Film snapshits

File: provia100-8.jpg (462KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 667x1000px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:53

File: provia100-3.jpg (250KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1000x667px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:52

File: image.jpg (551KB, 970x1458px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 970x1458px

They charged me a cent for an order once due to how late it got to the lab.

I had to break a damn dollar bill becase take a penny never has my ass.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	970
Image Height	1458

File: provia100-2.jpg (169KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1000x667px

>>2740552
These are not scanned by me, I'm going to try and scan them myself later.
The scanner used uses the same WB settings for all shots in a roll, so I think the snow threw it off.
Or it was wrongly exposed, who knows.
C'est la vie.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:51

>>2740547
What film/expiry date/dev process/how much have you cropped this shot? I've never seen so much grain outside of a silo, this'd be grainy by 110 film standards, what gives?

File: JPY160NS001 - JPY160NS006.jpg (85KB, 592x800px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 592x800px

>>2740540
At least you chose the least worst of your snapshits for the OP.

File: provia100.jpg (138KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1000x667px

>>2740679
I wasn't in a hurry, I just felt like it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:51

>>2740877
I don't understand why you'd go through the trouble of shooting slide film to achieve such results

File: provia100-7.jpg (448KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 667x1000px

>>2740883
for fun, there was no particular reason for me shooting this film other than that I'd never tried it, and wanted to

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:52

File: scan0003-3-2.jpg (519KB, 1000x657px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1000x657px

ooh boy do i have some snapshits for you

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Epson
Camera Model	PerfectionV600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 19:23:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	657

File: Picture 22.jpg (499KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1000x1500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa
Photographer	Picasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2013:03:06 23:03:17
Unique Image ID	6250d9d2321af4a3229bb40c33283fd7

shit scans, shit thread. shit photos too.

shooting "just for fun" shouldnt mean the output to be a load of mediocre unsalvable crap. i shoot for fun too, and i try to put my best into my edit and pp, how about trying to do that for a change, faggot.

File: Provia (1).jpg (921KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

921KB, 1000x800px

>>2740540
You are fucking killing me with these threads.

This is what slide film looks like if you take half a second to expose it properly and don't scan it with an iphone backlit by a blank microsoft word document.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Provia (3).jpg (819KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 1000x800px

>>2741141

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Provia (2).jpg (405KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1000x800px

>>2741143

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Velvia 50 RVP.jpg (790KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 1000x800px

>>2741145

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Velvia RVP 50 (2).jpg (683KB, 1000x810px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 1000x810px

>>2741147

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: Velvia RVP 50 (1).jpg (583KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 800x1000px

>>2741149

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2740540
It's great that you are having fun shooting OP; that's what photography should be about. However, what is it you are hoping to accomplish by posting scans you know are bad and just dumping anything you want?

File: image.jpg (608KB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1024x1536px

>>2740835
The Superia 400 I used wasn't expired and I'm not really sure how to lab processed my roll, maybe it could have been at the end of the line for the chemicals and this what I got? Scans are from the store and I haven't cropped the photo down much (original scan).

Though these were a set of "test" images for a 650 I purchased thinking it'd be good to have around since I have nothing but EF lenses anyway. It shat out on me after one use (based Canon) however from just this one roll I've processed I can't really tell if it was a camera or lab error. But now I guess we'll never know, oh well.

And by the way, your remark on 110 made me kek because I had a crazy woman that once obsessed over me and 3 other people give me film since I said I needed it to test out my grandfathers old Minolta 110 Zoom. Negs are somewhere among my photo stuff.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	1536

>>2741158
find&post 110 scans stat pls, never seen any on /p/ I think, really curious how they actually fare, IQ-wise

>>2741176
I'll try. My only issue is that I don't have proper scanner for any sort of film negatives and no software to help me convert the color ones.

>>2741189
110 frames should fit under any macro/reverse mounted lens, dslr scanning is a thing, gimp is a free thing with all the basic tools to reverse and colour balance a negative, consider this a /p/hotography challenge/project.

Also: 110 minolta zoom as in the 110 minolta zoom funky-looking SLR? How does a 110 slr feel/handle like? lel

Where do you guys develop your film?
In my town it's only Walgreen ($6.99 a roll).

