>Film Community Links:35mmc.comCasualphotophile.comEmulsive.orgistillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photographydigitaltruth.com/devchart.phpindustrieplus.net/dxdatabase
When are Kodak film simulation going to be available from a camera manufacturer?
>>3918545do Kodak make digital cameras anymore?
>>3918548No, but they could license them to somebody.
>>3918550would love some on my sony a6000
I rarely share my shit, so here's one. What sites do you guys use to resize your shit and post? it's obnoxious resizing or cropping every time you wanna post something.
>>3918594the hike got cut short, rip
I like that picture, Anon.
Does reciprocity failure apply to photo paper, /fgt/? By which I mean that if I have my times, grades, and cardboard tricks figured out for a print of a given size, if I make the same print in the same size but with a tighter aperture, is there a point at which I should figure my times out again (or not)?I'm mostly asking for the purposes of split-grade printing, where I'd like to control the soft grade exposure to a degree where the error floor comes from the latency of the enlarger's light coming on and going off again. So I'd like to reduce its impact by stopping down.
>>3918599if you change the aperture you change the amount of light, that's universal. So if you change the amount of light on any given reactive surface, then reaction times change. I'd imagine you have to rework your numbers for any change you make.
>>3918606Well, what I really care about is how large an error I'm introducing by halving or quartering the amount of light per second, and doubling or quadrupling the exposure time. There's a tuning order to this sort of thing which I'd like to figure out and follow to a reasonable limit per the equipment I've got. (said kit being a filament bulb, a Russian suitcase-style portable enlarger, and an analog print timer.)
>>3918541Dead Pixels R Us
>>3918617This is most likely dust.
>>3918609Sounds like you might have to experiment a little; i'm sorry I don't have any experience to guide you or give you advice. What I do know is that I always have to adjust my timer for reciprocity failure when I change anything for night time photography. Now I'm curious to see your results though.
>>3918594Looks nice anon I would edit out the sign tho
Do you guys enjoy 'lomographic' cameras? I recently bought a piece of shit old camera for 5 bucks and I'm going to test a roll soon. It appears everything is kinda working except the shutter sometimes goes to 1/30 or something for no reason.
>>3918675Congrats, you've discovered why a $5 piece of shit costs $5, and how it is a piece of shit.>for no reason.But something is eluding you yet.
>>3918678Not sure what you are trying to say but I'm going to have FUN with this lil camera
>>3918659Well, thanks for the uninformed amateur advice on a peripherally related topic! It's almost exactly what I was not looking for.
>>3918688You're the one asking questions like "does changing my aperture change my math in regards to reciprocity failure" like no shit it changes your time table. It's a pivotal variable in any branch of photography. Add some photos at least, don't be a complete waste.
>>3918697I did indeed only imply "beyond straight doubling exposure time" by discussing reciprocity failure, so clearly your advice is directly applicable.
>>3918594I just export from lightroom or capture one at a specific size for /p/. You can do an entire roll at once.
where the fuck do I get my film developed and scanned that actually is a good job?
What aperture and focal length were those plastic super cheap point and shoot film cameras people used in the 90s? I was checking my parents old pictures and everything pretty much was in focus no matter the distance
>>3918738richard photo labthe darkroomlti lightside
>>3918746pretty sure its f/8 or f/11
>>3918675I don't hate on people who shoot with cheap Lomo-type cameras but I don't like using them myself. I like solid, reliable, and well designed cameras instead of plastic bodies.If you get some good shots with that sort of gear, more power to you.
Hey fellas, question for you.How much editing do you usually end up doing to your lab scan? It feels weird to edit them at all in my opinion but when I know I did everything right and they still look off I just have to fix em.I try to edit them as little as possible to retain some sort of "purity" if there even is such a thing with digital scans of an analog medium but still seems funky to me. Thoughts?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:26 22:40:51Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width849Image Height1280
>>3918768Lab scans are just one interpretation, just like making prints. If you don't like the scan, edit it; it'll still maintain its character.I got some scans back once of an underexposed roll. The scans were awful. I re-scanned them and got much better colors out of a bunch of the shots.
