[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 102 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
>>
>>3874454
Hello

Can you please give me some link where I could work with camera`s exposure, shutter speed. But concrete information. I cant find decent info, i just managed to find info about composition and stuff . I am noob
>>
>>3878116
Yeah, so scanning a 35mm negative with 1:1 magnification lens would be perfect for a full frame camera, since full frame = 35mm

With APS-C and the same setup otherwise you'd be taking out a 1.5x crop of the negative

You can use the same setup, but just move the camera further away or a 1:1.5 magnification lens
>>
>>3878116
>>3878140
>You can use the same setup, but just move the camera further away or a 1:1.5 magnification lens

this

i usually set my lens to 1.6 or 1.7:1, actually, bc then you don't need to worry about getting the negative lined up perfectly, and you can use the film border as a reference to set your black point (i think for color scanning you need visible film base but i'm not sure)
>>
>>3878138
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm
>>
File: DSC_1389.jpg (3.49 MB, 1990x3000)
3.49 MB
3.49 MB JPG
not sure if those bros I was talking to about my photoshoot using expired agfa xps 160 are here but I developed the last roll and it looks fantastic
turns out 1-2 of the other rolls I shot of it were just a bit dodgy which I guess is understandable for 16yo expired film
pic rel is 35mm hp5 from the same shoot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 1602232949005.jpg (1.37 MB, 1333x2000)
1.37 MB
1.37 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T2
Camera SoftwareCapture One 12.1.5 Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time15 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-6.9 EV
Exposure Bias2 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Image Width1333
Image Height2000
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3878587
i overexposed this so after squeezing it in post you can see the tones in the sky are ruined
>>
File: time20cover20sequence.jpg (52 KB, 560x373)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>3878527
Ya, makes sense. As I said XPS 160 really doesn't age well. Glad you figured it out.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:09:02 13:10:43
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width5400
Image Height3600
>>
File: R1-08985-0025.jpg (1.93 MB, 1818x1228)
1.93 MB
1.93 MB JPG
so I tried my hand at developing silde film(ektachrome), and even with my thermometer dying the images still came out
>>
File: R1-08985-0021.jpg (2.03 MB, 1818x1228)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB JPG
>>3878669
Also managed to fuck the last frames up by rolling them back in the canister too tightly (not pictured here)
>>
File: R1-08985-0000.jpg (1.38 MB, 1818x1228)
1.38 MB
1.38 MB JPG
>>3878670
To conclude, I think slide film is really comfy, and you should deffo shoot it at least once
>>
>>3878269
>https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-exposure.htm
thank you
>>
>>3877781
why would you ever decide this is a good photo to take
>>
File: Hex cover.jpg (201 KB, 1417x1417)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
similar
.>>3877584

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGoogle
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1417
Image Height1417
>>
File: 23-2020 (16).jpg (1.3 MB, 1724x1200)
1.3 MB
1.3 MB JPG
>>3878587
>>3878589
I do this by purpose.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r16 (May 9 2019) 6e6d7cc 09.05.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1724
Image Height1200
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2020.10.25 21:06:28
Image Width1724
Image Height1200
>>
>>3878777
is this a chemical print? very cool
>>
>>3878780
It's a low effort scan. So far, I didn't have the time to make a print from it.
>>
>>3877430
this
>>
>>3878769
based album

check out this album
>>
File: 20210507_200349.jpg (2.75 MB, 4032x3024)
2.75 MB
2.75 MB JPG
lost my 35-105 to a fall today, took a shit ton of beach shots with my gf on ultramax 400 pushed 800 and ektar 100 with my 50mm prime and 100-300

pic just kinda how it looked from my phone

>>3878981
>>3878769
based post rock and slowcore anons!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-N960F
Camera SoftwareN960FXXS6FTK3
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:07 20:03:49
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness4.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image IDJ12LLKL00SM
>>
File: KARSIFD1042107.jpg (1.09 MB, 1109x1680)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
Some Delta 100 snapshits.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 19:35:45
Image Width6719
Image Height10151
>>
File: KARSIFD1042110.jpg (1.11 MB, 1083x1680)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
>>3879046
Little aggressive pieces of shit not so tough after being raided by a bear.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 19:49:57
Image Width6695
Image Height10247
>>
File: KARSIFD1042114.jpg (1 MB, 1680x1125)
1 MB
1 MB JPG
>>3879048
Common Pepe.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 19:57:05
Image Width9959
Image Height6695
>>
File: KARSIFD1042116.jpg (1.12 MB, 1097x1680)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB JPG
>>3879051
Wutr