>>2741382
my walgreens sends it out and you dont get your negatives back anymore

sucks

>>2741220
I guess I can try that but can't show results anytime soon since I'm pretty much the only tripfag here on /p/ with no internet. Though I have tried fixing the color negatives in post before but for a reason I can't remember I messed up every time.

And yes! It's quite an odd camera but once you get to using the thing it can be a lot of fun. The aperature is sort of slow but I guess since it can cover 25mm-50mm at a fixed focal length that makes up for it a bit. It handles aright for being flat but what you'll notice straight away is that the controls are a little whacky with the aperature being a wheel off to the side and such. Also the tripod mount is set up vertically, not horizontally.

File: 19390000.jpg (347KB, 1274x834px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1274x834px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:10 15:56:14
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: provia100-6.jpg (238KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x667px

>>2741152
I post what I would like to see on the board.
Who cares if things are a little wonky. These scans are good enough for what I use them for.

>>2741141
Why are you responding to yourself?
It's great that you are getting the results you want , I'm happy for you.
I wouldn't have posted any of these myself, but different strokes for different folks and all that.
Maybe the one with the clouds overlooking the city, that was nice.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 18:27:52

>>2741655
The point isn't whether those images are better photos, it's that they better represent the film, which your photos do not at all.

As you have stated in this thread these are not good scans, you shot the roll for no particular reason, and you add nothing to the board by posting thoughtless images you yourself don't even seem to care about.

I imagine people would be much more interested in seeing photos you feel are good, rather than a bunch of images that poorly represent both the medium and your own abilities. No one is going to spend the time giving useful feedback to someone who doesn't care about their photos.

File: picture.jpg (112KB, 772x1000px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 772x1000px

>>2741746
Oh, but I do think they're good, even if the scans are not the best.
I only post photos here that I would have liked to see someone else post.
Sorry my tastes are different then yours.

Posting another one I developed and scanned a few days ago.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	VueScan 9 x64 (9.2.23)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 10:43:53

File: Pee-1-8.jpg (958KB, 1000x627px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 1000x627px

Remember lying prone on the ground to get this one

Really dug the verticals

Superia 200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:09 21:31:32

Has anyone here tried developing color film in B&W chemicals? I want to know because I want to experiment with developing 220 film in caffenol at some point

>>2742726
Why bother? You'll just get shitty looking black and white photos and it'll cost you more than black and white film.

File: TreeBuildingKodachrome.jpg (398KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 533x800px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1338
Image Height	2229
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2011:03:16 21:58:05
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	533
Image Height	800

>>2742034
>trying to upskirt
what a creep.

>>2742843
It's not upskirt.

It's street.

>>2742736
Why? If you already have colour film and black and white chemicals.

>>2742848
thats my girlfriend we were on a trip

File: 22723106009_22524b47ca_b.jpg (192KB, 1024x633px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1024x633px

Here's some provia

File: 23927959435_83df771f3d_b.jpg (300KB, 1024x699px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x699px

>>2742869
velvia

File: 23928365865_64d00aef8d_b.jpg (444KB, 692x1024px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 692x1024px

>>2742871
velvia

File: 23632761240_f47f335d2c_b.jpg (253KB, 1024x701px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1024x701px

>>2742872
more velvia

File: 23560556029_35f0df5aa7_b.jpg (358KB, 1024x706px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 1024x706px

>>2742874
last one

>>2742869
>>2742871
>>2742872
>>2742874
>>2742876
close your lens down and use a tripod if you have to, that thin dof is obnoxious

File: picture-3.jpg (246KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 996x1000px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:12 21:22:25

>>2742869
>>2742871
>>2742872
>>2742874
>>2742876
I feel like I don't get as soft a transition to blown out highlights when I scan slide.
Are you using a really diffuse light source?
I'm thinking that's my problem atm.

>>2743116
How are you scanning them?
I scanned these with a dslr over a small light box.

>>2742880
I personally kind of like the thin dof effect on some of them, except for >>2742872. I wish i'd have stopped down for that one. I couldn't use a tripod in there anyway without being a total dick and blocking foot traffic.
It looks bright in there, but I was struggling to get hand-holdable shutter speeds at iso 50.

