wrong) but I always recommend a denser negative.
Anon I 100% agree with you.
A dense, flat negative is the best to work with, no doubt about it.
Anybody thinking the contrary should try getting a decent wet print (or even scan) from a thin contrasty negative.
>Would much rather start with a flatter image and add contrast in post than run the risk of muddy, faded shadows.
This 100%.
>>
>>3872610
Forgot to quote you anon.
>>
>>3872622
All good. I guess what I’m trying to say is given how we scan and edit neg film in 2021 I can’t really see an instance of recommending someone to underdevelop.
>>
>>3872611
>Otherwise stick to the manufacturer recommendations and only start adjusting when there's something you don't like in the results.
yeah, this is a very good tip. basically I feel I'm at that point where I want to experiment. which is why I asked these questions in the first place. but I guess the only way to really know is to start playing with variables until I find the look I like.

>>3872610
cheers

Thanks everyone for these quality responses. didn't expect this much enthusiasm coming out of this.
>>
>>3872626
Yeah I agree.
And undedeveloping makes things *even worse* on the enlarger.
It's many times easier to print a dense neg than a thin one. Dense it'll just take some time and effort to get a decent result. Thin will take twice the time, twice the failed test prints, and in the end it won't look half as decent.
There's no reason for thin negs in any situation really, unless you really need to shoot higher shutter speeds or in low light, so you had no choice.

Even if you like the nitty gritty and contrasty look, you can still get it from a dense, flat neg with say a 4-5 contrast filter.
>>
>>3872629
Yeah people associate high contrast or moody with underexposure without realizing all the disadvantages of a thin negative. Most of the time people are unhappy with the results they’re getting on film I just tell them to keep adding stops.

Newfags listen up we’re dropping gems today.
>>
>>3872544
>>3872552
>>3872580
Thanks guys, something to go on. That Minolta looks sick. The Canon is probably more realistic because of cost. Would rather save the cheddar for the one that is going in the triple padded camera bag.
>>
>>3869754
you shoot that much e6?
>>
>>3870575
These look fucking great, anon. Reminds me of an oldfags photos.
Do you have an instagram or somewhere I can follow for updates? Would love to get one or two of that zine
>>
File: PXL_20210424_203609165.jpg (3.1 MB, 4032x3024)
3.1 MB
3.1 MB JPG
>>3868439
On the one hand, I'm glad I got this thing working - with some creative re-wiring of a battery compartment ruined by an exploded battery.

On the other - after a single roll of film it's left me dissapointed and underwhelmed. It's more like the last dinosaur than the first bird, if that makes sense. You can tell there's a lot of what's coming next in it, but on the other hand - it's still a dinosaur.

An EOS 650 with a 50mm EF lens feels like a much more complete thing. Easier to use, with better results.

Still, I only paid 20 quid for it and it took a few hours with a soldering iron and a wire-snippers to get it going so I amn't out much.

The F-1 is a big chunky, heavy beast that feels great to use. The T70 is small, light and automatic and *simple*. The T90 just feels a little lacking.

It sounds good and feels alright to hold.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeGoogle
Camera ModelPixel 3 XL
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:24 21:36:09
Exposure Time10567/250000 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating124
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0.9 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.22 m
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.44 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
Time (UTC)20:36:03
Date (UTC)2021:04:24
>>
Got some Kodakvision 3 200T in 120 roll, really pumped to shoot it.
>>
>>3871243
>>3871290

got my scans back
the film doesn't say anything at all on it other than the frame# and a "100"
the film base came out looking yellow-ish which made the photos damn near purple. had to do some serious editing to bring it back to a normal level.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:28 01:40:48
>>
>>3872780
Any options for shooting those films if my lab doesnt develop ecn?
>>
>>3872837
Bellini kit.