>>3918768I'll post some other recent shots.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:26 22:42:29Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849
>>3918768A recent favorite>>3918770If only I had my home scanning set up where I live now. I'm living in another country and I have to rely on a local lab (which is pretty good, surprisingly) but I miss being able to use negative lab pro and tweak everything to my liking like I did with these photos.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:26 22:34:06Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width849Image Height1280
>>3918609>Well, what I really care about is how large an error I'm introducing by halving or quartering the amount of light per second, and doubling or quadrupling the exposure time.Practically speaking, you only have to "worry" if the change is so big that the new exposure (before accounting for reciprocity) is in the minutes, while the previous one was 5-10 seconds. This usually only happens when you have to print very big.In practice, it's not much of an issue (and hence not much discussed) because you do an exposure strip test at the magnification and aperture your final print will be. There's little reason to do that in any other aperture. The only reason I can think of, that you'd need a calculated (and not striptest) time, is if you want to skip the striptest altogether due to time concerns or increased volume.For those niche cases, darkroom exposure meters exist. Sometimes even attachments for normal handheld lightmeters, so they can be used for prints - I know for a fact Gossen made some for their "pro" models (Luna Pro SBC etc.), others too.Or, you run some tests and keep extensive notes, which you then use for the higher volumes without having to run them every time.But I'm guessing for most papers you can find a datasheet with reciprocity. I know for sure that they state ISO (also under different temp lightsources), but I honestly never bothered to even look if reciprocity is also stated (probably is).[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:20 02:06:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800
>>3918768[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:26 22:37:11Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849
Traveling through Buenos Aires just before the pandemic.
>>3918768>pull green curve down>dehaze -5>spot heal or texture depending on modelAlso get a good relationship with your lab and they’ll scan for the type of vibe you want.
>>3918768Your pics are nice and comfy anon, like the other anon said how your picture looks will depend a lot on your scanner so make the pictures look like you want. Some labs will even tweak the images without telling you, my lab always sends my scans super bright and blown out to shit and I have to lower the 'exposure' in lightroom every time
>>3918752the darkroom has shit scans
>>3918772This looks like SF. Is that where you are now or just where these were taken?
>>3918852Who does better scans at similar rates? I've ordered from there a couple of times and the scans are usually fine, but some are bad.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3091Image Height2048Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:19 23:38:52Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width927Image Height614
>>3918860>Who does better scans at similar rates? I've ordered from there a couple of times and the scans are usually fine, but some are bad.Not very helpful in your situation anon, but nobody.That's the answer; nobody will be able to deliver a result where *all* the frames on the roll, under different light etc., are good.And the reason for that, is nobody is scanning and colour correcting manually. It's impossible to do so, for a price that would be even remotely close to affordable for a hobbyist. So you either do it yourself, or pay through the ass.Some labs are to be avoided indeed. However don't sweat it, between the decent labs, they all pretty much use the same machines, running the same software and roughly the same settings (auto colour correction).So as long as you're getting decent res, and it's a Noritsu or a Frontier machine, that's the top end you can have really. Some lab clerks don't know how to change settings in the machines, to get the highest res possible or .tiff files, or some might have cranked up the sharpening aeons ago when the technician set up the machine, and don't know how to change any of it.But if you're getting decent res, or even .tiff files, just use the lab and don't bother searching for a better one, just save some money and get your own scanner eventually.About resolutions with those machines, they can go up to 26MP - 64 base - roughly for the highend ones.Though most labs don't know how to get the max res (or don't wanna bother) and many times give a "32 base" ~14MP file as their highest res option (for some older models this is the actual max), or even "16 base" 6MP files.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:20 07:33:21Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1300Image Height863
>>3918675I enjoy using my Holga 120N and Vitae Ultra Wide and Slim. It's fun trying to make nice photos with them that aren't the typical lomo kitsch.>>3918746They were usually single focus ~30mm lenses and had a fixed aperture of F8ish. Basically everything from ~2m to infinity would be in focus 100% of the time.>>3918768There's zero purity to any scan...ESPECIALLY when it comes to c41.