File: 08090019 - Copy.jpg (170KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1000x672px

Ultramax 400

Fuck I hated this roll so much I made so many unfocused/blurry shots and the colors were all shit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3045
Image Height	2048

File: 08090023 - Copy.jpg (204KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1000x672px

>>2743139
Especially this one fucking hell I thought this was gonna be nice and everything but no the fucking focus had to be wrong because I'm a retard

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3045
Image Height	2048

File: 08090005 - Copy.jpg (275KB, 672x1000px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 672x1000px

>>2743141
I actually like this one, still from the same roll

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:01:12 13:42:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3045

File: 08090006 - Copy.jpg (322KB, 672x1000px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 672x1000px

>>2743143

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:01:12 13:42:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3045

File: 08090007 - Copy.jpg (361KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1000x672px

>>2743146

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3045
Image Height	2048

>>2740862
You could've at least chosen an interesting subject phaggot
Nice waste of film

>>2741145
Beautiful, I must check this place out myself and of course take my own snapshits

Where is this at?

Captcha: Mountains

>>2741382
Local photolab.

Shit's expensive, $15 and up depending on how many exposures but you get scans, prints, and negs back and I'm supporting local.

File: 220_velvia50_-007.jpg (701KB, 1200x980px) Image search: [Google]

701KB, 1200x980px

Here is some Velvia 50.

>got a canon ae-1 at goodwill for 5 dollars
>found a bunch of old film to test it
>got film back from wahlgreens today

Works great but that roll I just shot is pretty unremarkable considering I just shot everything I could see in 15 minutes to test it

What's some good film to try? I've got 5 rolls of kodak max 400 but I'd like to get some lower iso film too

>>2743257

gold 100 is pretty decent
slides are all cool
portra the obvious great choice

bw hp5 or trix
if you wanna get deep blacks and small grain, ilford pan f 50

>>2743262
Thanks for the recommendations I'm definitely going to grab portra, ilford pan f 50 and probably some gold 100

I also found a roll of tri-x here so I think I'll shoot that next actually. I'll have to take something worthwhile so I can post it

>>2743266
Pan F+ degrades fast after exposure, develop it a few weeks after exposure for best results.

>>2743279
will keep in mind

I cant develop it myself currently but there's a local place that does it real quick so I'll roll with that

>>2743262
>>2743266
ektar>portra for everything but portraits
damn I love ektar

>>2743283
>ektar
3magenta5me

now reala, thats a top tier emulsion. fite me.

>>2743288
>I don't know how to colour balance

>>2743129
>>>2743116
>How are you scanning them?
>I scanned these with a dslr over a small light box.
I think that's it, I backlight with a flash, I think slide might benefit more from continuous light.

File: EMOrtho002.jpg (1MB, 1350x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1350x2000px

>>2743279
>>2743266
>>2743262
Pan F+ is gay.
Rollei Ortho 25 is less so.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2743335
Crushed blacks, flat highlights, and no mid tones?

File: EMOrtho002orig.jpg (195KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 533x800px

>>2743337
Sorry u don liek mi processing bb.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2741036
the definition of fun is subjective and you sound pretty fuckin' mad

>>2743342

looks like a shit scan, shit film, and shit shot. good job on being a total failure, pal.

>>2743351
You have shares in Ilford or something?
You have better scans of better shots on your better PanF?
The word shit doesn't really pinpoint what you consider to be the flaws in the image.

>>2741633
what film did you shoot this on?

>>2743342
This still looks weird no matter what I do it. There's something bizzarely wrong with the tonality, or tone curve.

>>2743424

looks like infrared bw film.

File: EMOrtho013.jpg (189KB, 530x800px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 530x800px

>>2743432
It is orthochromatic film.
Look it up.
It is the exact opposite of what you thought.
Insensitive to red.
It's a special film for special snowflakes like me; plens cannot into.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: pen ft resize (1 of 1).jpg (675KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1000x669px

Diptych due to half-frame
Ektar
Pen FT

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2743424
What's wrong with it is that it's all one tone, because of the light, and color of the scene. No amount of processing is going to change that.

