What the fuck /p You told me shoot film its cheap, just develop

You are doing it wrong. Buy a second hand Patterson tank and reuse your chemicals. There are a few cheap brands of black and white film but you aren't going to find them searching online for Ilford HP5+ and Kodak Tri-X

>>2697924

It's cheap in the sense that I can buy a 70-200 canon macro lens for £5 and it's awesome.

>$10 for B/W film

Nigga what are you doing? You can get shit like Agfa APX 100 for $3 per roll.

>>2697924
Get Xtol, it is it's own replenisher, I replenish 75mL per roll.

Or I suppose you can use a concentrated developer.

>>2697924
Buy bulk films (10 roll bricks, or more at a time). Lesser known films can be cheaper. Use chemicals known for their longevity like rodinal or for efficiency.

Buy second hand, how on earth have you managed to spend 200 bucks on developing kit? Unless that includes a scanner you've gone far wrong.

>>2697924
>development kit is $200
>cheapest black and white film is $10 per roll on ebay
Nigger what the fuck are you looking at? developer and fixer should be <$10 each
you can get a patterson tank for ~$20
storage bottles are next to nothing
Even 120 tri-x is $5 at most. Something like kentmere is cheaper.

Please link to where you found $10/roll film and $200 processing kits because I'm curious what jews are trying to rip you off like this.

itt: how to do it all wrong

What about color film? I shoot mostly color film and I find it's way too expensive too develop at local shops etc

>>2697924
>How are you poor fags affording to shoot film?
The short of it is, they don't. Not that much.
Most of this boards filmfags shoot like a roll a month at most. Then they convince themselves that their photos are better on film, because they also don't process them for weeks or months, and so forget what their state of mind was when shooting, and are simply impressed with the existence of photos on the roll. They don't remember well enough when they shot it to notice that they made errors compared to their intent.
You know I'm right, deep down. This is the most truthful post that this thread will have.

-former B&W 35mm /p/oster

File: OM20FP411.jpg (86KB, 538x800px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 538x800px

>>2698287
You're an idiot.
I shoot film almost exclusively.
I shoot about 3 rolls almost every time I go out drinking.
I shot 3 rolls on Wednesday, and developed, scanned, edited, and posted them yesterday.
I'm going to japan in a week, and I'm budgeting 10 rolls to take with me to last until I get to the first camera store I find.
It's my first ever overseas trip, and I'm not even going to bring a digital camera.
I know my photos are better on film, because I get way more facebook likes, and girls always ask me about my camera :3

[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
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:05 18:52:50
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	538
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2698287
I think shooting digital does outweigh the cost in the long run, as you don't have to spend money per shot. Obviously it depends on how much you shoot, but it does not cost $10 per roll and $200 to develop at home

OP is retarded

>>2698287
Your edgy attempt to "out" film shooters has failed.

>>2698319
>edgy
Looks like it worked perfectly to me.

>>2698301
>Facebook likes
fucking christ...

>>2698301
>girls always ask me about my camera :3
not a girl but what camera do you have?

>>2698345
:^)
>>2698348
Like 20 of them?
GWC's jizz on the SLRs and f/1.2 lenses, whilst maintaining that their Rabals w/ kit zooms are just fine.
Normal girls prefer the AF/AE compacts, because they can just use them.

>>2698280
I've written it up before, but you can process at home using a replenished system, which makes it very inexpensive.

>>2698311
Well if you consider the cost for you to buy a 35mm equivalent sensor camera with a decent lens you're already at 1,5k e

A decent used film camera with good glass can be anywhere from 100e to 400e

A normal quality film (superia) runs you for about 5e
A higher quality (delta, portra, tri-x, tmax) roll will run you for 8-10e

getting it developed cheap with 9x13 prints averages at 8e, 5-6e if you scan it yourself with a DSLR or a film scanner

now lets say you exclusively shot kodak gold, agfa or superia or whatever and got small prints for everything

that's 13e per roll

divided by 36 that is 0.36111 euro cent per picture

Let's say you bought a OM-1 with lens for about 150 that leaves you with 1,35k left if you bought it instead of a dslr

1350 divided by 0.3611 you end up with 3738 pictures

Let's say you sometimes like to bust out higher quality film for a special occassion or maybe get it developed at a professional place so let's round down to about 2800 pictures.

I shoot maybe 500 pictures a year tops
1,5k would last me a little more than 5 years

Considering you shoot a lot less due to format constraints and common sense its not really as exorbitantly expensive as you might think if you're smart about it.

Of course its not for everyone and the thought of paying variable cost for every shot might seem daunting at first but if you're into that mode of shooting and love the physicality of the format its surprisingly affordable.

>>2698287
>You know I'm right, deep down.
>Projecting this much

Are people just remembering the cheapest roll of film they ever brought and forgetting everything else.
I have searched eBay extensively today and cannot find any black and white film for under $7 even in bulk.
/p is delusional, show me a link to this $5 a roll stuff

>>2698397
>35mm equivalent sensor camera
but you don't need this
Sorry to spoil your fun, filmfags, but 35mm is not a good performer. M43 outperforms it, not to speak of APS-C or FF (which outperform it to an even greater degree)

It's okay to use film because you like it. You've been misguided if you think you're using 35mm as an image quality choice though. The trope that film is better than digital is simply not true until you get to much, much larger pieces of it.