>>3872791
Looks salvageable anon, all things considered.
>>
>>3872773
If you don't want it sell it to me, I have two T90s and they are my favourite camera body (also I've got some decent FD and adaptall lenses for them)
>>
>>3872791
can you like, fix the noise? it's pretty intense.
>>
>>3872860
that would be my labs shitty 35mm scanner. it has more issues than just the noise. actually, i think they introduced the noise in their attempt to reduce the magenta cast.
i'm in the process of getting my own scanner for precisely this reason.
>>
>>3872619
I hate the EM with a passion so assuming that the 50/1.4 is clean I would sell everything else and get a FE/M (or if you have the cash get a F3/F3HP). Basically anything with manual controls and a decent meter that is also made out of metal.
>>
>>3872837
Home dev or send it off. ECN-2 is not much more difficult than c-41 to hone dev.

I dont have a Jobo so I just send them off to be devd.
>>
there's really nothing comfier than spending the whole day in the darkroom desu
you kinda lose sense of time after a while and are forced to be patient with developing prints, it's nice and almost meditative after some time
>>
File: gwjwn.jpg (1.79 MB, 2048x1536)
1.79 MB
1.79 MB JPG
>>3873087
These are mine >>3872664
I also have an F90x and used to have F80 and recently my F601 died so its on repair.
I forgot to include my Nikon l135af and l35ad. Gas sucks
>>
>>3872855
The battery compartment is still fucked. I had to drill-out and break the plastic door off to get it open, it was so badly rusted. The remote socket also doesn't work - didn't want to melt the flex re-soldering the wires.

I might try find a new tray on eBay but at that point it's not worth the cost and hassle of selling it.

Even without the remote, it's a lot of camera for what I paid for it. Especially with a 35-105 on it.


---- In hindsight, I probably should've tried a troll-post asking why an EF-s lens would've fit on it. Next thread maybe.
>>
File: IMG_20210428_235541.jpg (1.98 MB, 4000x1388)
1.98 MB
1.98 MB JPG
found this Rodenstock Rogonar 50mm/2,8 for 1€
everything looks good except the lens itself.
how do i open this little fucker so i can clean it
any experience ? I've cleaned LF lenses before

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeHUAWEI
Camera ModelJNY-LX1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:29 00:22:51
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.75 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4000
Image Height1388
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3873310
35-105mm

My father gave me a 35-105 f3.5 lens. Too bad its already full of haze and fungus..if only it was cleaned earlier. He also had a 100-300 f5.6 fd. :(
>>
>>3873430
Anon, that's an enlarger lens.
>>
>>3873450
>Anon....
no shit sherlock ?!
some of us work in the darkroom aswell
or what makes you think i can't clean an enlarger lens ?
>>
I haven't shot film in over a decade, when Kodak was still selling film at every store, and I could go to a 1-hour photo. I brushed off and fixed up my camera, and want to go take some architecture shots in B&W.

What's a good film? Considering it will be outside in the daytime against concrete.

I haven't bought film in quite awhile, nor B&W before, so I don't know which brand might be shit
>>
File: shit.png (325 KB, 601x601)
325 KB
325 KB PNG
and this is why you don't take the general publics opinion on things
>>
>>3873522
what's the problem?
>>
>>3873530
Well, it looks to me like an office girl in high heels clambering over coastal rocks. There may be a good reason for it but without and explanation it looks stupid
>>
>>3873535
no idea why anon posted it though, I must admit
>>
>>3873530
The photo should speak for itself and it conveys nothing
>>
>>3873537
No, it depends on WHY the photo was taken in the first place. That is not made clear.
>>
>>3873530
it's a very average photo of a woman in a suit in front of the ocean
I kinda get the fashion look they're going for but this ain't it, super bland yet 2.3k people like it?
>>
>>3873535
>>3873537
>>3873540
It's a cool yuxtaposition typical of fashion photography, plus it evokes feelings of nostalgia and exoticness (I don't even find her attractive, being white myself, but I find the picture pleasing).
Might as well ask why people enjoy vaporwave.
>>
>>3873540
>yet 2.3k people like it
I wonder how many of them were bots, I wonder how many of the others would even remember they saw it.