>>2741145
This one is great. All the others are ruined by bad light. Don't shoot during the middle of the day, unless you can use the shadows to your advantage

>>2743725
Wow camera and film used?

>>2743799
jk didn't read

>>2743725

love it.

>>2743799
>>2743802
It's Ektar, but DESU I don't like that film. Turned out good here though

cool

File: shite1.jpg (654KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1000x655px

i woudlnt normally upload these, but thread is film snapshits so im pretty encouraged to do it anyways.

1/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7098
Image Height	778
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 18:33:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	655

File: shite2.jpg (621KB, 742x1112px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 742x1112px

2/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7146
Image Height	762
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 18:36:08
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	742
Image Height	1112

File: shite3.jpg (65KB, 1500x174px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1500x174px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	14238
Image Height	1116
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1600 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 18:39:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	174

File: shite4.jpg (73KB, 1500x126px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1500x126px

4/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	14238
Image Height	1316
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1600 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 18:43:12
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	126

File: shite5.jpg (70KB, 1500x148px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1500x148px

5/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	GT-X770
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9500
Image Height	926
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1600 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:01:13 18:47:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	148

>>2743833
Holy dead film.
What and how old?

>>2743833
duplicate layer, denoise it with camera raw filter or something, just not the legacy denoise filter, highpass it to 1px or so, set it to overlay

this way you don't sharpen your grain

>>2743825
Yeah it seems like it has fairly specific uses from what I read online

>>2743825
>>2743858
Roll my eyes on the floor laughing.
What are these 'specific' uses, pray tell?
'Specifically' for when you're not a poorfag?

>>2743870
Daylight low contrast shooting? Plus the contrast and saturation is so unrealistic that skin tone gets fucked.

Money is not an issue for me but not having a film that can transition well is.

>>2743870
it's low dr slide film, what u think boy

coming from digital you kind of expect dynamic range from a camera

>>2743851
dunno how old, i think not much, but its severely degraded. its vision 2 i think 250d iirc

>>2743856
>this way you don't sharpen your grain
i didnt sharpen shit. film is that fucked.

>>2743917
there's a strong halo around the hairs

don't tell me that isn't sharpened

>>2743726
It wouldn't look like that on a regular film.

>>2743997
This thread is for film snapshits not iPhone snapshits.

File: Ginger2016-1-13-16.jpg (1MB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1545x1024px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:13 17:12:02

>>2743833
Just remove the dust lines and it's perfect. It's very pictorialist and I wouldn't change a thing.

File: 23719657043_c740030106_b.jpg (245KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1024x686px

1/3

File: 24346610375_b0aeb020dc_b.jpg (217KB, 1024x696px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1024x696px

>>2744231
2/3

File: 23718350824_71ea431f5d_b.jpg (286KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1024x694px

>>2744232
3/3

File: image.jpg (682KB, 1489x1230px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1489x1230px

Fuji 400H

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1840x1232px

EDGY
D
G
Y

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:14 16:12:32
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: CNV00027 copy.jpg (954KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1840x1232px

>>2744464
>>2744462

3/3

top two shot on Fuji 400H, bottom one is Portra400


Should I throw my camera in the sea and alch myself?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:14 16:08:53
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2744466
>Should I throw my camera in the sea and alch myself?
Yes, though I do like the colors on the last one.

File: AAA009A (1).jpg (589KB, 2941x1960px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 2941x1960px

CC or whatever? Thanks.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Pakon, Inc
Camera Model	F135_PLUS
Camera Software	Photos 1.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2006:02:20 06:17:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2941
Image Height	1960

File: 400tx-13.jpg (226KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 650x431px

>>2744466
>Should I throw my camera in the sea and alch myself?

I don't even give a shit if this is a joke, you should shut up and keep taking pictures. If you think they're shit by your own standards, then do what it takes to improve. If you think they're shit because just because /p/ says so, you've given somebody the ability to control the way you express yourself.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:05 16:22:35

File: 30wphfo.jpg.gif (3MB, 350x203px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 350x203px

>>2744503

>I don't even give a shit if this is a joke, you should shut up and keep taking pictures. If you think they're shit by your own standards, then do what it takes to improve. If you think they're shit because just because /p/ says so, you've given somebody the ability to control the way you express yourself.