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 20:06:25
Image Width6719
Image Height10127
>>
File: KARSIFD1042118.jpg (1.21 MB, 1115x1680)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3879054
More wutr. Wow reflection so pretty. I am very intelligent.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 20:14:55
Image Width6731
Image Height10074
>>
File: KARSIFD1042120.jpg (1.26 MB, 1680x1118)
1.26 MB
1.26 MB JPG
>>3879055
Icy boat canal. Don't know what to tell you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 20:22:50
Image Width10114
Image Height6723
>>
File: KARSIFD1042122.jpg (973 KB, 1680x1088)
973 KB
973 KB JPG
>>3879056
Last one goes out to this motherfucker who managed to bribe the municipal authorities to overlook every one of the billion regulations that prevent normal people from ever building a nice cabin anywhere near a nice riverside location.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:05:06 20:30:46
Image Width10210
Image Height6650
>>
>>3878674
>>3878669
why did you take these images?
>>3878670
this 1 makes sense but the other ones i dont get
>>
>>3877591
false
>>
File: p031.jpg (2.06 MB, 8853x5568)
2.06 MB
2.06 MB JPG
>>3879046
This is an incredible shot, if you could darkroom print this it would look SICK nasty bro
>>3879055
>>3879054
I like these, as well.

What do you shoot on film/camera wise, very nice

[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 Created2021:04:16 03:17:31
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: KARSCMS20KUO32002.jpg (732 KB, 1680x1117)
732 KB
732 KB JPG
>>3879074
Thanks. It's annoying that I have darkroom gear ready but no room to actually set it up. I have a ton of gear these days due to years of rummaging through old junk shops but mostly I use the Konica Autoreflex T2 as being big and heavy it's a perfect fit for my clumsy large hands and has my overall favorite lens, the 4/21 Hexanon. That's also the combo I shot these with. For film I used to be all for RPX 25 but nowadays I opt for Delta 100 with an orange filter.

Pic semi-related, tried shooting some CMS 20 II a year back. Should have another go at it but shit's really walking a tightrope if the scene has any contrast whatsoever.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1061 dpi
Vertical Resolution1061 dpi
Image Created2020:03:26 20:55:31
Image Width10152
Image Height6792
>>
File: 1603780811008.jpg (440 KB, 2432x1824)
440 KB
440 KB JPG
how in the ass-eating fuck do you get these things in the negative holder sleeves? i can't insert one without smashing it in with my fingers and ruining it. its fucking impossible. i try bending it a little bit and wiggling it or whatever and its just fucked
>>
>>3874454
Can M42 focus to infinity when mounted on a Minolta camera? I'm looking at Minolta cameras as they usually come with fifties, and I already have a nice 2.8 MD telephoto zoom so I'm just missing a wide angle.
I've got a gommunist 35mm M42 lens and was hoping an adapter like https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/164830435358?hash=item2660a8d81e:g:zoIAAOSwiENghByp would let me focus to infinity. That listing says it will, but others describe them as macro adapters that won't. Has anyone tried this combo before?
>>
>>3879215
Any normal M42-Minolta SR adapter will work and allow you to focus to infinity.
>>
File: FUG beer :DDD.png (82 KB, 255x207)
82 KB
82 KB PNG
>>3879231
Thank you, gomrade.
>>
>>3879073
show me one good overexposed night photo that doesn't have ugly smeared florescent casts across the frame with no character - what makes night photos good is the negative space with brilliant highlights
>>
>>3874612
this is gorgeous :0
what film?
>>
>>3877584
looks dutch
>>
>>3879238
Have fun arguing with kodak lol
>>
File: 39098816904_d65edfe85c_o.jpg (557 KB, 2213x1475)
557 KB
557 KB JPG
>>3879046
>>3879054
>>3879083
these are actually spectacular. god damn.