If you are worrying about shit like that you've got more problems than you think.
>>
>>3873542
>it evokes feelings of nostalgia and exoticness
No it doesn't, it evokes a feeling of "how the fuck do I get off this rock?"
>being white myself
Oh dear, you really thought it necessary to include that?
>>
>>3873546
>No it doesn't, it evokes a feeling of "how the fuck do I get off this rock?"
You might be autistic.
>Oh dear, you really thought it necessary to include that?
Yes, because to an Asian or to a white with low test she might be attractive in a sexual way.
>>
File: DSC_0032.jpg (1.37 MB, 2295x2811)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG
>>3873542
putting myself out there to get rekt but oh well
here's a shot of mine that got no traction on reddit yet I think it's a much better photo than the one above
probably isn't and it's all just personal bias and hubris
>>
>>3873552
kek
>>
>>3873552
What possessed you to think that having her out of focus was a good idea?
Did you expect that to make the picture "moody" or whatever?
>>
File: DSC_0166.jpg (204 KB, 1600x2000)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>3873554
>>3873553
literally the closest example I had to the pic I was talking about + it was picked by vogues photovogue bullshit page so it can't be that bad
much prefer this pic of her though because rocks are meh in general
>>
>>3873549
> autistic
No, I'm realistic and you are a racist cunt
>>
>>3873552>>3873557
>>>3873552
yeah, i fucked her.
>>
>>3873572
anti-racist is codeword for anti-white
if she were white and I were Asian you wouldn't say I'm racist
>>
>>3873572
And about your "realism", what's so impossible about a chick deciding it's fun to stand on a rock with heels?
Even more, who thought it made sense to have us all humans here on this rock in the middle of nowhere? Doesn't that sound like a cosmic joke to you? You wonder why she's standing on a rock, yet you're standing on a gigantic rock orbiting a ball of hydrogen plasma constantly fusing itself. Life is filled with no reason.
>>
>>3873552
This shot, and I can’t stress this enough, is in no way any better than the other one.
>>
>>3873552
you're delusional.
>>
>>3872864
>i'm in the process of getting my own scanner for precisely this reason.
good call, honestly lab scans have always been a big disappointment for me also. getting my own scanner was so liberating.
>>
>>3873590
>>3873603
lmao
like I said was a mere comparison of similar "rock in front of beach" photo and how reddits hivemind works
also I've been on the 4chins long enough to know that i could post an amazing photo and people would shit on it because this place is full of bitter sperges who take photos of their pets because they're too socially awkward to interact with people
>>
>>3873606
>also I've been on the 4chins long enough to know that i could post an amazing photo and people would shit on it because this place is full of bitter sperges who take photos of their pets because they're too socially awkward to interact with people
Someone probably would, but your photo is shit nevertheless. Apply yourself.
Amazing photographs are increasingly rare in this sea of snapshitters, and I'm including myself in that description. Hoping to become able to do some actual art soon though.
That said, your photograph may be shit, but at least is art. I can't say the same about mine. You created that picture rather than just pointing your camera at something.
Kudos to that.
>>
>>3873606
>too socially awkward to interact with people

Is that your cope?
>>
File: DSC_0146.jpg (422 KB, 1586x1983)
422 KB
422 KB JPG
>>3873610
appreciate it
that photo isn't my favourite by any stretch
much prefer pic related

>>3873611
I have many copes of my own dw
>>
>>3873606
Anon you aren’t insulated from criticism because you have a photo of a girl
>>
>>3873606
>I've been on the 4chins long enough to know that i could post an amazing photo and people would shit on it because this place is full of bitter sperges
this is true, but I'm being honest here, that reddit shot is much better than yours. And I say this with no ill intent, my only hope being that realizing this makes you a better photographer than you are today.
>>
>>3873614
weird framing but infinitely better than the pic you posted.
>>
>>3873614
miles better
it has that necro goth aesthetic going on with the closed eyes and pale skin
>>
File: DSC_0151.jpg (287 KB, 1602x2000)
287 KB
287 KB JPG
>>3873619
I know