>>3918617>>3918656both wrong, it's remjet.
>>3918963literally how could someone be so wrong and so confident at the same time
>>3918857I'm from that area but I'm going around South America right now. Stocked up a bunch of 35mm and I'll likely be posting a bunch of pics in these threads soon.Though r.i.p to olympus 35 rc that I used to take most of these pics. Fuckng rain got my boy </3
>>3918989Forgot pic. Argentina is damn photogenic.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:03:26 22:19:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849
>>3918893I appreciate the answer. I got my own Primefilm XE-S recently and was able to get better color out of individual frames from an underexposed roll, but noise is pretty bad (but that could be from bad exposure, idk).Like I said, the scans are usually acceptable. I might send to Indie Film Lab good scans if I ever need them. I would get my stuff developed there because they're local but their prices are horrible for black and white.
>>3918998>but noise is pretty bad (but that could be from bad exposure, idkUnderexposed (thin neg) or overexposed (dense neg)?With underexposure you get grainy+noisy results, indeed. The grain comes from the fact that the fast, grainy layers of the emulsion make up the majority of the density (=information), while the finer grained slower layers contribute very little (each emulsion has 2-3 different speed - and hence different graininess - layers for each colour).The noise comes from trying to push the shadows to bring up the brightness in the underexposed image.On the other hand, if the neg is really, *really* dense, you might get noise again, but for a different reason: the scanner bumps up the ISO to be able to "see through" the dense negative, just like a digital camera. However that's very rare for colour negatives, they don't build densities big enough to cause the scanner to bump the ISO.It could be an issue with heavily overexposed B&W though, or underexposed slides, those can have quite high densities.Which software are you using for the scanner btw?Normally, you shouldn't be getting more noise than the lab scans, your scanner has a good DMax (more than colour negs would ever need).
>>3919005They're definitely underexposed. I used both Vuescan and Silverfast and got similar results with a lot of noise in the shadows. I think if that happens again I could do a few individual scans and do a median stack in photoshop or imagemagick.The resolution is pretty good, especially for a home scanner. I think it was the lighting conditions for that roll because it was pretty overcast, but the AE-1P's meter isn't weighted at all, afaik.
Damn, I got the film back and I guess I spot metered for a patch of light or someshit.
>>3919016The spot meter virgin vs. the average meter chad
>>3919009>They're definitely underexposed.Ah fair enough.Yeah underexposed negs are not much salvageable tbdesu. Either crash the blacks and let them be, or maybe you could use one of the fancy denoise plugins that people use on digital (Topaz had a good one).On a different note, sharpness is a bourgeois concept.>t. William Marxensen[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareSilverFast 8.8.0 r25 (Jun 25 2021) d6df961 25.06.Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2021:07:14 23:23:20Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height796Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3919026damn clean off the grease from your hands and stop touching the element
>>3919029>clean off the grease from your handsKinda hard to do anon, it'd require some acrylic polishing, but it would defeat the purpose.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeAppleCamera ModeliPhone SE (2nd generation)Camera Software14.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:17 17:33:36Exposure Time1/2024 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating20Lens Aperturef/1.8Brightness10.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length3.99 mmImage Width1200Image Height900Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>3919016Nah I like the look
>>3919043wtf is that?
>>3918768Back to post more recents.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:05:11 09:18:12Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849
>>3918768[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:05:11 09:17:22Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height1280
>>3918768[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:05:11 09:17:51Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width849Image Height1280
>>3918768[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.3 (Macintosh)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2021:07:14 15:56:00Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width849Image Height1280
>>3918697This is a very strange exchange to watch because you literally completely missed the point of the question of the guy you're responding to and blaming him for it.He's asking about reciprocity failure and photo paper. You're for some reason trying to tell him that closing his aperture will cause him to have to increase his exposure times, which he obviously knows. He's asking specifically about whether and to what extent reciprocity applies to photo paper.