atm my widest lens in any system is an SR mount 28/2.8 (but my most used system is AF mount, and there my widest is only 35). whenever i go out i wish i had something wider, they made an AF 20/2.8 i need to keep an eye out for

there's one camera store within 30 miles of me; i went to check him out yesterday and buy a couple rolls of Tmax 100 to try out. apparently i was his only customer that day, which kinda sucks. the widest lenses he had in AF mount were a pile of 28/2.8s, but if i had the $ to spare this week i'd have absolutely gotten one (even if he's overpriced compared to whatever schlock is on ebay)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2213
Image Height1475
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:01:20 21:36:04
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness1.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 39110329224_a34efedcbf_o.jpg (579 KB, 1476x2214)
579 KB
579 KB JPG
>>3879253
(i know these scans are bad, i made them with a shoebox in 2018)

i'm gonna complain about something dumb i did. my first (for a long time only) lens was a ligma 60-200 in AF mount with a 52mm filter thread, and my second was a 35-70/4 kit zoom with a 49mm thread. when i started buying filters i standardized on 52mm, and i didn't know any better at the time, but i definitely regret it now: all the Minolta AF glass after ~1990, and all the SR mount glass before ~1975, is 55mm--so all the cheapest and most common glass, and all the super interesting glass, is in a filter size i can't reasonably adapt to. if i could do it again i'd standardize on 58mm or 67mm or whatever it is the 20/2.8 uses (72?), but as it stands i'm stuck with some pretty nice color, ND and CPL filters in a restrictive size

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.2
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1476
Image Height2214
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:01:20 21:28:02
Exposure Time1/160 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness1.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length55.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: KARSKEKTPUO2007.jpg (1.75 MB, 1680x1098)
1.75 MB
1.75 MB JPG
>>3879253
~20mm is the shit, man. Once you get one of those widebois, you'll never want to touch a 28mm again. I usually roll with the 21mm, 40mm pankek and 70-210 zoom. Covers everything I need.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:02:18 14:51:53
Image Width10223
Image Height6694
>>
File: KARSKEKTPMK12104.jpg (2.37 MB, 1680x1098)
2.37 MB
2.37 MB JPG
>>3879272
Time to post a few more of my favorite 21mm shots.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:02:02 20:22:55
Image Width10128
Image Height6672
>>
File: KARSKEKTPUO2030.jpg (1.87 MB, 1116x1680)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
>>3879273

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2021:02:19 10:07:40
Image Width6742
Image Height10127
>>
File: KARSRPX25112025.jpg (1.11 MB, 1680x1118)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
>>3879275

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2020:12:03 19:54:51
Image Width10128
Image Height6767
>>
>>3879210
get the good holders that have the plastic offset so they're easier to slide in. but yeah, most of the time I have to bend the film a little to give it more strength when pushing it in.

Pic related is what I use.
>>
File: KARSFV5AUG2010.jpg (688 KB, 953x1440)
688 KB
688 KB JPG
>>3879275

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2020:08:25 20:25:16
Image Width6720
Image Height10136
>>
File: KARSFV5MDS2033.jpg (1.8 MB, 1106x1680)
1.8 MB
1.8 MB JPG
>>3879279
I reckon this will do for now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution44 dpi
Vertical Resolution44 dpi
Image Created2020:07:05 21:19:51
Image Width6696
Image Height10104
>>
File: Untitled-3.jpg (694 KB, 2048x1352)
694 KB
694 KB JPG
First time shooting on film with my dad's old K1000

[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 Created2021:05:08 12:12:25
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: Untitled-4.jpg (450 KB, 1348x2048)
450 KB
450 KB JPG
>>3879290

[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 Created2021:05:08 12:17:04
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: Untitled-5.jpg (552 KB, 1352x2048)
552 KB
552 KB JPG
>>3879294

[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 Created2021:05:08 12:26:24
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 1598383485204.jpg (572 KB, 1002x1512)
572 KB
572 KB JPG
>>3879272
this is a really pretty scene
>>
File: Sho_015.jpg (1.89 MB, 1600x1067)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB JPG
>>3879055
This needs darkroom printing asap. Fucking rad.

>>3879273
Nice shot. I couldn't handle 21mm so settled for 25. Pulling off wide shots is tough without turning things kitschy.