>>3873623
that's fair enough, why do you think it's better?
I don't think mine is THAT much better at all, it was just similar
I still don't understand the og photos popularity though

>>3873624
>>3873632
thanks, it's because I actually like this photo lol I'll post 1 more for people to shit on
>>
>>3873633
>why do you think it's better?
well first of all, it's in focus. the framing is better and the colors are better. I don;t know why the water is the focus in your shot, and I think you've shot it from too much of an overhead view. like all the water in the top half of the frame doesn't give us any interesting information. I wouldn't even call it negative space. or at least, it's not useful negative space. I'd have gotten closer with a more head on shot. idk if you were going for some kind of mermaid vibe but you would have benefited from fitting more of the frame with your model.
>I still don't understand the og photos popularity though
reddit coomer mindset. but more seriously, I wouldn't trust reddit points to be a good metric on whether a photo is good or not.

btw this is the best pic you posted yet.
>>
>>3873572
>uhmm achually the situation in this photo is unrealistic so its bad
Is this bait?
>>
>>3873454
Ahh, due to your reference to enlarger lenses, I wasn't sure you know.
I assume you need to remove the ring holding the lenses with a spanner. Not sure about the red inlay, though. My Rodenstock never needed cleaning.
>>
>>3873522
post your better photos, well judge
>>
>>3873862
Lol I have many better, even amazing photos but you’re just a bunch of bitter, socially awkward spergs that’ll hate on it because they aren’t pet photos.
>>
File: provia la.jpg (2.68 MB, 2300x1533)
2.68 MB
2.68 MB JPG
stumbled upon an old provia shot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:21 22:27:16
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3873535
next time i take a photo i will make a short novel of the background of the shot and why i shot it in the first place

dosnt it sound retarded anon?
>>
>>3873893
>he doesn't exclusively take cat photos
midwit
>>
>>3873862
anon, wait, it gets better, he actually posted one
here it it
>>3873552
lmao
>>
>>3873962
You can't be serious...
>>
File: DSC04077.jpg (3.23 MB, 2994x4459)
3.23 MB
3.23 MB JPG
mailbox

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: DSC04075.jpg (3.3 MB, 3905x2658)
3.3 MB
3.3 MB JPG
>>3873972
telephone poll....

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: DSC04071.jpg (3.04 MB, 2856x4349)
3.04 MB
3.04 MB JPG
>>3873978
transsexual

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3873967
He's absolutely serious kek
This >>3873552 is the kind of people giving you critique and telling you your photos suck
>>
>>3873962
HAHAHAHAHA
>>
>>3873897
Must be the old formula
>>
Does the choice of developer effect the choice of stop or fixer?
Like do I need to pair certain stops with certain developers or can I mix and match?
I'm trying to be cheap here.
>>
>>3874008
stop-baths are an op. use a water rinse for several minutes, or if you feel really persnickety mix up 80/20 tap water and white vinegar (the stuff under your mom's kitchen sink)

you can use any fixer with any developer, with the exception of pyro developers (acidic fixers can degrade the pyro stain, so you need a basic fixer made for pyro)
>>
File: hiro.jpg (55 KB, 365x330)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>that creeping dread of sending a bulk order of film to get developed
Time to see if I actually got better at shooting in the past two months, or if I just spent multiple rolls on absolutely botched focuses and exposures again...
>>
>>3873479
I would up buying some Ilford Delta 400
wish me luck i guess
>>
>>3874008
Short answer no.

Long answer, in niche cases like staining developers, some fixers work better at preserving the stain.

