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

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 63 posters in this thread.

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


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

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


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 00031.jpg (2.57 MB, 3602x2397)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB JPG
Trucker snapshits edition

Film Community Links:
35mmc.com
Casualphotophile.com
Emulsive.org
istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
industrieplus.net/dxdatabase

Old thread >>3868439

[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 Created2021:04:06 20:07:00
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3602
Image Height2397
>>
File: 000073.jpg (1.77 MB, 3637x2433)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>3874454
flower

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera ModelSP-3000
Camera SoftwareFUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. FE FDi Service Software / FRONTIER355/375-2.0-0E-343
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:09:24 18:53:00
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3637
Image Height2433
>>
>>3874494
it's cool how people can make film look like it's at iso 3200 on digital!
>>
File: DSC04053.jpg (3.21 MB, 2557x3850)
3.21 MB
3.21 MB JPG
last month i finally made the switch from D-76 to HC-110, bc muh shelf life. my first roll came out really thin, bc (after some googling) the datasheet times for Tri-X at EI400 in HC-110 are like 50% short, but roll 2 (pics related) came out pretty well. i also stand-developed a roll of 120, and shot a roll at EI1250 that looked better than i expected (certainly better than pushing in D-76)

i can post a pic of my scanning jig later

i'm also trying to switch away from Tri-X bc bulk loading cheap; i got a few rolls each of Delta 400 and HP5 to try out, and a jug of DD-X. excited to see how i like those

>>3874494
i like the greens. is this Fuji? i'm guessing you spot-metered/center-weighted-metered for the flower, hence why the shadows are so low. try placing the flower one or two zones higher. also something something DoF

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2557
Image Height3850
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:04:12 21:09:57
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-3.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC04035.jpg (4.35 MB, 3051x4559)
4.35 MB
4.35 MB JPG
>>3874516
EI 1250 (very cloudy low contrast day, which helped)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3051
Image Height4559
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:04:08 12:41:50
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-4.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC04045.jpg (1.75 MB, 2357x3013)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
>>3874517
semi-stand (came out of a fun-but-shitty 120 toy camera, probably should have exposed an extra stop)

i'm still pretty proud of this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2357
Image Height3013
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:04:08 16:07:33
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-4.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3874516
yeah its fuji if i remember corectly its superia 400 and yeah it was center weighted because of in camera meter
>>
I got some original Fuji acros b/w film.
Do I shoot it at stock ISO 100 or do I do ISO 400?
>>
>>3874549
stock ISO 100. acros is best at its native ISO.
>>
>>3874454
Is there a reason you started 2 threads?
>>
File: DSCF8630.jpg (1 MB, 2271x2267)
1 MB
1 MB JPG
ok /fgt/,
I've got another juicy question for you all.

assuming we keep the exposure constant. what differences would we see in a shot taken with these settings:
>iso 200, 1/100th, f/2
>iso 200, 1/25th, f/8.0

now assuming our subject is stationary and we're shooting on a tripod. would there be any differences in our shot besides the DoF change and slight sharpness loss of shooting at a wider aperture?
My question being, does a slow shutter speed affect anything in the quality of the resulting image?
If we take the water bucket analogy, assuming water is photons and the bucket your emulsion, does filling the bucket quicker by filling it up by dumping water directly with another bucket ( large aperture) versus using a hose to fill it up more slowly ( smaller aperture but longer shutter-speed ) affect the resulting image in any way?

hope this makes sense. Thanks.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX100F
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
PhotographerYves Longpres
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2271
Image Height2267
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2020:12:06 21:40:06
Exposure Time2.5 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/9.8
Brightness2.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeAverage
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length23.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
SharpnessUnknown
White BalanceUnknown
Chroma SaturationUnknown
Flash ModeUnknown
Focus ModeManual
Slow Synchro ModeOff
Picture ModeManual Exposure
Continuous/Bracketing ModeOff
Blur StatusBlur Warning
Focus StatusOK
Auto Exposure StatusOK
>>


[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 Created2021:04:30 15:35:14
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3874608

[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 Created2021:04:30 15:49:27
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3874610

[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 Created2021:04:30 15:43:59
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3874598
First of, the settings you described don't give the same exposure.
The bottom one will be 2 stops underexposed compared to the top one.

>does a slow shutter speed affect anything in the quality of the resulting image?
Not for stationary subjects, as long as you keep some good practices, like for instance mirror lockup for SLRs.
Also, pay attention to the "stationary" part. You might be shooting a landscape, but water and leaves are not stationary with some wind.

>affect the resulting image in any way?
Only in very long shutter speeds, >1sec usually - depending on film - where you start having reciprocity failure.
All this means is you'll need even longer exposures than indicated by your meter. On the plus side (and unlike digital) this doesn't increase grain or "noise", it actually improves the picture, since you get less fog and accidentally exposed silver crystals.