>>3879290
Awesome anon, did you enjoy it?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
Any recs for a cheapo lightmeter that's not complete shit? I have 0 faith in these apps.
>>
File: Canon.jpg (103 KB, 1440x885)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
So I just bought a Canon ae-1 program and I'm wondering what's the best film to digital converter in the 150-200$ range
>>
>>3879278
that shut is fucking impossible i don't know if im retarded or fat or if my photo cave has too much humidity or what but this shit is garbage maybe ill get some gloves and just fucking jam them in
>>
File: 1599174531934.jpg (152 KB, 800x492)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
This thing is supposed to hold your negatives flat while you scan them. It says that's what it does. Everyone says that's what it does. Everyone on YouTube will tell you that this thing is great. Amazing. I'm here to tell you that it doesn't. It does not hold your negatives flat. It doesn't hold them flat at all. They are extremely fucking unflat. Look at the fucking marketing picture you can see how fucking not flat that shit is. They didn't even try to fake it. If you use a film that tends to curl such as Kentmere 400, you are so completely fucked with this thing. You will have this insane 1-2mm bow in your film and you won't be able to focus on it. You can't make it flat using this.
>>
File: Sho_016.jpg (552 KB, 1200x800)
552 KB
552 KB JPG
>>3879530
Sekonic l-308

>>3879643
Put your negs under books for a few days.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3879643
you can buy the plustek neg holder seperate pretty cheap which does indeed hold it flat, i don't know what that shit is you've pictured, looks like AIDS
>>
>>3879486
This looks fantastic. Portra?
>>
File: Sho_014.jpg (1.87 MB, 1600x1067)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
>>3879674
Nah, I can't justify Portra prices. My main c41 film all winter has been Pro Image 100.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>3879643
Look into the Essential Film Holder. It looks legit.
>>
>>3879210
>>3879278
i destroyed some negatives just now in a fit of rage trying to get them into the sleeve again. i am convinced 100% that it is not possible. it's just not going to happen. i have no idea what ill do with my negatives
>>
File: 0003 (1).jpg (2.74 MB, 2048x3088)
2.74 MB
2.74 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-32_33
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3879737
jesus christ anon how autistic are you, just snip the corners off of one side of the strip (obviously don't snip the image, just the sprockets), and squeeze the long sides so that it doesn't roll up when you slide it in
>>
>>3879737
you're too fucking retarded for photography anon
>>
>>3879815
im telling you man there is seriously no way
>>3879811
the friction is probably with the non-emulsion side of the film not the corners
>>
>>3880075
>>
>>3880136
stop trolling me god dammit it's not funny
>>
>>3880136
kino
>>
>>3879799
nice depth, i like it
>>
>>3879551
you got memed hard.
>>
>just bought a k1000
>already have an ME Super and a P30n and P30t
>old man at my local store is trying to hunt down a spotmatic for me too

help the pentax GAS is crippling me
I did find a cool praktica though, so thats fun, things loud as shit
>>
File: PXL_20210504_212405605.jpg (4.06 MB, 4032x3024)
4.06 MB
4.06 MB JPG
>>3880217
Nothing wrong with being GASSY unless:

1) it's cause you financial trouble

and/or

2) you try to convince yourself you actually need all this shit

[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 OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:04 18:24:05
Exposure Time8351/1000000 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating64
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness4.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Subject Distance0.45 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 RangeMacro
>>
>>3880241
supremely comfy pic. mt and klasse. very nice.
>>
>>3880241
I only shoot with the P30n and the ME Super honestly, praktica is just neat to have, k1000 is same boat and I might use it for holidays etc cause im less worried about it. and the P30t is just a matching one in the pair that I keep as a backup. the Spotmatic will likely get used for screw mount lenses not that I have more than a couple of those

the real GAS problem is gonna come when I set out to actually gather the entire Pentax-M lens series prime collection