Don't believe me? Don't care. You'll figure it out on your own in time, if you ever get past the self-delusion.

inb4 "b-but I pyrocat dev"

>>2698529
35mm can provide enough image quality in many cases.

>>2698525
Arista.edu

>>2698533
I was addressing the anon that thinks you need a full frame camera to equate 35mm film.

Half-frame is enough for just about everyone on this boards purposes, if the images posted are anything to go by. One could even make arguments for quarter frame. But that's not what I was addressing.

APS-C 1600 iso these days is about as clean as 200 speed 35mm film. It's just no real comparison.

>>2698529
Equivalent as in same 'sensor' size, I wasnt insinuating film objectively looks better than digital

obviously it doesnt or do you just enjoy sitting on the high horse even though there is 0 reason to

>>2698525
B&H, man
The most expensive B&W roll I've ever shot was $6.

>>2698540
And why does this notion of equivalence matter, if performance is not equivalent, and lenses exist for every size?
Oh. Right. It doesn't. So it's a very one-sided comparison made to justify your own decisions and encourage others to make the same.

That's why. Strange that you perceive it to be a high horse; my horse only seems to be a few centimeters taller than your own.

>>2698541
Thank you for the useful reply, loving there prices

>>2698525
Holy shit do you even google:

http://www.adorama.com/l/Films-and-Darkroom/Film/Black-and-White-Film

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=black+and+white+film&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

I'm not sure you should even try developing your own film anyway, if you can't do a simple internet search there's no way you'll be able to figure out the developing times for different films, temperatures and developers. A kindergartener could do this shit and you can't even figure out how to get supplies.

OK so I'm not going to buy the $200 kit.
I need a thermometer, change bag, tank and what chemicals does /p recommend ?

>>2698543
Ok i admit it u got me i acted dishonestly

>>2698553
You don't need a thermometer unless you plan on doing color film.
You don't need a changing bag as long as you have a room that you can completely dark out.
You don't need stop bath. Use one part white vinegar, four parts water.
Any fixer will do, any developer will do. None of them give bad results. I like Rodinal. It brings out grain a bit too much for small format, but I don't shoot small format anyway. A lot of small format shooters seem to like D-76.

>>2698543
What's your instagram isi? Im sure you've posted photos before and ive followed you

>>2698584
capturious

>buy a film /p/ said, it will be cheaper they said
>buy a film /p/ said, you will learn faster they said

What a bunch of BS.
Truth be told those who shoot film are among the most insecure photographers I've ever met. Most just shoot film because they want the attention "Hey I shoot film that makes me better than you digital photogs." "Life is like a roll of film, you develop from the negative blah blah." This is the reason why film has attracted a lot of hipsters because they mostly care about what others think of them.

My advice OP, switch to digital. A used DSLR can be had for $200 and can shoot much better quality photos than any 35mm film ever.

But
>muh colors >muh black and white
Learn photoshop
>muh retro looking camera
Get a Fuji or an Olympus
>muh hipster cred
Get a life

>>2698608
*35mm film and increasingly with medium format
Large format is still the domain of bros (and sugar)

Talking about devs kits... Anyone here knows a good drum scan model available for cheap? 35mm only.

>>2698608
I think film looks worse technically in every way to digital these days, but I shoot film because I enjoy the process of developing it. Any time I've gone out and taken both digital and film photos, i usually prefer the digital, but I still think shooting film is fun.

>>2698618
Don't.
Join a darkroom and print the old fashion way.

>>2698608
>A used DSLR can be had for $200 and can shoot much better quality photos than any 35mm film ever.

True dat. No one should shoot 35mm in this day and age.

However, no DSLR can shoot anywhere near as well as medium and large format.

Especially B+W.
No DSLR can shoot black and white with any competence.

Film isn't dead, you just need to know what few places it still holds its own.

>>2697924
>development kit is $200, the cheapest black and white film is $10 per roll on ebay and its not cheap at all.

WTF?
Dev kit is like $50 - IF you can't get given one. I can't stop getting them. I literally have a big garbage bag FULL of spools and dev tanks, and I gave up after the fifth enlarger. Now I just salvage the lenses and neg holders and bin the things. Even the 4x5 units.

/Once word gets out you have a darkroom, EVERYONE has a box (or closet) full of that crap at their school, church, newspaper, grandpas basement, whatever, and can't wait to give it all to you, whether you want it or not. I must have 50+ tubes for the goddamn Jobos.

Also, Freestyle Photo has 35mm and 120 B+W film for under $3 a roll. Buy ten packs.

Rodinal lasts forever if you are into that look, otherwise just get fucking d76 and roll with it. Or fucking caffenol if you want to be a total cheapass about it.

>>2698626
I have my kit at home and at the uni, but sometimes i just want to scan.

