/film/

File: IMG_9304.jpg (323KB, 1125x1500px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1125x1500px

>>2806876
Also, in other news
>hot new tip to massively improve the DR of your slide film or faggot digital
Use garbage lenses. Their low contrast compresses the tonal scale, allowing you to fit more on the histogram.
Top image - EF 100mm Macro (1/4sec@f11)
Bottom image - EF35-80mm f/4-5.6 III (1/3sec@f16)(cropped to show same fov)
Same flat curve applied to both.

[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
Lens Size	35.00 - 80.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF35-80mm f/4-5.6 III
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:03 09:33:31
Exposure Time	0.3 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	1/2 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	74.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1125
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	4
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2806876
>stupid film questions
ok. what do i need to develop b&w and/or color? can you put a shopping cart together from b&h or the like?
scanning tips. printing tips. any resources on dev particular films. anything and everything

>>2806908
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+do+i+need+to+develop+b%26w+and%2For+color%3F

Do your own research, moron.
Simple shit like that is spelled out for you all over the internet.

>>2806914
>hey guys you can post all your stupid questions here
>I have a stupid question can you help me?
>fuck off do your own research, what thread do you think this is??

Wow

>>2806918
You didn't even take a second to get informed, don't expect anyone to spoon-feed you.

>>2806876
>>2806898
>>2806914

You shouldn't OP a "general" if you are this much of a dumb faggot, you know? Be helpful and kind to the people asking stuff, or else dont post a damn thing and watch as others are actually helpful to the board.

>>2806923
>>2806918
I gave him a link to all the information he asked for, what more does babby want?
>oh that's right, he wanted us to actually go to the b&h website and spend half an hour making a fucking shopping cart for him

>>2806929

Since when does the OP of a general namefags as some sort of aggresive janitor? Jesus Christ, as if we needed this board to be even more shit.

Stop attention whoring, dslr cuck scanning cumlord.

>>2806929
>a fucking shopping cart for him
You know, that's one thing that's always kind of puzzled me. Why the hell don't these sites have an "I AM COMPLETELY NEW TO DEVELOPING FILM" all in one kit...why make it hard for people to give you their money?

>>2806923
And I OP the general because I have a shitload of film gear to put in the photos and I hate it when threads I'm interested in die because of poorly written or illustrated OP's.

>>2806930
>Stop attention whoring, dslr cuck scanning cumlord.
MMMmmmmmm, nothing tastier than a fresh glass of hurt, straight out of your butt.
I guess waiting for your isacon to scan 2-frame 'strips' of 120 give you plenty of time to get bitter about your bad purchasing decisions.

>>2806937
LOL

Sure guy, i am that "isacon" friend of yours lmao.

Good thread btw, top notch contribution to the board.

File: wat.jpg (334KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1000x665px

I don't even...

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

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

>>2806985
preddy gud

>>2806985
You don't even what?
>>2807041
nope

>>2806985

kentmere right?

Finally processed the last 3 rolls of film from my backlog, now I just need to digitize 7 rolls to catch up.
>>2806931
-But they do. At least in countries that are free and not in the third world.

>>2807058

i wish i had rolls to develop. today i literally put a fresh roll in my pentax slr just to shoot (didnt even want to take photos) and get negatives. didnt make it, ill have to develop them next monday. i need film in my life at any cost ¡_¡

In your personal experience with developing, how do different film speeds affect the dev time (in the same dev, of course)? I mean slow vs fast, small grain versus GRAIN, etc~

File: 4chin2.jpg (955KB, 1800x1222px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 1800x1222px

I shot some test shots today to see if my Ilfosol 3 was still good. I opened the bottle about 6 months ago but it's been tightly capped with about 3/4th of the bottle still full and stored in complete darkness. I think it has gone bad by the way the grain is a bit extreme. I have no issues buying a new bottle because it only costs 9 bucks but if I'm still able to use what I have I would prefer to do that. I should also mention that the film I was using is HP5+. If I extended the development time by making a more diluted solution would it decrease the grain? Thanks.