that will be a slow process
>>
>>3878674
CT
>>
>>3876966
A related question: How well can you fix the white balance of scans? If I shoot daylight film indoors and the negs are all yellow, can this easily be corrected in post with minimal loss of color fidelity or does it just not work like that?
>>
>>3880332
Actually one more Q. Please excuse my extreme film retardation.
When a filmstock is described as having a wide latitude, as in https://www.culturedkiwi.com/kodak-gold-200-review/#Wide_Exposure_Latitude what does that mean exactly? Is it relating to being able to shoot under or overexposed and then pushing/pulling during dev? Or can you take your shots all over the place, dev normally and somehow it's more forgiving?
>>
File: 20210510_151908.jpg (4 MB, 4032x3024)
4 MB
4 MB JPG
which of these horribly expired canisters of film are more haha funny to shoot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makesamsung
Camera ModelSM-N960F
Camera SoftwareN960FXXS6FTK3
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:05:10 15:19:08
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/1.5
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/1.5
Brightness-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length4.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image IDJ12LLKL00SM
>>
File: DSC_1009.jpg (638 KB, 2041x1343)
638 KB
638 KB JPG
Just wanted to brag about getting Oly Pen FT with a shot from the test roll.
I like this camera so far, loaded Ilford PAN 100 now. I will try Fomapan 400 next and see how the grain will look on the HF format; it will be either goregous or completely trash.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern930
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1343
Image Height2142
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:05:05 00:15:20
Exposure Time1.6 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/10.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2041
Image Height1343
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 36678_002-02.jpg (2.07 MB, 3633x2430)
2.07 MB
2.07 MB JPG
So I used my uncle's Zenit ET for a day and I really liked it. A week ago, I have bought an Exa 1 with a 50mm, 35mm and 135mm lens. Including a lightmeter, two cases, flash, accessories for the camera and a film roll. All for 60€. For anyone wanting to try out film, it starts out significantly cheaper than digital, but progresses into being for expensive. Huge enthusiast of film photography nevertheless.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:05:10 22:52:02
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3633
Image Height2430
>>
>>3874953
Well, I use a camera from 1963 and it's max shutter speed is 1/175s which is really slow. I constantly have to counter that with the aperture. Still, the 50mm makes for good potraits.
>>
>>3880332
You can color correct in post, but it's not optimal, because your photo never exposed enough of some color frequencies in the first place. So you can remove the yellow cast, but the photo will look noisy because the blue channel is severely underexposed.
The correct way to compensate for artificial ligting with films is to use filters like 80B or fluorescent filter when making exposure.
>>
>>3880335
It means that the film can "see" a wider range of light to dark in a single exposure. Wide latitude means you can get detail in both the highlights and shadows. Slide film is known for a very narrow latitude - if there is a big difference between the highlights and shadows, you can't get detail in both.
>>
>>3880332
Here's a quick way to figure out how efficiently you can correct white balance in post: look up the filter needed to correct the white balance for the lighting conditions you have.
Then check how many stops that is. The more the stops, the harder it will be to correct with acceptable quality.
1/3rd of a stop is easy to correct, 1 stop and above is hard. Tungsten for instance needs an 80A filter, which is two stops. This will be hard to correct because effectively if you shoot unfiltered, you're underexposing the blue-sensitive layer by 2 stops, and negative film doesn't record much when underexposed, so lots of the blue information is lost.

If you want best results, you need tungsten balance, there's no other way around it.
To achieve that, either use an 80A filter or tungsten balanced film (only cine film comes in tungsten now), if you have access to it.

Alternatively, use flash, since flashlights are daylight balanced.
There are ways to achieve very natural results with flash *and* tungsten light indoors, if you're up for it. The trick is to *almost* balance flash with the tungsten in terms of temperature, as well as give soft "natural" looking light.
For the softness, you bounce the flash on a ceiling or wall.
For the *almost* balancing with tungsten light, you use a CTO gel on the flash, say a 1/2 strength. Then also a filter on the lens that cancels out the flash, say an 80C. Such a filter will give almost neutral illumination to everything lit by the flash, and the rest of the tungsten lightsources will be visibly warmer but not too yellow (this is the reason for the almost matching the sources with the flash, if you match them completely they'll turn neutral white and not look very natural).
Then you can finetune colour temperature in post a bit, adjusting to taste for atmosphere.
>>
>>3880335
>what does that mean exactly?
It normally means the having the ability to record details from quite dark areas to quite bright areas in a contrasty scene, without losing detail to "crushed" shadows (i.e. turning fully black) or "blown" highlights (i.e. turning fully white).
Negative film has, usually, a wide latitude. The less contrasty a film is, the more latitude it has.
Almost all of this latitude though is towards the highlights, i.e. it'll be fine a bit (or a lot) overexposed, but not underexposed.
Contrary to what the article states, no film has 2 stops underexposure latitude (i.e. turning fine if underexposed two stops).
Realistically it'll be fine half a stop underexposed, or maybe 1 stop at most and that is a stretch. 2 stops underexposed won't be very usable, shadows will be completely crushed and full of colour casts, exacerbated from the scanning software that will try to bring them up. So when you're in doubt, with negative film, it's safer to overexpose.