>>3919135And in the amount of time he asked that and I answered I also found info on a blog thread telling him exactly what the other dude told him, as well as actual book scans giving him advice. But I opted not to share anything more.No, I didn't miss the point. I answered his obvious question as to whether his times would change. And they would. He obviously didn't know if he's asking. That's the only part I gave him an answer on, I could have easily told him about the ilford link telling him about test strips and the process of troubleshooting or the photrio blog telling him everything he needed to know but I'm not going to spoonfeed some shitter that can't use google and gets mad when someone won't spoonfeed him.
>>3919092Nice one anon!>>3919074It's a "soft focus"-like filter. Hoya Softener B (comes in 2 strengths, A and B). The small acrylic teardrops act like tiny lenses and scatter light, especially bright sources and point lights, giving a bit of halation and soft image on top of your normal image. Kinda closer to soft focus lenses (but still far from them) than "normal" diffusion filters.Same idea/copy of the Zeiss Softar filters really.
>>3919169I bought a bunch of vintage filters for my Hasselblad, I think I got both Zeiss Softar lenses. Not really eager to try them out because I don't have any ideas for them yet, but seeing the end result sparks some interest.
>>3919172They're fun to try anon, maybe get an adapter (or just handhold them) on 35mm so your trials can be on the cheap.The more specular highlights in the image, the stronger the effect.Of course, they're primarily for portrait, with smooth gradients on skin etc. rather than landscapes, and they can give a quite pleasing result there too.Special effects filters can be fun, and now they're usually quite cheap, especially in physical sales (thrift shops, estate sales etc.).About the Softars you can control the effect by aperture (also focal length), so if it's too strong for your taste, you could try stopping down a bit to make it more moderate and to your taste.
>>3918972I took the picture and processed the film you retard.
>>3918881What stock did you use? I'm guessing Superia 400 since its got all the purples and green. Love this shot.
>>3919088Just stopping by to say that this is an excellent photo
>>3919229Lomo 400. My background is in video, so I only recently started experimenting with film, but I really like the look of it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3091Image Height2048Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:09 22:01:38Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width512Image Height672
>>3918594>>3918595>>3918659Damn anon, thats lovely. What film stock did you use?
>>3919283I should really label my files, I have to check the film to know for sure but it's probably ektachrome.
>>3919379that or portra400
>>3919259Thanks man :)
what p&s cameras there are which have 28mm lens? i've got nikon litetouch 70w but i need a second p&s with same 28mm focal length. i know olympus xa4 has 28mm lens but it's hard to find and it has meme tax in its price.
Hello, fellas. I lurked some non-anonymous film-related communities and dislikes them all, so I ended up here.I'm shooting film for roughly 5 years. Before now I mostly shot with rangefinder cameras (mainly soviet copy of Leica II and soviet MF RF), but right now I'm migrating to mirrored systems: last week I bought soviet copy of Hasselblad 1600F with three lenses (normal, portrait and wide), for next monday I arranged a meeting to buy Pentax Spotmatic.Here is my best photo. Kodak Portra 160, Moskva-2.
>>3919547Looks kinda blurry
>>3919536Nikon AF600Konica Lexio 70
>>3919536Wide lens are bad and you should be ashamed
>>3918541Anyone know where to find Fuji Eterna rolls?
>>3919652Shut up fool
>>3919772Northern Film Lab or Silbersalz!
>>3919016 overexposing is much more forgiving than underexposing. So unless you're going for a specific underexposed look, over exposing by a stop or two will look much more like an accurate exposure than one stop under.
>>3918738Do both at home
hello whoresI shot a roll unmetered using just EV tables and the exposures are much better than my metered shits. I know my camera's meter works and I understand how reflective meters work. am I retarded?