In any case, keep your settings within a reasonable range and you'll be fine.
You don't have to worry about shutter speeds if you have a tripod and stationary subject.
Some practical considerations for stopping down the aperture, aside from DoF and sharpness as you described, is to reduce vignetting, reduce comma (point sources of light becoming smeared blobs), "hide" field curvature (this happens as a side effect of increased DoF), and maybe if you want to get more pronounced sunstars in light sources.
>>
>>3874619
giannis you should write a book/booklet about all of your knowledge (deving/ metering/ and other stuff)
>>
>>3874627
Lel anon if I tried it'd look like special ed crayon paintings next to Mona Lisa and Vermeer, compared to the books that are already out there.
Cheers though.
>>
>>3874619
>The bottom one will be 2 stops underexposed compared to the top one.
only fuck dude. I've been shooting for a year and I always thought aperture worked the same way as shutter speed in terms of how it affects exposure. you've just single-handedly explained so many mysteries I had shooting with a light meter and couldn't figure out why my shots came back over exposed.

>Only in very long shutter speeds, >1sec usually - depending on film - where you start having reciprocity failure.
yeah this is the kind of stuff I was wondering about. it's really, lens characteristics aside, does the rate at which you expose your film matter. regardless of what your shooting. kinda like how you can develop film faster by having warmer temps.
>>
File: reststop smol.jpg (3.26 MB, 3583x2364)
3.26 MB
3.26 MB JPG
>>3874633
the f-number describes the radius of the aperture opening, and there's a quadratic relationship between the radius and the area of a circle (area == pi * r^2 == pi * (focal length / f-number)^2 ).

the area is what determines how much light passes through the lens. this is why if you start from f/1, every two-stop decrease in light doubles the f-number (2, 4, 8, 16...), and if you start from f/1.4 (which is actually f/(sqrt(2)), you get doublings from 1.4 for every two-stop decrease (1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 11, 22...)

reducing the radius of the aperture opening by a factor of sqrt(2) cuts the light by ((sqrt(2)^2) == 2x, reducing the radius by a factor of 2 cuts the light by (2^2) == 4x

this is something i didn't internalize for a long time bc no one explains it that well - i actually figured it out while i was reading The Negative earlier this month. hope i didn't belabor the point too hard, i just think it's neat

pic unrelated, something from one of my first rolls in like 2018, Fuji C200 (i made a zine out of pics from this trip that precisely no one has seen)
>>
>>3874633
>>3874653
for that matter: if you're bored and wanna kill some time, The Negative by Ansel Adams (the 1980s edition) is a really illuminating explanation of how photographic exposure works that manages to not be really boring. a good chunk of the book applies mainly to B+W shooting, and to large-format stuff, but the first few chapters about light value, dynamic range, contrast/development control and the Zone System is pretty timeless
>>
Question:

Could an iPad be used as a lightbox for negatives? If you wanted to take a picture of the negative with a digital camera and process it
>>
>>3874653
>every two-stop decrease in light doubles the f-number
I think that's the ticket right here. if only people said it like this.
Thanks for the explanation, I've seen the equations before but never really bothered looking into them more.
Specially since with any camera made after the 70s you basically just tweak the aperture or shutter speed until the needle points in the middle and call it a day. But this is stuff I needed to really understand once I started using an handheld light meter and it didn't occur to me.
>>
>>3874660
>Could an iPad be used as a lightbox for negatives?
Not really, at least bit by itself—the lines between the pixels (even with a Retina display) shine through the negative when you’re at macro scale to take a picture of it.

(I had the same idea, tried it, was disappointed)
>>
>>3874669
>I think that's the ticket right here. if only people said it like this.
And to add to what the other anon is saying, something similar also applies to guide numbers in flashes: every 2stops of light (=doubling the f/number), doubles the guide number.
In a sense that if you want to shoot at f/8 instead of f/4, you need a flash with double the guide number.

That is, a flash with double the guide number is 4-times as powerful, no just two.
>>
>>3874672
thanks, that saved me the time
>>
>>3874672
>>3874682
It totally works if you elevate the film above the screen by >1"
>>
>>3874685
interesting. I'll try it since it will be "free" since I have the ipad
i just need to shoot and develop some film first.
>>
File: r001-018-01.jpg (620 KB, 1343x2000)
620 KB
620 KB JPG
>>3874513