You don't need a stop bath, just use water.
>>
>>3874008
>>3874011
>>3874061
Stop costs a couple of cents per roll. It preserves fixer for a greater amount of money than it costs. Stop also makes your development times exact to the amount of time you spend pouring it in, where rinsing the developer off takes two or three minutes for the water to completely replace developer within the film's gelatin layer.

The good reasons not to use stop are if you don't have room for the concentrate bottle and the storage bottle for the working dilution. The bad reasons are that you don't like the indicator colour in your fixer or "lol just use water".
>>
>>3874090
>Stop costs a couple of cents per roll. It preserves fixer for a greater amount of money than it costs.
Meh I'm not sure if this amounts to anything more than trivial amounts.

>Stop also makes your development times exact
This one is a valid - the only valid - reason imo.
If you want to be exact, especially with very active developers and short dev times, you use one.
I always use a strong one (sulphuric acid) with ECN-2. But that's because it's a mere 3min dev time, at 41ºC, and colour, so timing is more important.

But for B&W and normal developers, I've never felt the need for it. With dev times around 10', I don't think you'll be able to notice any difference whatsoever without a densitometer - or even with one.

>where rinsing the developer off takes two or three minutes for the water to completely replace developer within the film's gelatin layer.
Where did you read all that?
Stop takes roughly 15 seconds to stop development, water takes roughly 35 seconds.
Those extra 20secs are almost 1 stop push in ECN-2, but it's an untraceable 1/4th of a stop in a 8min B&W development.
It's not that much washing out the dev agents in the gelatin, but more about dropping the pH within the gelatin so the agents are not active.
Water does this in 30-35sec, an acidic stop in half that, that's all.
(Assuming "normal" alkaline developers of course not weird stuff like Amidol).
>>
>>3874011
>are an op
I don't know what that means.
>>
>>3874139
>are an op
like a conspiracy. idk, it probably doesn't pay for me to be so irreverent

>>3874136
>Stop takes roughly 15 seconds to stop development, water takes roughly 35 seconds.

thank you for coming in with the concrete numbers! i've never heard these and always figured both were close to instant. i like low temps and high dilutions on B&W (for compensating effect), which would explain why i've never seen a difference; i want to try C-41 or ECN-2 one of these days, but having never touched them i'll defer to you on that
>>
>>3874136
Then we disagree; it is in fact exact development which is the lesser reason to use a stop bath.

>I always use a strong one (sulphuric acid) with ECN-2.
That doesn't matter, because the way that stop baths work is by acid-base reaction with the developer, which is generally sub-7 pH. In this way when stop enters the gelatin it absolutely, positively does away with any trace of active developer in there. As such acetic or citric acid work just the same, with fewer potential hazards.

>Stop takes roughly 15 seconds to stop development, water takes roughly 35 seconds.
Stop works as quickly as you're done pouring it in, because it starts getting into the gelatin immediately and its action isn't from replacing (diluting) active developer as with water but from killing the developer dead. The reason we leave it in there for a minute and give it a couple of twists with the rod is that bubbles sometimes form and those need to get addressed at least a bit.

Water works to stop development in the sense that development will eventually stop from the remaining traces of developer becoming exhausted, but the effect is slower than simply pouring in working fixer right after the developer. Conserving fixer by washing developer off costs you extra development, and I doubt you'd call this a negligible cost savings.
>>
>>3873633
>>3873557
>>3873614

>>3873994
>>3873993
those 3 are ones I'm actually proud of, the other one was an example like I said 3x but I doubt you're capable of critical thinking
unlike you pussies I actually post photos, post yours now :) Happy to give feedback lmfao
>>
>>3874161
>i've never heard these and always figured both were close to instant.
I mean the majority of the "stoppage", is even quicker. Those times are to stop development to pretty much negligible and untraceable levels.

>i want to try C-41 or ECN-2 one of these days
Yeah give it a go, they're fun and even if you don't keep times and temps to the t, you'll get good results.

>>3874176
>Then we disagree
We'll agree to disagree then.
I can't see how any base-acid reaction in the *developing agents* could be the reason.