>>3919850probably but, you could also just be retarded
>>3919850Using EV tables and light level estimates, you effectively shoot with incident light metering. Using reflective meters you're shooting with reflected light metering. Incident is more accurate.
Is 90 euro for a Canon eos 5 a ripoff?It's in good condition and from a store. I want something better than my eos 300 for shooting my EF lenses on film.
>>3919901As what I can see on ebay, seems like slightly lower than average price. If you want it, why not.
>>3918278forgot to ask last time but what film is this ?
>its been 2 weeks and the lab still hasn't developed my rollFuck this shithole country im developing the film myself next time
>>3920161Sounds terrible, where the heck do you live? If anything, I can suggest good russian lab, which accepts reels via mail, maybe sending your film to another country will make the deal faster: sreda.film
* sreda.photoI'm idiot, sorry.
>>3920174Brazil. They promised me that they'll develop and scan next week but I have my doubtsSending to Russia would probably take the same amount of time but cost a lot more. I guess I'll just look for other analog photographers to see if they're interested in buying the equipment to develop rolls ourselves.
>>3920209Damn I also live in south america and get my rolls in 3 days, huehueland must suck
>>3920209lol of course it's brazil. it's being done on brazil time. you'll get it eventually..... heh heh heh
I don't know if this belongs better in the gear thread, but I figure discussion of film scanners is probably best-suited for here.I've shot digital for a while, but my grandfather (also a photo hobbyist, he developed his own stuff) recently died and left me a massive collection of slides that he's taken during his life, as well as some negatives, and all of his film cameras as well. I want to get a film scanner that will allow me to create a digital archive of all those slides in a resolution high enough for me to not have to worry about keeping most of the originals (except for the particularly outstanding ones), as well as one that will allow me to continue to scan film that I'll eventually be shooting using his old cameras and be able to produce competitively-high-fidelity scans into the future.If that makes sense, which scanner should I look into purchasing? Right now I'm looking at the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE or the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i Ai. Is the major difference between those two simply the software? The Pacific Image Prime Film XEs Super Edition and Pacific Image Prime Film XAs Super Edition also look competitive.If anyone here can help me out, this is basically uncharted territory for me and I'm flying blind.
>>3920213>Is the major difference between those two simply the software?Yes. The only difference actually.*However* don’t discount that completely, thinking you’ll find it somewhere cracked. Silverfast are complete cunts with licensing, and licenses are tied to specific models, so given the small (mostly boomer) community of scanner users, finding it cracked is very unlikely. So if you want to use that software, factor in the price as well. Of course you could use Vuescan instead. Also not free but maybe you can find it cracked. But don’t be a cunt in this case (if you can afford it) cause the guy behind it is a one-man shop and made drivers for a huge number of scanners otherwise abandoned from the manufacturers.
>>3920225Thanks for the honest advice. I most likely can afford it; it's actually great to know something like that exists out there. I'll take this all into consideration.I considered sending these slides off to be scanned by an external company but ultimately decided I'd rather do it myself, so I can give them the personal attention I think they deserve (since I liked my grandfather a lot and want to do his shots justice).
>>3920234Also, for actual autism about specs (which is a good thing when comparing equipment), with real world tests on resolution and speed, check film scanner.info if you haven’t already.
>>3920210What country?The worst part is that the cunts ignored my messages for multiple days, and when they finally responded they just said "oh we got your rolls last week, well develop them next week dont worry :)"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.11.003 (140225)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3089Image Height2048
First reel from Kiev-88 has been developed. My room on wide agle lense is probably best frame from it.
And also there is a qute doggo.
>>3920464fuck you people really live like this?
>>3920466What's wrong? I think my room is nice.
>>3920464clean your room jesus that's cluttered as fuck
>>3918541God damnit guys, I spent 800 bucks on a Contax G set when I shouldve just bought a GA645. I thought 35mm with good lenses would be good enogh, but running it next to my 645 slr really highlights how much of a difference there really is between FF and MF
>>3920464A hundred copeks and a can of jaguar says you have a carpet on your wall
>>3920541Strangely, I'm not and never had. But wish you nice day from land of bears and vodka, yeah.