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:04:30 22:02:20
Image Width1343
Image Height2000
>>
>>3874619
I’ve noticed film doesn’t seem to like excessively fast shutter speeds though, even when “equally” exposed with a wide aperture. Seems like the grain is more pronounced.
>>
>>3874656
The zone system doesn’t apply to modern film emulsions, not even considering scanning.
>>
>>3874861
Hmm while you're correct, i.e. something equivalent to reciprocity failure happens at very fast shutter speeds but on the opposite direction, I'm not sure this is what you're seeing. Because this takes place at speeds like 1/2000 and higher.
>>
>>3874555

forgot the header on the 1st one
>>
>>3874861
>>3874929
I've often wondered if the tech sheet exposure settings are more than just for the sake of it, see attached they recommend static speeds and using aperture to control exposure throughout the differing levels of daylight... is this speed arbitrary or is it to do with something more specific? Maybe I'll do some testing one day but keen to hear if anyone else has
>>
File: Portra_Exposure.png (59 KB, 421x433)
59 KB
59 KB PNG
>>3874944
forgot pic
>>
>>3874944
>>3874945
Ah those are very rough guides, don't pay them too much attention.
What I was referring to is the section about "Reciprocity".
The reason they chose those shutter speeds and altering aperture, instead of shutter speed, is so they don't run out of shutter speeds in most cameras.
For instance, check the middle column, bottom value., 1/500 f/4. If they were to keep the aperture constant, then the top value would be 1/8000 at f/4, which is not realistic in most cameras (and also at those values it's where you start having reciprocity issues).

But I think the main reason is just keeping reasonable and realistic values for shutter or aperture in most cameras and lenses, i.e. not exceeding f/16 in aperture and 1/1000 in shutter.
>>
Any interesting photography books y'all recommend? I really want to compose shots better

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2020:03:09 12:03:58
>>
File: Martine Franck.jpg (311 KB, 1280x853)
311 KB
311 KB JPG
>>3875001
Look at acclaimed photographer's work...not how-to Photography for Dummies books.

A good place to start:
https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographers/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
Photographer© MARTINE FRANCK/MAGNUM PHOTOS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2004:11:02 13:07:25
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4600
Image Height3067
>>
>>3875050
>A good place to start
>Magnum
Good goy
>>
>>3875050
>The photographers meet once a year, during the last weekend in June, in New York, Paris or London, to discuss Magnum’s affairs.
white
>>
>>3875058
Did you even scroll through the names
>>
File: s-l1600.jpg (343 KB, 1600x1200)
343 KB
343 KB JPG
does this look like fungus?
>>
>>3875869
Nope, it looks like it's on the surface. It needs a good wet wipe, Q-tips and a air blow.
>>
File: _IMG4924.jpg (1.08 MB, 2000x1849)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
Has anyone tried the instant coffee and vitamin C developing? (https://www.caffenol.org/) I've decided that I like crummy-looking photos and want to find ways to make them crummier.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-1 Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:04:02 13:36:38
Exposure Time1/100 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
File: EDIT_01.jpg (1.77 MB, 2000x994)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
Ive been shooting paintball on film. This was using 35mm to 120 adapters to get panoramic. The film was E100
>>
File: EDIT_02.jpg (1.26 MB, 2000x1021)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3875878
>>
>>3875878
Looks fucking amazing, nice.
>>
File: EDIT_03.jpg (1.32 MB, 2000x1035)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB JPG
>>3875880
thank you
>>
File: EDIT_04.jpg (1.97 MB, 2000x1022)
1.97 MB
1.97 MB JPG
>>3875882
>>
>>3875878
>>3875879
>>3875882
>>3875889
Fanfuckingtastic. Moarplz.
>>
File: EDIT_05.jpg (1.71 MB, 2000x1029)
1.71 MB
1.71 MB JPG
>>3875892
Thanks
>>
>>3874454
this one is film, yeah? it honestly looks like something that would come from a phone and some editing...
>>
>>3875878
oh yeah dude. your shots are the only ones that would make me consider shooting film in this thread
>>
File: EDIT_06.jpg (1.89 MB, 2000x1043)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
>>3875898
appreciate the positive feedback anon
>>
>>3875893
I think paintball is cringe AF but you made it look good.
>>
>>3875900
I've never met a single person who has actually played paintball who didn't think it was one of the funnest-possible-things.
>>
>>3875913
Oh I’ve played it, was fun af. The demographic of paintball enthusiast is the part I can’t get around. Not a lot of nice cars in that parking lot lol.
>>
File: DSCF0165.jpg (1.24 MB, 2000x1292)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
>>3875872
That's the only developer I've used so far. This i believe is foma 400 pushed a stop. Scanned on a scratched light table. I've also done stand development for an hour and 10 minutes I'll share them later. It doesn't store well mixed long term but if you mix as you need it will work. I want to try reversal with it but I'm not sure if it will work. Check this article out too for alternative development options www.35mmc.com/18/08/2020/polyphenol-developer-alternatives-a-world-full-of-options-by-daniel-keating/
>>
File: img242.jpg (1.95 MB, 2127x906)
1.95 MB
1.95 MB JPG
>>3875914
Maybe you might like tournament paintball. Very expensive sport though.
>>
File: EDIT_07.jpg (1.66 MB, 2000x1028)
1.66 MB
1.66 MB JPG
Last one, going to sleep now
>>
>>3875944
Super link, anon. Thanks!
>>
is it ever coming back bros?
>>
>>3875878
>>3875878