>and then pushing/pulling during dev?
No not that. Just shooting under/over (or shooting a very contrasty scene that has very dark parts and very bright pars), but developing normally.
Pushing or pulling in colour film is used much more rarely than in B&W. Mostly because you get crossover (colour casts in shadows *and* in highlights, different to each other) that is hard to correct. You'll have to either live with a cast in the shadows, or in the highlights, since correcting one makes the other worse.
Some films behave better in that regard, i.e. their crossover is more limited when pushed, so if you *have* to push you're better served by those films.
But this is clearly stated/advertised as such, and not included in the generic statements about latitude and dynamic range.

Btw anon that article you linked is not very good.
I have the impression the person that wrote it doesn't have much experience with film, because he uses many terms wrongly plus the scanners recommended are utter trash.
>>
>>3880641
>>3880645
Thank you Giannis.

>if you shoot unfiltered, you're underexposing the blue-sensitive layer by 2 stops
>Almost all of this latitude though is towards the highlights, i.e. it'll be fine a bit (or a lot) overexposed
Does this mean if I'm (mis)using a daylight film indoors or at dawn/dusk I can overexpose to give the film more blue information and then darken the overall exposure in post? I'm not totally against using filters - they just seem a bit of a hassle if I want to take a quick snap indoors.
>>
>took my slr to kill some time at a sports field before I refereed a game
>team from my club playing in the slot before
>decide to take some pics
>fookin dark as shit and bad lights at the venue
>chuck in some delta 3200 and push it 2 stops to hit 1/250 shutter speed on a 200mm f4 lens

how fucking grainy and bullshit are my negs going to be shooting dark background high contrast sports at a shutter speed that close to the focal length?
>>
File: Fujifilm Velvia 100F-28.jpg (124 KB, 1497x1000)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>3878674
slide is indeed comfy to shoot, im a slut for the colours

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:02:13 17:05:09
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3880717
>Does this mean if I'm (mis)using a daylight film indoors or at dawn/dusk
Nah I wouldn't say that.
When you need to shoot indoors, you need to shoot indoors and that's it, you don't have an option. It's better to get something yellow-ish and with the wrong white balance, than getting nothing at all.

About dusk or dawn, I wouldn't correct white balance (either through filtration or in post) anyway. Dawn is supposed to look blue (it's called blue hour for a reason), just like sunsets are supposed to look orange.
If you corrected those they'd look neutral and not very natural or pleasing.

About overexposure, yes, it's a way to keep more information and correct better in post.
Again though, in the case of dusk and dawn, don't overdo it because you *want* those deep blue or deep orange colours in your film - instead of brightened up and neutral skies.
>>
>>3879283
>>3879283

T E A L
>>
>>3879551
this is probably bait but god DAMN you fucking got me
>>
Ok bois I ordered a digital camera after being film only for about 3 years. What should I get in the current year if I want to use it for film scans as well? I guess some sort of good flat backlight, maybe something to diffuse and something to hold the film. I have an enlarger so I guess I could use the film holder to start with, but it’s probably not the best. I also have a basic tripod and an Olympus 50mm f3.5 macro + a couple of extension rings.
>>
File: 8mm_Camera.jpg (890 KB, 1536x2048)
890 KB
890 KB JPG
>>3874454
Received pic-related as a gift from a relative.

Mechanically it works. The motor runs, the film mechanism works, the shutter works - only the zoom is a bit bogey.

The problem I have is that it's Single-8 rater than Super-8. I've been able to find cartridges of film, but nowhere that appearrs to develope it outside of Japan.

Is there anywhere in Euroland that developes this stuff. I think Single-8 Fujichrome has a different remjet process and chemistry than Super-8 Ektachrome.?

I'll be lucky to get 3 minutes of film for under a hundred quid, developed and sent - but at least I'll know if it works or not.
>>
Tried a modern digi lens on my Pentax ME and the negs are slightly wider than with the original Pentax lenses? Whats going on here? I happened to notice it when the scan borders didnt line up. Like a mm or so.
>>
File: Le Photo.png (409 KB, 548x821)
409 KB
409 KB PNG
I've been looking for information and reference photos of the Canon BF-7 and all I get are hipsters photos on lomography and post in Southeast Asian languages. Can someone tell me more about this camera, I rescued it from a normie family member.
Would it be useful to get things like pic related?
>>
>>3880412
Only real way to find out is try them out and post results
>>
>>3876392
It's fun, duh.
>>
>>3881005
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Canon_Snappy_LX_Date/Prima_BF-7_Date/BF_35_QDN