And this is why a lot of photography nowadays stinks because it doesn't matter whatever anybody thinks as long as "I like it" . So let's just continue practicing narcissistic photography.
I like to be educated about photography aesthetics. I ask for opinions all the time from people I trust know what the hell they are doing with the camera in terms of light, composition, and technique. I may still like my picture after getting feedback that is contrary to my perception but that doesn't make it a good image much less an excellent image. I don't know about anyone else but I like to produce excellent images.

>>2744505
You also like to post animated GIF reaction images on a photography board, like this is your backyard /v/ thread.

File: image.png (3MB, 1840x1840px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1840x1840px

>>2744470
>>2744503
Hey I was kind of just making a joke about the /p/ CC. These are from my first 2 rolls of film shot today and yesterday, not planning on stopping aha

>>2744520
>the light meter
>the motorcycle jacket
>the scarf
>the beard
>the camera
oh snap.
you caught aids from your friendo, didn't you.

>>2744539
>lomo tier guesstimating

>>2744539
I took this with a 70-210

0 AIDS

File: rsz_1sdggsfd.jpg (553KB, 1000x641px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1000x641px

>>2744539
I'll bite: since when the fuck are lightmeters considered, by anyone, in any form, a hipster/gearfag/negative thing, ever? The sole tool to give you complete control over exposure parameters, a gimmick?
Do people really shoot film with auto/average metering shutter/aperture priority and just hope their camera knows whats the dark/light area ratio and subject they're pointing it at? Are people really this dependant on someone else making decisions for them in, supposedly, their creative process?

File: FP4120002montage.jpg (600KB, 1000x717px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1000x717px

>>2744565
>kekkonnen
Exposure isn't a dark art m8, no matter what the septaugenarians on apug tell you.
I shoot my cameras on aperture priority 90% of the time, when they have it. If I'm shooting colour negs I'll set the meter a stop over as well.
Unmetered cameras I just expose for the ambient light using my best estimate. Literally every time I've checked my guess against a friend's meter, I've been within a stop. I get nice rolls back.
Just practice, child.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

Does anyone know how to get a color perfect serial?
I used to have a torrent about 2 years ago but I've long lost it and I'm getting sick of colour correcting manually.

File: 000007.jpg (255KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1000x698px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 09:07:36
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 000013.jpg (265KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1000x698px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 09:00:45
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 000017.jpg (345KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1000x698px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 09:07:17
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 000038-2.jpg (404KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1000x698px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 09:04:53
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMG_20160103_0011.jpg (154KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1000x667px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:04 07:58:26

File: IMG_20151129_0002-3.jpg (183KB, 1000x680px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1000x680px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:29 01:16:50

File: IMG_20151214_0011.jpg (182KB, 1000x693px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1000x693px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:22 19:15:22

File: 000037.jpg (264KB, 1000x698px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1000x698px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:11 09:04:06
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2740557
like
>>2740877
like like
>>2741145
super like

File: 400tx-10.jpg (161KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 650x431px

>>2744505
Not saying that it's bad to look for feedback, only that it's bad to lose trust in yourself. Looking for feedback is great, but putting all of your faith in others is not. There needs to be balance. We have our own visions, and in my eyes photography as an art is about communicating that vision.

When somebody posts a picture asking for feedback and somebody comes along and says the composition is all wrong or "this should be there" or "the colors are bad", something isn't right when the photographer takes their word for it. The critic doesn't even know what the photo is about or what the photographer was trying to accomplish, and yet he has the nerve to tell the photographer what he should do and the photographer just goes along with it.

I would be careful to trust a critic who has no idea what my photo is about.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:05 16:22:34

File: ree.jpg (7KB, 250x164px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x164px

>>2744505
>And this is why a lot of photography nowadays stinks
>nowadays

This is not why it stinks, and it sure isn't a 'nowadays' issue. Amateur photography started as bad because early amateur cameras like the Brownie didn't give photographers the tools necessary to create amazing works, and despite that limitation being lifted, the reason remains the same.