>35mm to 120 adapters

explain this for a film noob please, are you using a lens adapter on a 35 body or 120 body? Love that the film strips are exposed on this, very cool
>>
File: Foma stand dev 7.jpg (990 KB, 747x1129)
990 KB
990 KB JPG
>>3875953
Np good luck with your endeavors, These were taken on an old argus a from the mid 30s

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V600
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r24 (Oct 29 2020) 30c8121 29.10.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width747
Image Height1129
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021.03.07 09:26:04
Image Width747
Image Height1129
>>
File: Foma stand dev 15.jpg (839 KB, 747x1146)
839 KB
839 KB JPG
>>3876011
development issues 7 out of the 16 shots didnt have that issue

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelPerfection V600
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width747
Image Height1146
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:07 09:31:53
Image Width747
Image Height1146
>>
>>3876008
you put the 35mm film into a 120 body - so you can get the extra coverage of the whole film, 35mm lenses dont usually produce this big of a image circle
>>
>>3876008
>>3876014
>https://austerityphoto.co.uk/the-bluffers-8-steps-guide-for-shooting-35mm-in-120-film/
>>
>>3876014
>>3876015
Oh hell yeah, trying this tonight, thanks anons
>>
>>3876014
I thought about doing this with 6x9 but found out 135 provia costs twice the price of 120 roll so whsts the point
>>
File: Gold100_004.jpg (491 KB, 1000x667)
491 KB
491 KB JPG
>>3876026
you still get more than 2x the frames you would on 120.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:04:21 21:56:36
Exposure Time4 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness-6.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceTungsten
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height667
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
I've got some six rolls of Neopan 400 I collected back in 2015 when it was still sold. How far is it expired, and can I expect good pictures if I just up and shoot it? Using HC-110 for development.
>>
File: img631.jpg (3.31 MB, 2000x1798)
3.31 MB
3.31 MB JPG
>>3876026
135 on a 6x9 would be crazy wide
>>
>>3875878
>>3875879
>>3876184
How does everyone scan their film rebate borders? These look clean
>>
File: img633.jpg (1.77 MB, 2000x1025)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>3876185
Im using an epson flat bed and Ive cut like a mask that holds 135 film in the bigger 120 film tray.
>>
File: img634.jpg (2.29 MB, 2000x1051)
2.29 MB
2.29 MB JPG
>>3876192
Rescanning some other stuff
>>
File: img635.jpg (2.01 MB, 2000x1049)
2.01 MB
2.01 MB JPG
>>3876196
>>
>>3876192
>>3876196
>>3876202
... is this Brisbane or somewhere in Australia?
>>
>>3876210
First is bris. Last two are Gold Coast
>>
I done fucked up
Shot 3 rolls of 2006 expired Agfa 160 xps at 64 ISO because the previous roll at ISO 100 was a bit underdeveloped and the girl was so pale it's way over exposed and only a handful of the shots are usable
>>
>>3876036
Barely.
>>
>>3876184
It is, it's pretty much Super Ultrawide at ~3.6/1
>>
File: Pano 05.jpg (1.73 MB, 2000x875)
1.73 MB
1.73 MB JPG
>>3876269
You fucked up metering. Overexposing c41 by a stop shouldn't result in unusable images. You were fucking up your metering and probably already overexposing a few stops somehow. 160 XPS handles overexposure very, very well.

>>3876273
The point is it's still cheaper than shooting 120 and cropping to the pano aspect ratio...especially when considering 120 and 135 are usually the same cost per roll to develop. You'll pay 2x the dev costs to shoot the equivalent images on 120.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:04:17 15:25:08
Exposure Time2 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-6.0 EV
Exposure Bias-0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height875
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3876276
I don't understand how, I used a sekonic l308s which I've used for ages and never had any issues with exposure
>>
>>3876277
Are you scanning yourself or having a lab do it? Are your negatives dense or thin?

You're saying that a 2/3 stop change in exposure made your c41 film unusable. That's just not possible.
>>
>>3876284
I scan myself
the negatives are sort of thin, thinner than portra or something more modern
I use a raleno led panel, an essential film holder and my nikon d750 to "scan" and have never had any other issues
>>
>>3876192
eggy shoots film
>>
>>3876296
I was with him when I took that
>>
>>3876295
If the negs are thin they are underexposed/underdeveloped. You're not dealing with an overexposure issue.
>>
>>3876302
I developed them with the cinestill cs41 kit that I've used on the exact same film stock before with no issues
anything I can do when scanning to try to account for this?
>>
>>3876307
Honestly, your biggest problem is using expired, extremely low contrast film that's known for aging terribly.