>Would it be useful to get things like pic related?
You'd have to smear vaseline on the lens to get that soft result.
>>
>>3881005
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film172.html seems like it's a p&s with a big view finder. If you like that style then yeah go for it.
>>
File: 15950021-min.jpg (1.76 MB, 3504x2324)
1.76 MB
1.76 MB JPG
>>
>>3879696
honestly an underrated stock, especially if you don't shoot people
I like ultramax for this too, looks like a slightly more contrasty/saturated portra
>>
File: RQT-18.jpg (566 KB, 1031x1500)
566 KB
566 KB JPG
>>3879719
I have this and can confirm it's very good, though not perfect

considering creating a photobook of sort of classic suburban australia similar to this shot I took, spoke to a few people and the general consensus was aussies might like it but murrkans/euros are more likely to be interested as it's different to what their suburbs are like
anyone ever made their own and have any tips for me? especially in regards to paper type/weight, where to print and best way to distribute to actually make a little profit?
is a kickstarter viable or is that sort of funding dead now?
>>
Anyone else thinking Kodak will be releasing a high ISO slide film?
>>
>>3881062
nope

if anything they'll release either more budget friendly stocks or maybe a portra alternative

realistically they won't make anything new at all and just continue to up the prices of what they do make
>>
>>3881062
who tf shoots slide film in 2021 lmao
>>
>>3881062
I wish but nah.
With the last generation of films (at which point we can assume active R&D for new stocks stopped), Kodak was one generation ahead in fast colour negative film, and Fuji was one generation ahead, if not more, with fast slides.
Provia 400X was the most technically advanced slide film, and possibly the last and best stock Fuji developed in general.
If anyone would stand a chance in this market it would be Fuji, but they don't seem to care.
Kodak last introduced a 400 speed slide in early 90's, Fuji in mid 2000's.

>>3880951
Anon the only issue is the format I'm guessing, not the remjet.
If anything, if Fuji remjet is the same as in their 35mm stocks, then it's "softer"/less dense and dissolves quite a bit easier than Kodak Vision remjet.
Keep in mind the various Eternas have been discontinued for quite some time and they're all expired now.
>>
File: hey.png (301 KB, 1147x1651)
301 KB
301 KB PNG
picrel is all i need hey? cannisters and cartridges from the HP5 then film to go in it then the bulk loader to stick it in there, right?
>>
>>3881090
Yes, assuming you've already got a darkbag for loading the bulk loader, some good sellotape, a pair of decent scissors, and a leader puller so that you can reuse the cartridges. Consider trawling your local craigslist or photo forum for bulk loaders and cartridges, those tend to be much cheaper than brand new.
>>
Kiev 80 (Hasselblyat) with 2 backs, leather case, some accessories from the first owner, near mint for 185 EUR.

worth it?
>>
>>3881122
If it comes with the Vega f/2.8 lens and the seller can show you a cellphone video of its aperture working snappily, yes. Otherwise bargain down accordingly. The Kiev 80 is the better one, but expect it to malfunction in some operationally significant ways (like bulb mode not working at all, etc). The soviet pain factor is still high on that one.
>>
>>3881135

allright. good to know!

I might ask. Don't need another camera which needs repairs atm...
>>
>>3881142
Well. Lemme tell you. I have both a Kiev 88 and a Kiev 80, and the former is a piece of shit. The latter on the other hand works reasonably well around the "fast" speeds, i.e. 1/30 thru 1/250, but only when it's not pointed down past a certain angle; otherwise the closing shutter curtain starts at the same time as the opening one and there'll be no exposure.

By which I mean that you can expect them to need some kind of fixing, but that there'll be sections of their function that will work reliably under some conditions. This is part of "soviet pain factor". Look through the "kievaholics" web site for more about this stuff, and maybe consider a Bronica or something instead if you don't want to deal with all of this specifically for the cost difference of like twenty rolls of Portra and dev+scan.
>>
>>3881144
The thing is, I won't be shooting MF since I can't scan it at home, and I can't afford a scanner anyway.

I was thinking of using it exclusively with a 35mm adapter for the sprocket shot faux xpan memery, and now I don't think I will be doing that.

might as well put the money aside for film.
>>
>>3881152
Kievs are horrible for 35mm adaptation because of the loading window on the rear of pre-automatic backs, where light leaks will absolutely destroy your pictures if you don't tape it up like a Holga.