My development times are as follows:
>5 Minutes 30 Seconds
>75 Degrees Fahrenheit
>1:9 Dilution
>Flip and Rotate every minute

File: derp.jpg (466KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 2250x1500px

you faggots make me sick

File: 8IW0Dyqh.jpg (293KB, 1024x880px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1024x880px

look how fuggen sharp this scan is

>>2807088

looks sweet, how did you scan it?

>>2807058
My current backlog is probably 20 or so C41 films.
Including the last bits of my Japan trip.
I would love to dev myself, but C41 kits are impossible to get in Australia at the moment, as far as I can tell.
Posting it all down to Hillvale in Melbourne seems like the only viable option atm, as they do dev-only C41 for $5 a roll, but I still don't want to sent my babies in the post ;_;

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

Just got my second SLR, pic related. First was a Retinette so pretty easy to use - in addition to shutter speed, you've got ISO and aperture too here. In what combination do you use them all? I know that wide open aperture means greater DoF but less sharp highlights and too low or high ISO means more grain, but that's about it.

File: 20160327_002.jpg (534KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1024x577px

>>2807109
Ahh, scanning 30-something rolls of Japan trip photos, good times. Made me want to kill myself while grinding through them though.

Here's the batch I'm currently expecting to have back by Monday. Budapest trip photos. Also fuck you whoever said the city is dangerous and one should never visibly carry a camera. Chink tourists with three Leicas each slung from flimsy leather straps walk around the city without a worry in the world. Hell, overall it was far safer (and cleaner) than any other major city I've been to bar Japan. And also photographic as fuck.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Jolla
Camera Model	Jolla
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Exposure Bias	1.8 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.22 mm
White Balance	Auto

>>2807118
Why'd you shoot such a weird selection?
I came back with a pretty mixed bag from Japan, but that's because I found a bunch of weird shit over there.
I'd assume that you actually chose to take all that to Hungary though?

>>2807128
Some of those are locally bought. The negatives sans Pro 400H and the 120's are mostly dedicated for a uni project that was also part of the trip (traffic observations), so I just used whatever cheap stuff I had lying around. That said, I'm a horribly disorganized person and even when I do plan things out, I usually end up improvising anyway. In Japan I usually just stick with Superia Premium 400 for everything except night time street stuff. Man, I really want me some Venus 800 again...

>>2807113
By ISO are you perhaps referring to the shutter speed? You're shooting film, so your ISO is fixed. Other than that, you practically answered your own question. Aperture affects DoF, shutter speed doesn't do much else but determine the frame of time you're capturing. Try to avoid shooting at full aperture to prevent losing sharpness (lenses generally perform best when a stop or two from both ends of the scale). Also good choice, I have a Praktica MTL 5 and I love that thing down to the clunky, boxy looks.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2807129
Thanks man, that helps a lot. So you'd recommend generally shooting on say 2.8 or 4? Also by ISO I mean pic related, the dial goes between 25 and 1600 (I'm used to shooting on Blackmagics so sorry if it's a different thing here.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2807145
If your full aperture is 2, then yes, you should stick with 2.8 or 4 unless you really need the extra stop. As for the ISO dial, obviously you should just select the nominal ISO of your film indicated on the package. You can use a different ISO (like selecting 800 with a film rated as 400) with appropriate compensation taken during developing process, but that's another story. The important thing is to _never change your selected ISO_ when shooting through a roll, for instance you can't shoot frames 1-4 at ISO 400, then shoot 5-6 at 800, and then switch back to 400. Unlike with digital, ISO isn't a variable you can change during shooting. You set it once when you pop the roll, and stick with it to the end.

>>2807145
>I'm used to shooting on Blackmagics

>actually doesn't understand how a light meter works, or what ISO is
Holy shit, they let you play with some real big boys toys in the shelter, don't they?

>>2807153
I've shot a few images at 800 but my film specifies 200 - should I stick with 800 through to the end then?

>>2807155
Where in my post did I suggest either of those things? Also Blackmagics aren't exactly big boy toys; pretty much everybody who uses them is recommended to shoot exclusively at 800 to avoid grain or noise.

>>2807153
>If your full aperture is 2, then yes, you should stick with 2.8 or 4 unless you really need the extra stop

Holy fuck why isn't anyone reacting to someone like this giving advice to others. It's like an autist taking care of a retard itt.

Where the fuck did the "always use your lens wide open" bullshit even come from?