I threw out the last 15 rolls of XPS 160 I had for this reason.
>>
>>3876307
>>3876312
I guess to add, since we haven't seen examples...

If you were shooting an extremely low contrast scene of a pale girl on expired XPS160...your negs are going to be mediocre no matter what.
>>
File: C200_(24).jpg (174 KB, 664x1000)
174 KB
174 KB JPG
On other news, Fuji increased 43% (closer to 50% in practice) the price of C200 in April.
A 10-pack of C200 went from €39,99 to €58.
Yay...

[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 Created2021:05:03 14:36:22
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width664
Image Height1000
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: eg1.jpg (143 KB, 603x749)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3876314
>>3876312
relooking at them, it seems 1 roll developed ok despite having some weird artefacts and things (pic rel)
but the 2nd roll (next pic) was potentially fucked because I shot it mostly with the sun full on her pale white face
>>
File: eg2.jpg (216 KB, 603x753)
216 KB
216 KB JPG
>>3876319
I don't even like expired film but I'm broke and it's all I had in the freezer
>>
>>3876319
>>3876320
Is the rest of your body of work also crossdressers?
>>
>>3876322
believe it or not she's modelled for some very high-end fashion houses in london
when I met her irl I had to question that but at that point it's a bit late to say "I don't actually want to waste x amount of rolls on you, can we not" especially as it'd be okayed by her agency
>>
>>3876323
>believe it or not she's modelled for some very high-end fashion houses in london
Knowing a few things about fashion, I can entirely believe this. As it is, the ruse works for about three seconds as long as there's just a single frame. Perhaps longer for people who've not spent most of their lives staring at computerized erotica. Maybe that's the effect you went for? In which case hat's off.
>>
File: eg3.jpg (160 KB, 599x753)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
>>3876325
not really sure what you're trying to say LOL
she is in fact a biological woman but she had 0 idea how to dress herself or do her own make-up, having had someone else tell her what to wear and doing her make up for her usually
I tend to find people like this photograph better in black and white, it's more forgiving especially if they have sub-optimal skin, just waiting for those rolls to dry before I scan them in
pic rel is probably my favourite from the shoot so far, though keep in mind this is literally just a screenshot and not an actual export of the file
>>
>>3876315
Jokes on them. C200 has been perpetually sold out everywhere in my country it seems like
>>
>>3876315
I noticed too, it was sold out even at the big online retailers for a short while just before the hike.
So I'm guessing that was the reason, new batch at a new price.
>>
>>3876328
Meant to quote you anon.
>>
>>3876327
>>3876320
doesnt seem like exposure problems, just expired colours shifted too much towards red/magenta - i bet if you tweaked colour inversion you could improve the print
>>
>>3876350
Any tips on how in LR?

I'm absolutely dog shit at post processing, tend to shoot Portra etc and only have to of minor tweaks so not sure how to really correct it. Her face still looks super blown out to me
>>
what's the point of shooting film if you need to convert it to digital in the end?
>>
>>3876315
so glad i grabbed 10 for 39.99 from fotoimpex last month...
>>
File: ENCI_001-s.jpg (3.12 MB, 3600x2901)
3.12 MB
3.12 MB JPG
I don't know why, but whenever I shoot with the RB67 everything looks so muted and low contrast.

[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 Width4321
Image Height3482
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:05:03 23:24:12
Exposure Time1.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3600
Image Height2901
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: ENCI_003-s.jpg (3.29 MB, 3600x2892)
3.29 MB
3.29 MB JPG
>>3876593

[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 Width4347
Image Height3492
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:05:03 23:28:52
Exposure Time1.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3600
Image Height2892
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: ENCI_006-s.jpg (2.04 MB, 3600x2716)
2.04 MB
2.04 MB JPG
>>3876595
These were shot with the M645

[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 Width3984
Image Height3006
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:05:03 23:31:48
Exposure Time0.6 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3600
Image Height2716
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: ENCI_007-s.jpg (4.24 MB, 3600x2484)
4.24 MB
4.24 MB JPG
>>3876596