Amateur photography is an inherent link to the mindset of people using all auto-focus settings despite the apparatus allowing full control. Even if someone says of their own work that it doesn't stink because "they like it", that doesn't mean that they can't advance their own quality or have their own standards to which they hold their work to. Photography isn't, as a whole, something you can hold an objective metric to, but that doesn't mean that having subjectivity will reduce the entire field of the medium to trash.

Literally all that anon said was:
>shut up and keep taking pictures
>do what it takes to improve
>don't let arbitrary select few be the only judges

>>2744803
no reaction images outside of /b/ my guy

we're going to try and clean up /p/ by reporting bad posts

>>2744803
>Amateur photography is an inherent link to the mindset of people using all auto-focus settings despite the apparatus allowing full control.
Amateur photography doesn't suck because of AF modes, it sucks because most people, while wanting to be artistic, and being able to afford a camera, have nothing worthwhile to express, and nothing beautiful to showcase. Creating compelling photos takes effort and understanding of your viewer's mindset, not merely mastering camera settings.

>>2744808

Your shitty post would be a good place to start.

Reaction images are in no way against the rules and are endemic to 4chan itself.

>>2744813
Global 3
>You will not post any of the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.

/p/ 1
>Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.

Reaction images belong in shitholes, not /p/. Let's post photography when we post images.

>>2744812
>viewer's mindset
Going to have to beg to differ on this point tbqh familia. Fuck the viewer. From the inception of photography, people tried to learn by aping preexisting Renaissance tropes because it is what is established. It's a miracle we finally moved forward by making use of new techniques and guidelines. It starts with a mastery of limitations.

You can find something potentially beautiful out there, or some latent thing you want expressed, but without experimenting with the array of decisions available, that will never happen. Photography isn't merely capturing a moment or interesting subject, but also the way in which a thing is captured.

>>2744814
>Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken.

That's my bad for being ignorant of the rules, however in my defense there's at least 4 threads with OP photo's that I can recognize from people that are more than likely not from the poster, as well as the fact that the person I replied to had a reaction gif. My bad, though.

>>2744820
>Fuck the viewer.
I'm not suggesting that an artist PANDER to the viewer, merely suggesting that a talented artist underSTANDS the viewer's mind. Knowing what is and isn't going to translate, or come across in the photo. You see many new photographers with a random photo of the woods, and explain it by saying "it was so tranquil and peaceful and I wanted to capture that" and it doesn't work in the photo, because they didn't understand that the viewer wasn't there, and only gets cues visually from the frame. Not understanding the viewer's mindset leads to a failed attempt.

>>2744814

That's a flimsy rule that is never enforced, seeing as how you can find macros on literally every board.

The second rule is to keep people from stealing images or pretending to be someone they aren't, and to encourage OC. It is also never enforced, as evidenced by the numerous "inspiration threads", book threads, not to mention infinite gear threads. Really, complaining about reaction images instead of any 6000 product photos of cameras we have in the catalog makes you part of the problem and not the solution.

>>2744821
You know, I suppose that is correct. There isn't exactly a universality of photography, and a viewer's 'view' will come into account (and my bad if this was my fault for misinterpreting) but I still don't believe that this is where the seeming influx of bad photography comes from. There's plenty of methods that have produced great work that isn't dependent on a specific viewer's 'view', although in your defense there is work that IS dependent, so I guess I'm at a loss. I don't want to believe that the issue is in knowing what will or won't be communicated, though.

>>2744824
Do you honestly believe reaction images and photos of cameras on a photography board are equally bad, or are you being pedantic for the sake of argument?

Pepes and Feel Guys aren't /p/, they're /r9k/ trash.

And they're likely being posted a certain /r9k/er.

>>2744826
I'm certain it's only a small part of a larger picture. There's also been a huge influx of creative output from people who have had no introduction or education in art at all. People who have bad taste, but are easily able to self distrubute their work, and find other people with bad taste to support their ideas, etc. There's a whole web of problems.

Really, personally, I see everyone talking as loud as they can, without having anything to say. And when everyone is screaming, you hear nothing at all.

>>2744828

I think gear threads are far worse than reaction macros.

>>2744830
Macros may be better, but they're far less relevant.