>>2807167
Why don't you explain how it works then instead of mindlessly shitposting? I asked the question because I'm new to film photography and haven't used manual aperture control before. Not everyone who doesn't have the same expert knowledge and experience as you is an autist or retard.

>>2807172
Because someone who buys a film camera and loads it with film and starts shooting without first even considering learning the basics of its use/operation looks like an utterly lost cause to me. The sole fact you can put together coherent sentences seems out of place given your approach to film photography. It's like buying a car before ever using one or taking any driving lessons ffs.

>>2807158
>I've shot a few images at 800 but my film specifies 200
those few shots are probably underexposed.
switch it to 200, and stay there for the rest of your film.
>pretty much everybody who uses them is recommended to shoot exclusively at 800
that just doesn't sound right. that depends on the film used, not the body.

>>2807174
>switch it to 200, and stay there for the rest of your film.
Thanks, will do.

>that just doesn't sound right. that depends on the film used, not the body.
They're digital cinema cameras, not SLRs. Sorry, completely different but it's what most of my experience is in. I bought the Praktica mainly because I want to start using M42 lenses for video.

>>2807182
>digital
you're in the wrong thread buddy.
'film camera' does not mean cameras to make films.
the video thread is over there >>2797550

>>2807184
Great contribution to the thread, well done.

File: kentmere100.jpg (298KB, 661x1000px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 661x1000px

>>2807079
That looks like average 35mm 400 speed grain to me. I wouldn't expect any miraculous decrease in grain from different developing techniques. Switch to a lower speed film or go to a larger format if this is unacceptable.

>>2807047
>>2807051
I don't even know how i managed that shot lol. I can't even figure out which way it was oriented. Must have been drunk. Yes it's Kentmere.

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

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

>>2807222
Well I can see from the awful light that your camera would have had to have been set to a tiny aperture and fast shutter speed, and from the bullshit angle that you probably just bumped the shutter by accident, and the camera settings gave you an exposure that worked.
What does it matter, it's delete in camera tier anyway?

>>2807227
Seems that it mattered enough for you to post a couple of sentences about it.

File: rsz_img_20160403_103454.jpg (86KB, 816x459px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 816x459px

Hey guys, I got myself 3 rolls of some expired Kodacolor VR Plus 200 that was stored in room temperature (Not in a fridge), can some one give some some tips about shooting expired, thanks.
Pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	BlackBerry
Camera Model	BlackBerry Z10
Camera Software	BlackBerry 10.3.2.2639
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:03 10:34:53
Exposure Time	1999/200000 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
ISO Speed Rating	68
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.21 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.04 mm
Comment	DCCver0077
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.0
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2807265
shoot as iso 100, enjoy generic colour film. If results after first roll are subpar, shoot at 50. One stop should work, though. You could always sacrifice the first three shots for bracketing and see what'll work best for the other 2 rolls.

>>2807273
Okay, thanks.

File: IMG_9068.jpg (115KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1200x800px

First roll of bulk loaded film.

>>2807519
I see.
I have my first bulk roll of HP5 sitting next to me right now, and some plastic garbage bulk loader from the 70s.
I'm a little intimidated by it, even though I know I shouldn't be afraid...
I mangle all of my real 35mm canisters with a can opener, so I've only got a handful of those plastic reloadable ones.

>>2807544
I don't even have a bulk loader, I just loaded it by hand in the bathroom.

>>2807547
>M A D M A N

>>2806898
No, you don't get any more range. You compress the range into a narrower band, but you don't get any additional range outside of that band. Also, you get fuzzy pictures.

File: pop12_f.jpg (60KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 480x360px

opinions on these cameras? i might get one soon, but i dont know if they get some unworkable quirks with age.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

is $100 a fair price for a pentax k1000?

>>2807547
Explain how. That's dope

>>2807678
If you're going to buy one find one you can inspect by hand, or have a camera broker inspect. They have a few quirks such as the rotary shutter, but for the most part they're not too much different to any other SLR. Get it CLA'd when you buy it and it should service you for years. Can't remember if they use a mercury battery but if they do you'll need an adapter

>>2807699
Does it come with a lens?