[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 Created2021:05:03 23:31:39
Exposure Time1 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3600
Image Height2484
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3876593
mamiya lenses lack contrast desu and are a bit soft. nothing you can about it really but hit it in post
>>
>>3876392
Not pixel peeping the canikon or the snormji
>>
>>3876392
Enforced restraint.
Enforced thoughtfulness.
Enforced understanding of light.
Stuff like that.
>>
>>3876392
i always liked photography but it used to be out of my budget. one day i put some batteries in my parents old point and shoot and shot my first film.
at first it was a cost thing. it was easier for me to pay 10 or 15$ a month to take nice photos (compared to my phone), have the film developed and scanned and at the end, i enjoyed the experience
over the following years i bought my first mirrorless, mainly for trips and traveling. i've also bought a couple of SLRs.
to this day, i still shoot primarily with my slrs and that same point and shoot. i like the different feel it provides. and because of the limitation of frames, i feel like each photo has value, even if it's trash.
every time i take a photo with my mirrorless, i feel like it's a photo i would take as a tourist. it's existence there strictly for archival reasons. but the film is something physical that i hold in my hands. it's something i thought of a lot and deliberately shot, even my thinking wasn't good at the time, and now i'm stuck with it, for better or for worse.
>>
>>3876392
Why bother painting on a canvas if you can paint on a computer?
>>
>>3876392
scanned film doesn’t look like digital anon

>>3876604
mamiya lenses are known for being clinically sharp, it’s one of the reasons people prefer hassies for portrait work, lurk more.
>>
>>3876627
>Enforced
Why does it have to be enforced, aren't you grown up enough to think and make decisions for yourself.
>>
>>3876392
You don't have to. Enlargers still exist.
>>
>>3876760
>mamiya lenses are known for being clinically sharp
Thats mamiya 6 and 7, mamiya RB and RZ lenses are softer than hasselblad lenses.
>>
>>3876593
I've had the mamiya 50mm f4.5, 90mm f3.8, 127mm f3.5 and none of them look like this. Maybe your lens is fogged or the lens element is seperating like picrel.
>>
>>3876392
you dont if you shoot slides and project, or shoot b/w and enlarge
>>
>>3876593
This shot look a bit off anyways - there's a lot of CA and colours look magenta shifted - I'd rework colour inversion
>>
File: 35mm-Strip.jpg (865 KB, 1798x407)
865 KB
865 KB JPG
>>3874454
How much editing latitude do you get when digitizing negatives?
I'm thinking of buying a 35mm film camera, doing DIY development, then scanning in using my Snoy A7ii and a macro lens. If the exposure is a bit wrong, or the color's a bit off, contrast is low etc how much can a RAW of a film negative be edited before it starts to fall apart?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1846
Image Height464
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2015:09:22 17:01:58
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1798
Image Height407
>>
>>3876966
im trying to figure this out myself but it seems like the better your exposure is, the more latitude you get to play with as the spectrum between black/white is wider. i haven't figured out how to make an overexposed image not look like complete ass
>>
>>3876917
lol no they're not
I've shot with several KL lenses and they're all almost too sharp you nonce
>>
>>3876966
i don't have a light meter so my exposures are wild all over the place and even though i used a 2 hour rodinal stand development they're still all over the place. be sure to nail the exposure
>>
File: 35mm-Stripp.jpg (1.41 MB, 1798x407)
1.41 MB
1.41 MB JPG
>>3876966
>>
>>3876988
https://web.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html
Uhh yes? KL lenses are definitely sharp but i find it hard to believe they're sharper than hassy lenses, even the best RZ lens still loses to the older planar ct. But mamiya rangefinder glass are still ridiculously sharp tho.
>>
>>3876966
a lot, negative latitude takes up a fraction of the x axis on the histogram
>>
File: 35mm-Strip.jpg (292 KB, 1798x407)
292 KB
292 KB JPG
>>3877002
It's just a random strip I found online. Putting it through Darktable's negadoctor yields better results, low resolution and dirty negs aside.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.4.0+dirty
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2021:05:04 14:05:02
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1798
Image Height407
>>
>>3877003
That's your proof, that webpage?
>>
>>3877078
Well if you want to believe that mamiya kl lenses are the sharpest and it makes you happy then im fine with it.
>>
>>3877106
the original statement was:

>mamiya lenses lack contrast and are a bit soft.

if you wanna make that the hill to plant your flag in, go for it.
>>
>>3877173

Me >>3876917, diffrent anon >>3876604
>>
File: IMG_20210505_032854.jpg (54 KB, 1065x299)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>3877185
>>
>>3877186
Yeah, again, you think that Mamiya 7 lenses are sharper than RZs, lol.
>>
>>3877200
Yeah and i believed that your a faggot LOL.
>>
I just got this at Savers is it good? I was nervous because it couldn't see a way to turn it on before buying it but I got some batteries at target and it works fine.
>>
>>3877223
Yep, that's a hipster meme camera that's worth a lot of money online, so if you got it at a thrift store price, you did good.