>>2698620
Well don't get me wrong that I hate film. I myself also shoot film but for reasons almost same as you. What I don't like are people spouting BS reasons too shoot film like it is cheaper and you will improve your photography with it. An example is Ken Rockwell:
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm
>Wives and Girlfriends Love Film
Oh really? How long before you are able to upload your selfies with muh gf on Facebook? Women love Facebook right?

>Film Costs Much Less
Yeah not to mention Ken Rockwell uses Velvia film which costs $10+ per roll.

>Film Feels Good!
>Nothing photographic feels better than Nikon's manual-focus lenses.
>implying you can't use manual Nikon lenses on a Nikon DSLR

My advice to wanting to shoot film just to improve their photography is to mimic the limitations of film using your digital camera. Like don't review your photos until you get home, only shoot 12, 24 or 36 photos every time you go out shooting and sticking to only one ISO.

>>2698618
> good drum scan
> cheap
Wishful thinking.

DSLR scan for good scans. Or use something like a Reflecta RPS 10M for reasonable 35mm scans.

>>2698635
You basically remove all of the things you don't really need with film.

Truth is, film and slrs with manual focus fixes are much easier to use, and require no additional attention on the run. You learn to ride a motorcycle only after you've learnt to ride a bicycle.

Also, film has a very good dynamic range. There is a reason why people look at the screens between shots, and that reason is usually to check for correct exposure - with film you simply do not care.

File: 1445983836926.jpg (455KB, 2138x795px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2138x795px

>>2698639
>>2698618

[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

>>2698635
Ken Rockwell is always going to have retarded reasons for everything lol.
>Yeah not to mention Ken Rockwell uses Velvia film which costs $10+ per roll.
Ironic that he makes the dynamic range argument when slide film is notoriously unforgiving. I don't think the dynamic range argument in film vs digital has been valid for years though. Most sensors now meet or exceed the DR of (most) films.

I also like how he raves at how old film cameras don't need batteries, but forgets the fact that if you're out of film, you're out of shots, lol. You can recharge batteries in your car pretty easily, but you can't recharge film.

>>2697932
this

>>2698707
>I line up the edge of the frame with the paper tab taped over the film channel
Please clarify? What paper tab? I am under the impression that the film is taped down with electrical tape?

>>2698371
could you hand me a link to that? im interested

>>2698811
No. Look at the picture.
The tape is just a channel to guide the film through. It stops you having to get the film strip squared up in your camera viewfinder for every frame.
I put a little flap of paper over the channel, taped in place, to line up the start of each frame and to let me hold the film flat without putting a big fingerprint on it.

>>2698821
Oh that makes sense now. Thank you. This is probably the most realistic and effective setup I've seen (other than the Petapixel dude who just sets his Makro Planar directly on the film with the hood). I'm going to try to get this sort of setup going. Thanks for writing this all up.

>>2698799
>Film vs charge
>controllable environment vs robot dicksucking
Lorn Ken has a good article on you guys who talk more than they shoot

>>2698906
>Lorn Ken has a good article on you guys who talk more than they shoot
Ironic considering he makes a living talking about photography and posts relatively few photos.

>>2698628
> no d-slr can shoot anywhere near as well as medium or large format

False. Acuity and resolution on modern high MP cameras like the d810 and 5ds can match or surpass mf film depending on the lenses used.

> film feels good.
> loving my time in the darkroom.
> Who gives a wank what other people do?

File: img002.jpg (242KB, 646x1000px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 646x1000px

Kodak TRi-X developed in HC-110! (Minolta SRT-101, 58mm 1.4)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:07 19:55:55

>>2699672
reported for CP

>>2698536
>Arista EDU

Which is just rebranded Fomapan and is pretty decent for a slow/medium speed film.

not my photo but Fomapan 200 35mm drumscanned @ 11000dpi. The grain wasn't visible in less than that (according to the scanner).

>>2699498

probably can find some boundary conditions with specific combinations of gear and format and lens where that may be technically true. Which really only matters if you desperately need to justify your belief that your chosen medium to cheerlead, or your camera you spent too much on, beats everything. EVAR.

Practically speaking however, MF and LF still have certain distinct advantages over DSLR's - and likely will for at least a couple more years - whereas 35mm simply does not. Just disadvantages.

Film will die eventually - save for maybe really large formats and specialty uses - but it ain't quite dead yet.
I am waiting, because I really would like to not have to have two completely different fucking sets of tools to get the job done right now. it sucks.

>>2700010
I'm an idiot:

http://aleksikoski.com/temp/35mm_11000dpi.jpg

File: t-max-compare.jpg (1MB, 1176x2236px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1176x2236px

>>2700012
Ignoring the plebian contents of the photo, there's no detail in that image.

I can see the grain in a Flextight 949 scan quite clearly of Retro 80s, which hits a resolving power of about 6400 dpi iirc out of it's 8000.

80s is much finer grained than T-Max 100, T-Max is much finer grained than Fomapan 200.

You're also not really seeing the grain in that scan you provided either, there is sfa resolving power in that scan, not even 50% or 25% of the claimed 11000 dpi.

Resolved grain does not look like that.

Pic related.

>>2698371
Could you link to it/post it again?