>have an alcohol thermometer that goes from 10 to 30c>house gets really warm during the summer>take it out to dev some film>all separated and expansion tank (at the top) filled>manage to join the separated parts>expansion tank still full>warm it up till it's full>doesn't join>warm it up more>explodes in my handi just wanted to dev some film
>>3920543We have bears and vodka on this side of the border too.
>>3920549Nice to meet ya! The bear is out of frame, sorry.
Just had my first darkroom session in a new apartment's bathroom with a jank-ass soviet enlarger. And, would you believe it, it is genuinely useful to tape bin liner to the walls and ceiling because otherwise absolutely enormous fogging will occur and fuck your prints right up. Over three hours I got one print that wasn't fogged to fuck and back on a rocking horse, and that one was properly underexposed -- so I'll get back to those negatives tomorrow.My question: how bad is it that said enlarger's lens is also quite foggy? It does let light through, and my times are like "5 seconds w/ double Foma Variant M1 filters (total grade 3)", so it's certainly not foggy enough to block light. My fucked-up test prints suck in ways that are well enough to conceal subtle flaws.
>>3920561Why don't you just buy yourself a non fucked up enlarger and lense? They're cheap as hell nowdays. If you're interested in soviet equipment, I can suggest Heвa and Лeнингpaд enlarger series and Beгa-11У as your best lense choise.
>>3920564The Zenit was available quickly, cost a very low amount of money, and fit a particular requirement: that it should be easily portable from another room to the bathroom. If I had the strength of two men I'd carry my Focomat into said bathroom for every session, but as I'm not a suitcase special it is. I'm also not going to leave Leitz gear next to where I shower and do laundry, that's just silly.I tried fitting the other enlarger's Focotar lens on it, but in the 40mm configuration it appeared to vignette (though the lamp was also misaligned; I should try this again now that it's straight), and with the 50mm extension it conflicts with the "safety filter" which I'd have to remove.Honestly I'm surprised at how low a soviet pain factor this thing has. Most of my trouble seems to have been caused by procedure I hadn't yet had the chance to learn, being previously spoiled by the international German.
>>3920213Since you want to mostly scan slides...get a macro lens for your digital camera and a Nikon es-1 that screws into the lens via 52mm filter threads. It's literally made for copying slides. It will be 100x faster than any other scanner and delivery the same quality your digital camera delivers.Any other recommendation will be worse in terms of time required and quality and probably more expensive.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3920566Seriously consider buying Leningrad as I said above. It costs <10$ and fits your requirement to be portable. Back, like, 5 years later or so, before I moved to a new flat and built a separate darkroom (lucky me, yeah), I was in the same position as you and my old Leningrad-4 was easy enough to move between shelf and a bathroom. Speaking about lense, I'll stand my ground too, Vega-11 coasted 8$ for me and it considered best soviet enlarger lense there was by several people I discussed this topic with.
>>3920539Sell the contax?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-E3Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.24Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmMaker Note Version0130Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2021:07:24 23:03:44Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.0Brightness-0.6 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo FlashFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3008Image Height2000RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownBlur StatusBlur WarningChroma SaturationUnknownContinuous/Bracketing ModeOffAuto Exposure StatusOKFlash ModeUnknownFocus ModeManualFocus StatusOKPicture ModeManual ExposureSharpnessNormalSlow Synchro ModeOffWhite BalanceDaylight
>>3920464What a cluttered mess. Look at all those dirty dishes strewn about. Is that a photograph of Lenin as well? You're a real nasty guy.
>>3920539you aren’t missing out
>>3920539Good thing film cameras are easy to try and resell with zero loss of money so long as you don't overpay.