>>2744663
>Just practice, child.
>posts outdoors snapshits of sunny16 lighting conditions

Yeah, nah, you get nice rolls back because of simple lighting conditions and your film's ridiculously wide exposure latitude. Try using your elder wisdom to shoot slide film indoors, artificial light, w/o flash, then I'll concede you know what you're talking about, faggot.

>>2744834
>not knowing the spectral sensitivity curves of the film you're using, as well as wavelengths emitted by common articficial light sources
>not knowing that comfortable indoors lighting at night is about 1/[email protected] & 400ISO
>shooting slide film indoors at night without a flash
>implying the men's rights activist in the picture that started this isn't obviously in easy to meter outside daylight conditions
But hey, whatever, keep wearing that Sekonic Albatross MkIV round your neck, goodsir...

File: 2016-01-15_01-38-28.jpg (1MB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1600px

YashicaMat 124g
Kodak Tmax400

File: 2016-01-15_01-38-50.jpg (917KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

917KB, 1600x1600px

>>2745151
>YashicaMat 124g
>Kodak Tmax400
>>2745151

File: 2016-01-15_01-40-47.jpg (687KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 1600x1062px

>>2745152
F100, 35mm

EKTAR
K
T
A
R

File: 2016-01-15_01-41-25.jpg (1MB, 1062x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1062x1600px

>>2745153
>F100, 35mm
>EKTAR
>K
>T
>A
>R

File: 2016-01-15_01-44-08.jpg (781KB, 1062x1600px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 1062x1600px

>>2745154
F100, 35mm
Superia

File: 2016-01-15_01-42-47.jpg (603KB, 1062x1600px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 1062x1600px

>>2745158
F100, 35mm
Superia

Cold Brew Master Race

>>2745160
>Cold Brew

thats not how you do it, though.

File: image.jpg (125KB, 1600x602px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1600x602px

>>2741220
>>2741583
Okay, so here are 3 sample images. Again don't have a proper scanner and just opted to scan these with 2 cell phones since I remembered you wanted to see them, I know they suck.

Anyhow I guess for their time they were good, though I feel like even if I did send these somewhere to get properly scanned they wouldn't be all that amazing. Reason being I sucked with exposure back in the day and just because it's such a small format of film. Details are there, but yet there's only so much it can capture.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	602

File: 10340012_export.jpg (719KB, 1000x957px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1000x957px

Grandpa's old Yashica D
Expired Fuji Pro 160NS
Lab dev & scan

>>2745321

thats beautiful anon, more.

>>2745321
I love taiga. Where is this taken?

File: JPY160NS030 - JPY160NS033.jpg (241KB, 757x1000px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 757x1000px

>>2745153
>>2745154
>>2745158
>>2745160
It pisses me off to see film scans with roasted highlights like this. Do a better job.

>>2745334

Kektar's got a pretty narrow dynamic range in his defense. Shit ain't portra.

>>2745337
Rubbish. He's just using a bad scanner and failing at PP.

>>2744228
ty anon. will print it maybe ill finally like it.

>>2745340
Or maybe he isn't an autistic asshole who shoots for a histogram, and he realized that properly exposed subjects are more important than having a tiny bit of useless detail out the back of a tiny window with no relation to what's going on in the scene whatsoever....

For instance: >>2745334
that photo is A) Boring as fuck) B) under-exposed C) "Technically correct histogram"

>>2745340

Let's see your 12-stop ektar scans then.

Oh, and they can't be underexposed and at dusk like your shot.

>>2745345
Spokky as FOK numberplate though

>>2745352

>343 industries did 9/11

oh fuck

>>2745321
I like this. Very cute.

>>2745322
Thanks! That was my favorite shot, I might post a couple others maybe. The Yashica seems to have some issues with focus (along with sticking slower shutter speeds), but I was positively surprised by the quality.

>>2745325
This was a clearcutting in Kuusamo, Finland. I also shot some 35mm slide film there with my OM-1.

