I started a thread a few months ago asking for help on taking

File: J001596-R1-05-5.jpg (1MB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1800px

I wish this one was a teenth bit more exposed, I really like the pic but when I printed it out (I own a printing shop) it's a bit darker than I would like.

File: J001596-R1-09-9.jpg (1MB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1800px

Again guys, thanks for the help and criticism is always welcome (not like I had to ask for it).

Also, I've got a lens cap and some black and white film coming my way. As far as exposure is concerned, is there anything I need to do differently with black and white film?

You need to learn about exposure ASAP.

There's some solid stuff here, I would have especially liked >>2703450
if it wasn't so horribly over exposed.

>>2703450
and what's all that shit in the sky?

>>2703462
Sonyboy plx go

>>2703445
>>2703447

Both of those are great IMO. The other two are decent but you need to be careful about shooting into direct sunlight - >>2703448 and making sure your exposure's spot on - >>2703450


Keep shooting and you'll get better and better. Not a bad start at all.

>>2703463
Stuff from 40+ years of sitting in a box on the lens. Im too spooked to try and clean it becuase I haven't looked into the correct way to do it. I thought it would be better to have a dirty lens than to scratch the piss out of it trying to make it better.

As far as what I did for exposure. I left my shutter speed at 500 (film speed was 400) on all photos except >>2703447 and took a wild guess at my f/stop. Now I know how to get an EV and set the camera to that.

My question about that is: Is it better to match the speed of the film and chose an f/stop based on that, or is it better to match the EV?

Any recommended sources on cleaning an old TLR lens?

>>2703471
What's wrong with exposure on the last one? With less exposure half of these awesome colors would be gone

>>2703524
He's over exaggerating, it's not "horribly over exposed", only slightly.

>>2703447
Also really nice shot, I love this one

Great start.

scan your negs with a dslr, and learn to edit well to really make the most of your images.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (2MB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1800x1800px

Nice shots, really like the last one!

Play around in curves. Negatives usually take a lot of work to get looking nice. Here's a quick curves adjustment.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:16 21:08:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1800

>>2703479
>My question about that is: Is it better to match the speed of the film and chose an f/stop based on that, or is it better to match the EV?

I don't really understand this question. For now you should just expose the film normally. Do you have a light meter? If not you could always do the sunny 16 rule. Which in all of the shots except the one you mentioned at 1/500th you should've been rocking f16. In case you don't know, sunny 16 is when you take the reciprocal of the film speed and use that as your shutter speed (in this case 400 -> 1/400) and shoot at f16.

>>2704683
In bright sunlight.
If it's cloudy drop to f8.

Well you certainly could have done worse. For one, the car is in focus in all photos, which is sometimes harder than it seems with 6x6. Slight overexposure gives nice soft colors. Do clean the scans though please. You just take a heal brush, put the sample on a bit with similar texture and go over the dust spec.

>>2704681
Damn, that looks great, thank you!

>>2704683
For these pictures that's what I did. I went with shutter speed 500 because my film was 400 (that was as close as I could get) and more or less split the difference with my f/stop, that's probably why the exposures are a bit much.

My question is, is it just better to go that route, or get an EV and set the camera to that. That Rollei has an arrow that points to its current EV, and I can lock it into that, so if I change the shutter speed the f/stop will change as well keeping the same EV. Maybe I'm over thinking it and it's just another way to skin a cat.

>>2704714
>Do clean the scans though please. You just take a heal brush, put the sample on a bit with similar texture and go over the dust spec.

You lost me there. Are you talking about the scans from negatives to computer files? I had those done for me, I don't have a way to scan from negatives unfortunately.

>>2703479
>Stuff from 40+ years of sitting in a box on the lens
Nah, that's definitely dust marks on the film. If they were on the lens they wouldn't be that sharp.

Dust on the front element isn't a problem unless there's a lot of it or the peices are huge:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

>>2704825
Decide on what depth of field you desire, use the correct shutter speed for your exposure.

There's a good smartphone app called lightmeter tools pro that makes getting the correct exposure a piece of cake. Use it enough and it will become instinctive what settings you need. 90% of the time I can look at a scene, decide on what settings I want and be within 1/2 a stop of a correct exposure.

Bear in mind, some film stock such as portra looks really nice slightly over exposed (colours go pastelly, very soft highlight rolloff) whilst Ektar's colours will skew if under or over exposed.

I guess what I'm saying is, that for every technical point you can memorise, there will be just as many instances that just take experience.

Have fun experimenting, if you see a scene you like, try doing one shot a stop under and one a stop over so you can visualise the differences for yourself.

File: J001596-R1-01-1.jpg (1MB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1800px

These were taken at shutter speed 500 with an f/stop at 16 on Portra 400 film.

It came to me last night that I had taken a screen shot of an f/stop guide that was posted up on my original thread.

File: J001596-R1-03-3.jpg (1MB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1800px

The sun was almost directly behind me on this one, would that have thrown off my light meter had I used one?

>>2705375
It looks like your shutter may be a smidge slow as this image does look a little bit over exposed. If you use portra 160 in this kind of weather you will get a very similar aesthetic but have a LOT more flexibility when it comes to aperture and shutter speed.

>>2705376
As I mentioned earlier, use your smartphone (lightmeter tools pro), it will never get it wrong, the problem with old fashioned lightmeters is that you need to know what you're doing and how to read light.

>>2705385
I got the app last night, but I didn't know if direct sun would throw it off. I guess that's what it's designed to do.

As far as portra 160, (just trying to get it clear in my head, I'm a slow learner) Ill match the shutter speed as close as I can to 160 correct?

I wish there was a shop close where I could get a CLA, but I think I would have to ship it off.

>>2705391
with portra 160, in bright sun, at f16 you would want a shutter speed as close to 160 as possible.

But this would mean you could drop down to f8 for a smaller depth of field (and go up to 1/500 to balance the extra light).

Learn stops. then you can quickly and easily do the maths in your head for whatever shot you want.
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/13031/what-is-an-easy-way-to-remember-the-full-stop-scale if you shoot with the lens wide open (f3.5 on most rollei's) you will get the lovely soft out of focus areas that you can see when you look through the viewfinder.
Personally I think rollei's give awesome resu,t

>>2705375
Whoever developed these did a really great job. You've got some dust on the scanner or film though. See those white specks?

I love the colors. Portra 400 is wonderful

>>2705375
Shutter 500, 400 iso film and f/16 SHOULD be a perfect exposure for bright daylight according to the sunny 16 rule. The problem you're getting with a slight overexposure on the car is just because it's an extremely bright white.

I light meter probably would have told you to go up a stop or so but you need to learn to trust your eyes. It comes with experience!

>>2705424
So does one f/stop increase require one increase in shutter speed?

I'm going to feel like a complete moron if it's that simple...

File: fstop.png (13KB, 600x183px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x183px

>>2705441
Basically, yes. Going one stop down on the lens (f/16 to f/11) can be perfectly balanced out by going from a shutter of 1/500 to 1/250.

Watch this and understand: https://vimeo.com/41174743

>>2705447
>https://vimeo.com/41174743
Perfect, thank you!

>>2703479
It's dust and shit on the film at the time of scanning.

>>2703445
>le epic sob story
fuck off back to reddit

>>2703445
You're doing fine with this.

> Apparently I can't upload the .bmp because they're too large which is unfortunate because the colors look more true in those files.
Convert them to JPEG in a different way than you're doing now; you can make it work okay.