The developing agents themselves are usually neutral or acidic (hydroquinone, ascorbic acid, etc.).
The base that increases the solution pH acts as activator/accelerator for the dev agent.
It goes like this:
The hydroxyl group (OH-) "steals" a hydrogen cation (H+) from the dev agent, say D, turning it into "D-". Now the dev agent has an extra electron, so it can much more readily "donate" some electrons to the silver halide (Ag+Br-), to reduce it to metallic silver (Ag), while the dev agent gets oxidised (gains an O-- atom, becoming D++O--), and some waste products are formed (H+Br-).

What I'm saying is, you don't neutralise the dev agent with an acid-base reaction, you neutralise the accelerator.
The accelerator can be neutralised by dropping acid on it (stop bath), *or* by diluting it drastically (water bath), dropping the pH close to 7 - or lower, with a stop bath.
They both have the same effect, as even a neutral or very slightly alkaline pH virtually stops all developer reaction for all practical purposes, bringing its speed to a crawl.
One works a bit faster than the other, that's all.

>Water works to stop development in the sense that development will eventually stop from the remaining traces of developer becoming exhausted
Nah that would be compensating development achieved in some niche techniques with water baths by immersion in big, open tanks and no agitation.
Water in a normal daylight tank stops development by dropping the pH.
>>
>>3874090
>The bad reasons are that you don't like the indicator colour in your fixer
do people actually do this? lmao, ph sensitive dyes are awesome.
sometimes I mix stop bath with baking soda just to see it change color for fun.
>>
>>3873614
yeah i had sex with that girl
>>
File: ENCI_006.jpg (3.42 MB, 3984x3006)
3.42 MB
3.42 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (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 Created2021:04:29 21:10:56
Exposure Time0.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3984
Image Height3006
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: ENCI_007.jpg (4.45 MB, 3922x2706)
4.45 MB
4.45 MB JPG
>>3874331

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3922
Image Height2706
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:04:30 10:48:31
Exposure Time1 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3922
Image Height2706
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: ENCI_008.jpg (4.78 MB, 3987x2988)
4.78 MB
4.78 MB JPG
>>3874334

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (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 Created2021:04:30 11:12:34
Exposure Time1/2 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3987
Image Height2988
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3873530
>what's the problem?
There is none. It's a nice photo. People on this board seem to not like nice photos, they think everything should be some kind of masterpiece.
>>
File: ENCI_005.jpg (3.26 MB, 3921x2996)
3.26 MB
3.26 MB JPG
>>3874343

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDC-GH5
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 21.2 (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 Created2021:04:29 21:06:56
Exposure Time0.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3921
Image Height2996
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: cover1.jpg (211 KB, 800x450)
211 KB
211 KB JPG
Managed to shoot a roll of blanks by fucking up the loading into my new camera... Had some really nice shots that most likely can't be shot again. Fuck me

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
>>
>>3874373
What happened?
Did the sprockets not catch?
>>
>>3874374
Yeah, the film never advanced through the camera
>>
>>3874377
Did it not get secured into the take-up spool?
Some of them are weird and go backwards, some of them you have to cut a 10cm extra leader to wrap around itself, some of them you just have to keep the slack out between the winder and the take-up spool and make sure the holes seat onto the sprocket wheels.
>>
>>3874373
we've all been there
>>
>>3874378
>Did it not get secured into the take-up spool?
I think so. Hopefully it's that and my camera isn't broken. I have a new roll in it which seems to be working fine
>>
>>3874386
I mean, you can pretty much just look at that mechanism to see if it fuckin works or not what the fuck.
It's right there just look at it.
>>
>>3874386
Like if the film didn't advance what's the problem with opening the camera?
>>
>>3874373
feel you, dude
The other day I thought I fucked up my loading as the left wheel on my ae-1 didn't spin when I forwarded the film
so I opened the back only to see that the film was in properly



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.