File: 7stopsunder.jpg (107KB, 542x800px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 542x800px

>>2745345
>>2745349
Oh, someone's mad.
'scuse sharia, but as you can see I had to underexpose this shot by about 7 stops to retain detail in the clouds and waves.
Ektar just has no dynamic range.
>you fucking retards
>>2745154
>>2745153
Especially in these ones, you can see that the scanner, or anons processing, has simply roasted the shadows and thrown away the highlight information. There should be saturation and detail in the pathways and illuminated leaves.
I'd bet you all the tea in china that the negative has that information there.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment
Projection	Rectilinear (0)
FOV	14 x 9
Ev	13.55
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Untitled-1_DxO_hdtv.jpg (1MB, 2048x1373px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1373px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 7200
Camera Software	DxO OpticsPro 10.4.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:15 08:13:26
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1373

>>2745190
Enlighten me - it brews at room temp or refrigerated for 12+ hours and then I strain it into a carafe. How is this not cold Brew?

>>2745334
I don't scan my own (yet) these came from the lab (darkroom I think?). I did edit some a bit but didn't post those here. These are as they arrived. I see you didn't quite my medium format ones - in your opinion do they have a similar issue? I ask because I used a,different lab for those.

File: 2016-01-15_09-27-25.jpg (888KB, 1062x1600px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1062x1600px

>>2745340
No PP on my part, I believe these were Noritsu scanned.

Here is one I did edit. Better to my eye but I intended only to post my "original" returned files.

File: 2016-01-15_09-33-27.jpg (927KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 1600x1062px

>>2745434
Other edit from your specific reference

>>2745337
>Shit ain't portra.
Thank god for that. Portra a shit.

>>2740862
You took a picture of a fucking curtain.

>>2745463
It's nice, isn't it!
Beauty is all aroound you when you look for it.

>>2745434
>No PP on my part, I believe these were Noritsu scanned.
That's exactly what I meant by failing at scanning and PP.
Not controlling the process = mediocre results.
These edits are better, but it's also important to watch you don't oversaturate the shadows when you increase the contrast.

File: Roll4 (20).jpg (1MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2048px

1/4

I really don't even consider myself good enough to be an amameteur so please give me feedback.

File: p1.jpg (2MB, 1024x1536px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1024x1536px

>>2745534
Amateur**

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	48 dpi
Vertical Resolution	48 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 02:06:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1024
Image Height	1536

File: Roll2 (2).jpg (2MB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x3072px

>>2745535

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:14 19:37:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3072

File: Roll2 (9).jpg (3MB, 2048x3072px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x3072px

>>2745537
4/4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:14 19:45:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3072

>>2745520
I get that. Do you develop your own? How do you scan?

File: 1452378180083.jpg (455KB, 2138x795px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2138x795px

>>2745609

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:28 08:08:19
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	1.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2138
Image Height	795
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>2745612
Thanks for the insight. I'll give it a try and see if I can get better scans than were provided by the lab

File: Fig Agfa 15.jpg (305KB, 622x1024px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 622x1024px

I wish I knew how to make convincing water.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2743151
>Where is this at?
Probably mid-air between Morro da Urca and Sugar Leaf (Pão de Açúcar) inside the cableway.

>>2743356
Porta 400 35mm

File: tumblr_m6twkn9B5y1qzofaho1_1280.jpg (291KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1280x960px

>>2745160
>takes indoor picture of outdated coffee brewing process with outdated medium

>>2745754
What's the modern process to make cold brew coffee?

why no comments about my >>2745411

File: construction.jpg (360KB, 1000x731px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1000x731px

just bought a hundred rolls of this shit
how bad did I dun goof?

>>2745769
You don't. Coffee comes in a can, all ready french brewed and triple pressed into powder or whatever by a computer controlled factory.
All you need is a teaspoon and some hot water

File: 20141114-scan102.jpg (436KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1000x667px

1/13 snapshits.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:10

File: 20141114-scan106.jpg (482KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1000x667px

>>2745808

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:10

File: 20141114-scan110.jpg (402KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1000x667px

>>2745809

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:10

File: 20150106-scan178.jpg (597KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 1000x667px

>>2745810

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:09

File: 20150105-scan158.jpg (359KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x667px

>>2745812

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:08

File: 20150105-scan171.jpg (426KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1000x667px

>>2745813

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	264 dpi
Vertical Resolution	264 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:16 11:36:08