>>3920572Thanks for the tip, I'll look for a Leningrad and Vega-11. I doubt those will turn up in my neck of the woods anytime soon, but if they do, I'll be sure to seize the opportunity. To be sure I'd quite prefer to have a manually-focused enlarger instead of this autofocusing one with a fogged lens, since that would allow me to use all sorts of lenses (i.e. Leitz).Alternatively I could take the risk of figuring out the mechanics of said autofocus linkage and recalibrate it for a 40mm Focotar, but that seems like it could easily be a bridge too far. I wonder if I could attach a LTM Industar-61 L/D and use its focusing ring to adapt to the autofocus setting; the enlarger lens is an Industar f/3.5 so if a Tessar design works both ways, it could be my easiest solution.
What are these films sold in Singapore?There's films like>Piccolo film>Boen>Sunday morning>Cucifilm>Cira
>>3920637If they're C41 their either going to be Kodak or Fuji. More likely Fuji given the Asian location
For those of you who actually shoot hella film and self develop, what dev tank do you use? I think I'm outgrowing my 2-reel Paterson[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEpsonCamera ModelPerfectionV550Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.3.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2021:04:22 12:08:38
>>3920663I've got a 3-reel Paterson and a 2-reel Paterson. The latter I only use when the former hasn't yet dried entirely because it's got a leaky lid. Having both does give a lot of flexibility for shooting, either different films or more of the same.
>>3920663I use a 3 reel paterson, which lets me dev 3x rolls of 35mm and 4x rolls of 120 (two rolls of 120 per reel).[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width6000Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2021:06:13 21:05:41Exposure Time1/10 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Brightness-1.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1066RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>3920637At a guess I'd say they were lomography films repackaged for the Indonesian market
>>3920637Its kodak vision films (250D, 500T) with the remjet removed like cinestill from indonesia and australia
>>3920678Not from lomography but local labs.
>>3920687They are just rebranded random film stocks you inane retard
Enlarging frens, is the apo rodenstock worth it? Any alternatives? Also what paper should I start out with?
>>3920754Don't know shit about first question, sorry, but as for paper I recommend Foma**speed** Variant. You don't want messing around with FB paper as your first experience.
>>3920754Any Rodenstock enlarging lens is top shit, right next to Nikkors and Focotars and the like.
>>3920464Viva Allende. What wide angle lens is this?
>>3920692Correct, various film stock repackaged locally and not from lomography. Why are you mad over that?
>>3920789Lel he meant that Lomography is the base stock and you took it as if they're repackaged by lomography.
>>3920789God damn you are stupid
>>3920755I got the lens name wrong, its a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon which is apparently the top tier lens like the other anon said. Thanks for the recc, most of the b/w I shot was foma 400 anyway. >>3920760The price difference between rodenstock and the nikkor is fairly large, but I'll probably get a rodenstock anyway. Thanks.
So, Zenit enlarger guy here. Turns out that the lens I said was clearly molded beyond usability? It's actually ultra mega fucked! To the point where light is dispersing off the crap inside and around it so much that it creates an "inverse vignette" on the paper, i.e. darker center and lighter outsides.Luckily there's the exact same lens available at a used photo goods dealer for relatively cheap, so in a couple of days we'll see if it was indeed the lens, or a bulb alignment issue (it's a condenser head), or just some massive soviet fuckery.
>>3920820... that being said, I did get the light leaks and reflections under control in my bathroom-cum-darkroom, enough to discover how fucked the lens is anyway. So that's progress. Hardly wasted any paper either, a mere six sheets.Thank you for read diary dear Internet
>>3920795>>3920793Well im sorry i misunderstood it, but none of them use film from lomography as the base stock as far as i know, its mostly kodak vision films.
>>3920831Go away no one cares
>>3920832Some dude asked what those rebranded film are asshole.
>>3920831>its mostly kodak vision films.That's actually interesting and surprising.Cine film makes the most sense financially, but on the other hand they need to provide development because not only can it not developed in normal C-41 machines, but it'll clog them and ruin other people's films if those cine films are accidentally put in one.Some US companies tried to do that in the past, repackage cine film, and even though they made it absolutely clear the films had to be processed in their own shops, customers still dropped them in random labs and fucked things up.