Not as valuable as the Infinity Stylus Epic, but still good.
>>
>>3877237
It was $4. Which is weird because this place used to be pretty good about checking camera values.
>>
File: 039_39.jpg (1.69 MB, 2936x1936)
1.69 MB
1.69 MB JPG
hi /p/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePakon, Inc
Camera ModelF135_PLUS
Camera SoftwarePicture Kiosk G4 APEX V8.1 F5 - Build
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:29 18:53:27
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2936
Image Height1936
RenderingCustom
>>
File: 037_37.jpg (1.91 MB, 2936x1936)
1.91 MB
1.91 MB JPG
>>3877264
are these ok

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePakon, Inc
Camera ModelF135_PLUS
Camera SoftwarePicture Kiosk G4 APEX V8.1 F5 - Build
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:29 18:53:25
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2936
Image Height1936
RenderingCustom
>>
>>3877264
For under exposed film I guess so, not much you can do anyway.
>>3877269
This one is cool
>>
>>3877269
would be a whole lot cooler if you pulled the green out the shadows.
>>
Saw this guy in facebook shooting 35 mm strips held together by scotch tape in 8x10.
Thought it looked cool

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1962
Image Height1840
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3877269
I like this one a lot. Nice and moody. Somewhat nostalgic. I agree with >>3877343 though. Maybe push the shadows VERY SLIGHTLY towards the color of the horizon.
>>
>>3876593
>>3876595
Try fixing them in post. RB67 is p. overrated imo.
>>
>>3876192
>>3876196
>>3876202
I always found this panoramic approach to 35mm film interesting. The only way I can describe it is, the photos look insanely real.
Wouldn't use it everyday, but it's definitely cool.
>>
File: Tmax_400_at_1600_007.jpg (796 KB, 1200x800)
796 KB
796 KB JPG
>>3877223
Great camera to take out when you don't want to have a camera. You paid $4 which means you don't need to give a shit about it. Peak p&s right there.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
File: anon edit.jpg (777 KB, 1600x1055)
777 KB
777 KB JPG
>>3877264
>>3877269
Yeah anon.
Also familiarise yourself with editing so you can get the look *you* want from scans.

Also this :
>>3877343
>>3877427


>>3877426
Heh interesting look.
Maybe also worth it to try with strips of 120 film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePakon, Inc
Camera ModelF135_PLUS
Camera SoftwarePicture Kiosk G4 APEX V8.1 F5 - Build
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:05 13:58:10
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1055
>>
>>3877223
It's funny. I have three of these because my dad and both pairs of grandparents owned one. Didn't know how good these were for the longest time.
>>
>>3877478
See, now it's comfy.
Don't know where this is but
>meet me tonight in Atlantic City
>>
>>3877426
I was thinking about something like this the other day, pretty cool
>>
>>3877223
I was able to find one of these in a Goodwill outside of Seattle for about $11. Just be careful about light leaks. I can post examples in a min
>>
File: 038_38.jpg (1.88 MB, 2936x1936)
1.88 MB
1.88 MB JPG
>>3877478
Ah, I just get them scanned by the kodak shop near me, I don't have a scanner or editing software, thank you, that looks amazing!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePakon, Inc
Camera ModelF135_PLUS
Camera SoftwarePicture Kiosk G4 APEX V8.1 F5 - Build
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:07:21 15:13:48
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2936
Image Height1936
RenderingCustom
>>
>>3877264
>>3877269
theyre great, too many people overexpose night shots where in fact the trick is to underexpose
>>
Why does it feel like none of my film cameras focus fully into infinity? Ive now taken the same scene with railway tracks with three different systems, a mamiya 645, gw690iii and a pentax lx, and it feels like all of them focus just shy of infinity. Like if the last marking on the lens is 10 meters, stuff further than around 15 meters start getting soft.

Ive confirmed it with a loupe and light table, not an issue in my scan pipeline.
>>
>>3877672
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/features/who-killed-infinity-focus%3F
Some lenses focus beyond infinity, to allow the user to compensate for thermal expansion of lens elements. Could you be focusing beyond infinity or in such a hot environment that thermal expansion becomes a factor?
Alternatively, it could just be that things further in the distance are affected by atmospheric haze and that's why they're blurring. If you upload an example we can try to look and see.
>>
>>3877672
That’s fucking weird anon.

Essentially you have front focusing.
But to be sure, sacrifice a roll or two to test.
First of all, in the SLRs, does the viewfinder agree with the lens wrt focusing at infinity? I.e. when you focus using the lens infinity hard stop, is the viewfinder totally clear? And vice versa, when you focus through the viewfinder until it’s clear, does the lens stop at infinity?

Also is it really front focus?
I.e. is there a point closer that is actually much sharper than infinity, or is everything a bit blurry?

If you indeed have front focusing, something is wrong with the system. For SLRs the only way to get such an error, while the viewfinder shows clear focus, is either a misaligned mirror (resting closer to the lens than it should), or misaligned back (film sitting further from the plane it should).
Otherwise you should be getting exactly what you see through the viewfinder.