So, like, have you considered a Holga? Or a folding camera with zone focusing? And do you really need a wide format of film when cropping is just as good for pics you'd be scanning anyway?
>>
File: img673.jpg (1.44 MB, 2000x656)
1.44 MB
1.44 MB JPG
Some shots on Vision3 250D I bulk ordered
>>
File: img666.jpg (1.24 MB, 2000x717)
1.24 MB
1.24 MB JPG
>>3881156
>>
File: img676.jpg (1022 KB, 2000x693)
1022 KB
1022 KB JPG
>>3881157
>>
File: img677.jpg (1.34 MB, 2000x706)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB JPG
>>3881158
>>
>>3881155
man I haven't put much thought and research into it, i was just wondering whether the kiev was a good deal and whether it was an okay camera.
>>
>>3874454
Where is the best place to get my film developed?
I have a whole box filled with rolls of film that my mom never got developed from years ago.
Quality over price, should be pics of late family members in there so Its somewhat important to me.
>>
>>3880743
your negatives don't care what your shutter speed is in relation to your focal length. it's just a question of how little you exposed the film and then how much you're going to have to push it in dev to get it properly exposed. to get an idea, just google delta 3200 at 12800. https://the35mmproject.co.uk/2013/10/26/ilford-delta-3200-pushed-to-12800/ came up for example.
>>
>>3881171
Also 1/4 of the box is kodak advantix which half of the people don't seem to develop so that makes me pause a bit
>>
File: _29_00806.jpg (3.01 MB, 2400x1600)
3.01 MB
3.01 MB JPG
Can anyone recommend me a decent point&shoot with flash control (seems there are some where the flash works only automatically in what the camera meters as low light conditions) that isn't the FUCKING OVERPRICED Olympus mju II?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeAgfaPhoto GmbH
Equipment Maked-lab.1
Camera SoftwareDlabVersion:DLAB1_11.00B_125k
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution380 dpi
Vertical Resolution380 dpi
Image Created2021:05:03 15:12:40
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2400
Image Height1600
RenderingCustom
>>
>>3881155
One could argue that it's cheaper adapting than cropping.
>>
>>3881172
>your negatives don't care what your shutter speed is in relation to your focal length
I think he did that to avoid blurry pictures
>>
>>3881237
I know why he used the faster shutter speed. I was responding to his question which was "how grainy and bullshit are my negs going to be ... at a shutter speed that close to the focal length"
>>
>>3881238
Motion blur would arguably make them bullshit
>>
File: fspf357b1000.jpg (35 KB, 450x450)
35 KB
35 KB JPG
>>3881105
my local craigslist is really sad and weird (high-end porn video cameras) and i wanted to stock up a bit before they cut the banking grid or whatever. i do need a good taping solution. we call it scotch tape here of course but i want to thank you. i did get a contrivance for a leader puller and 1000 picrel because i had adorama points to use.
>>
>>3876322
imagine projecting this hard.

>sees girl
>inner incel rage boils
>>
>>3877858
is that cashmere cat
>>
>>3881025
>>3881027
Thanks, I was thinking of buying the Nikon L35AF because I found it for $ 50 at a local dealer, but I guess it won't be necessary anymore
>>
>>3881186
i was about to say you should just go look for thrift store cameras--I have a Nikon Tele-Touch and an Infinity Twin from goodwill, and an Infinity Stylus/mju-I from an antique mall, all of which i got for $5-10 and work great

but, and i'm not totally sure what changed, goodwill and thrift stores suck really bad for cameras now. i think goodwill corporate put in a big push to divert donated cameras to their e-commerce auction platform, no matter how amazing or shitty they are, and they all go for way too much (or they're 2000s digishit or APS cams that don't sell at all bc they're asking $20). and i think thrift store resellers are snatching up a lot of the rest from everywhere else

it's still worth looking, especially in non-chain antique stores, but you might not have amazing luck

we're coming up on garage sale season, at least in the southeastern US, so that's a good bet, especially if you're near a lower-to-middle-class neighborhood with a lot of retirees. same goes for estate sales, but there's a distinction between estate sales run by the family and ones where the family hires a guy to come in and sift through+determine in advance what everything costs (the latter aren't worth trying, the former are usually fantastic)

i'm certain none of this applies outside north america, lmao
>>
>>3881186
I bought a Pentax iqzoom 115m in its original box for $5 today
>>
>>3876325
you mad as hell





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.