>>3919547Not a fan, the models hands are not very feminine and shes not particularity photogenic . I'm interested to hear about this photo, why stage something like this? Do you have any other photos to share?
>>3920780Venceremos! It's coviet Mir-26 (Mиp-26). If you're interested in buying so, there are two versions of it: B (it's not b, it's russian v) and Б. B has older mount that fits Hasselbladski variants Salut and early Kiev-88. Б has newer mount, that fits later Kiev-88 and can be mounted on modern MF cameras via adapter. That's pretty good wide angle lense, with you fun if you buy it!>>3920847I'm not only has plenty of more to share, I can start with a direct sequel of the work discussed. I was trying to shot a series dedicated to leftist ideologies, the first work named «Communism» and the second is «Anarchism». I also was working on «Antifaschism», but the output shot revealed to be so bad, I discarded it and decided to stay on two-works series.
A dumb question - Was anyone processing Vision3 or other cine stocks in E6? Heard it is possible, but I'm wondering if someone did this already
What is some not too contrasty b&w you recommend? Shooting mostly family and street.
>>3920858god that image is so cringe
>>3920847Tf are you on, anon? She's holdin a chopper. I don't think it's supposed to be a photo displaying photogenic, feminine beauty. I'm interested in the concept, just not a fan of the execution[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-T1Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 6.3.0 (Android)Focal Length (35mm Equiv)42 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2021:06:15 20:15:32Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.0Brightness1.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceDaylightFlashNo FlashFocal Length28.00 mm
>>3920567Huh. I was thinking about that, but was worried about things like proper background lighting, etc... but maybe I'm overthinking it, since I can control exposure from the camera body.Getting them at the same resolution as the photos I already take is tempting, since that's a reference point I already know. I'll look into this as well, thanks anon. From the looks of it it'll only be half the cost of a good film scanner; If I get the ES-2 that comes with a holder for strips as well so I can also deal with the negatives.
>>3920820>>3920821Turns out the enlarger lens wasn't moulded over; it was only covered in dust (front and rear) that wouldn't come off with a microfiber cloth unless I breathed on it first. With a little moisture the thing brightened roight the fuck up. Tonight I'll know if this was the ticket, surely.All of my keks to myself for spending another twenty squid on a better, more coated version of that exact same lens, then coming up with a plausible solution while waiting for the postal service.
So, it finally arrived. Very nice and comfy camera, I really appreciate TTL exposure meter that's linked with shutter speeds ring. The only thing to spoil my happiness of obtaining it is the fact I'm having troubles with fitting my Sonnar 85/2 via adapter. I hope I'll get it right with another adapter and not have to buy a whole new lense.
>>3920858Interesting, I'm really not a fan of the over processed look. But it is a cohesive aesthetic between your two photos. If you are staging models to photo then why not do something more naturally energetic? I haven't given it much thought but for communism you could have had her in a field of wheat side profile, sickle & hammer etc... for anarchism you could have had her throwing a bottle at a wall or something. Not great ideas but I hope I'm making my point clear.>>3920943I agree with what you are saying, what I mean is that her lack of photogenicity is distracting. My eyes are initially drawn to her hands. You have to work to your model's strength and weaknesses.
>>3921044Got 2 of these bad boys. Built like a tank, such great cameras. Enjoy!
So… I had two M39-M42 adapters. One of them revealed to be bad, with it the lense had no hyperfocal distance, and another one is just right. The lense stucked in one of them. You know, which one. I tried to unclog it with a knife and did two holes in own finger. Everything were covered in blood: the floor, the lense, my hand, haevens, God… Finally I understood, that lense is either will got out of this adapter nor ruined. So I bought heavy artillery in body of Dremmel and saw the adapter the fuck out. In less then a minute, Sonnar fitted second adapter and then the camera. The hyperfocal persisted. Pic: Spotmatic + Sonnar 2/85, the sawed adapter, by finger.