Rangefinders are a bit harder to diagnose, it could be a botched repair job that messed the shims of the lens/mount so it sits further away from the film plane, causing front focus and making it unable to reach infinity, regardless what the viewfinder patch or lens markings show.

But it’s really fucking weird to have that issue in three separate systems.
I guess make sure it’s front focus (and not some optical effect like less sharp at infinity (many lenses are like that, especially at wider apertures) or field curvature etc.).
And you can take it from there.

Bye how does the lens and mount on the Fuji look? Is it a bit banged up?
A less known fact is that fixed lens Fuji RFs are less fortified around the mount than the build of the rest of the camera would have you believe, and some bumps and accidental banging son the lens would force it out of alignment.
>>
>>3877690
The things are far too small to see if theyre completely in focus with a prism finder. But everything seems fine.
>>
>>3877690
i think i might be having this problem on my minolta 50mm f1.7 lens with my 9000 af
>>
>>3874517
Very nice. What dilution did you use?
>>
File: 1614234900666.jpg (591 KB, 1512x1002)
591 KB
591 KB JPG
forgot to order my scans from the lab in the larger size option. whoops.

guess I'll rescan the negatives when I buy and set up my mirrorless scanning setup, whenever I get around to doing that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:05:02 15:26:34
Image Width1512
Image Height1002
>>
>>3877690
After looking at them carefully, it could be that its because mf wide angles are often a little soft in the corners at infinity
>>
File: eos rebel.jpg (286 KB, 1054x1215)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
anyone know anything about this camera?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:05 19:09:37
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1054
Image Height1215
>>
>>3877806
It's a Cannon.
an EOS Rebel, I believe.
It can take pictures if it turns on.
>>
>>3877815
worth an hour drive and $100 with a tripod and some other accoutrements?
>>
>>3877816
Any lenses?
>>
>>3877818
35-80 80-200
i have lots of canon lenses that's why i want a eos
>>
>>3877806
Rebel film camera, right? Camera will expose 35mm film, lens is kinda shit.

>>3877816
Rebel 2000's (newer) with shit lenses go for $30-$50 on ebay.
>>
>>3877806
I have the flash version of this. definitely not worth $100 but is still pretty good if you can cop on ebay for $30
>>
>>3877844
they are also good for using lenses you would use on a canon dslr if you have one, i use the 50mm 1.8 prime lens mostly
>>
File: DSC04036.jpg (3.88 MB, 3044x4560)
3.88 MB
3.88 MB JPG
>>3877728
thanks! i used a procedure i found on flickr (last one described in the OP): https://www.flickr.com/groups/38331173@N00/discuss/72157626083218421/

tl;dr, 1:100, 20C/68F, continuous agitation for 30 seconds then two inversions every 10 minutes. 40min total. negs are a little thin for scanning, if i did this again i'd probably agitate at 40min and go to 45min total

i really like the results, and it makes me wish i wasn't switching away from Tri-X! my first roll of HP5 at 1600 is going in DD-X, bc the bottle's open and i can't not use it, but if i don't like that i plan to try adapting this procedure

picrel from the same pushed roll. i had 4 different cameras with me this day, 2 that were new to me, so i was taking a lot of the same snapshits to compare (both the cameras and the development--these were my first rolls in HC-110 and i was shooting Tri-X at 3 different exposure indices). i'm gonna dump more photos from all 4 rolls in next /fgt/, i haven't scanned most of it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3044
Image Height4560
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2021:04:08 12:42:36
Exposure Time1 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: _DSF8583-positive.jpg (808 KB, 1000x673)
808 KB
808 KB JPG
Y'all ever scan old negatives from childhood trips?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.1 (Android)
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:05:05 21:39:33
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-0.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length28.00 mm
>>
>>3877672
Are you sure it isn't your scanner?
>>
File: 2021-05-06-0001.jpg (3.36 MB, 5421x5206)
3.36 MB
3.36 MB JPG
you guys might like this one too.

Tri-X @ 1600, 1:100 rodinal 90min, 1 rotation at the 45min mark.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEpson
Camera ModelPerfectionV700
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5421
Image Height5206
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
>>
Can someone explain the math behind what magnification ratios to use for scanning film with a digital camera?
I've got an APS-C body and a vintage macro lens + ext tube which allows for magnification to be as high as 1:1, and I'm assuming the crop sensor doesn't affect that ratio¿
But 1:1 on APS-C will mean I'd be focusing on less than the entire area of the 35mm exposure, right?
I always noticed peopled mentioning needing a true 1:1 macro lens for this type of digital film scanning setup, and now it's seeming like that's not truly what I need.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2021:03:06 07:42:52





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.