>>2807728
yea a 50mm f2

I've got a problem I didn't want to make an entire thread about. I literally just started shooting with film, like I just finished my first roll today. There's some place near me that develops film (not walmart or cvs or anything, it's a photography place) and my problem is that I have a picture of some pot on there, and a picture of a bowl. I'm pretty sure they have to like, check I don't have cp on there, so if they see that, are they going to report me or something? Thanks.

>>2807678
I think the biggest problem would be the raging boner you strike up whenever you look at the thing.
I fondled a few in Japan, but never found the body and lense combo I wanted at a price I was willing to pay.
>pen f + 42/1.2

>>2807742
They most likely will not care. Maybe let them know before hand. If you're really paranoid use a different name, but I doubt they're going to call the police on you for less than a gram of pot which you don't even have in your possession any more

also dude weed lmao

>>2807733
$100 isn't a bad price then. As long as it's in pretty good working condition then go for it. You might consider looking for cheaper members of the Pentax family? The P30 / P3 is an excellent camera, has an awesome meter, will take the same photos as the K1000. Only real, functional difference is that it doesn't have an ISO dial as it reads the ISO from the DX code. I got mine for $40 including a 50mm 1.7

>>2807754
cool i'll take a look into it. thanks.

>>2807742
Breh. You're a moron. How did you not think about this in advance?
Buy the chemicals from the shop and develop it yourself.

>>2807763
It's his first roll, and likely C41 which isn't that easy. The lab wont care, they've seen worse

Source: ex lab tech

>>2807764
I suppose there isn't a way to request to not have a specific picture developed, is there?

>>2807771
no

File: hugsd.jpg (23KB, 937x1184px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 937x1184px

So I saw a discussion last thread about the MOD54 spools for developing 4x5's. Has anyone tried the larger Jobo kits where the negatives slide onto something more like a traditional paterson spool? They caught my eye because they look to be gentler on the negative. Twice the price, though.

>>2807742
people send in nudes all the time your high schooler's first drug TM wont raise any bells

>>2807080
> not using a yellow filter

>>2807742
Out of curiosity - where do you live?

File: DSC03703.jpg (157KB, 889x889px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 889x889px

Shot on a Nikon F2; Expired FP4 Plus.Developed for 11 minutes in Ilfosol 3 at 20°.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

File: DSC03706.jpg (128KB, 889x889px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 889x889px

>>2807917

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1.jpg (1011KB, 664x993px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 664x993px

Found a few rolls of Fuji C200 in my parents' house. They're from the late 90's iirc. Shot at ISO 200 and I think they came out pretty good considering they were stored at room temperature.

Adjusted curves in Lightroom after DSLR scanning the negatives.

Also, has anyone got experience with the ColorPerfect plugin for Photoshop? It's 60$ iirc which doesn't sound excessive and seems to have a more reliable and straight-forward process than playing with curves.

[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	664
Image Height	993

>>2806876
what is the difference between film camera bodies where it comes to the look of the picture?
i know they have different features but if you have the same parameters set on both bodies, use the same lens, same film and take the same photo how will it be different depending on what body i use?

File: 1459769220953.jpg (310KB, 823x555px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 823x555px

>>2807918
And without the gimmicks, it's revealed to be: Nothing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	889
Image Height	889
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 10:58:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	823
Image Height	555

>>2807972
None. Your framing may differ if the viewfinder shows a different fov than the lens or if the groundglass coverage is smaller than the film frame's - this happens on many SLRs, i.e. Zenits.

Other than that, if you point two very different bodies with the same lens/lens mount in the same spot and set the same shutter speed/aperture and develop them at the same time or in the same process/chemicals/etc you'll get two identical photos.

All film camera bodies are glorified light-tight boxes with a shutter. The picture depends on the film you put in, solely.

>>2807978
that is exactly what i thought, thanks for confirmation anon

File: 1459769140436.jpg (358KB, 859x597px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 859x597px

>>2807917
Obvious life preserver subject ruined by framing and distracting elements. Actually interesting reflections ruined by all the extra shit in the frame (life preserver and tree)

Worry about your development and processing after learning what to point your camera at.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	889
Image Height	889
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 11:15:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	859
Image Height	597

File: d.jpg (113KB, 860x631px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 860x631px

why is there cum on my photos? what is this and what could have done this?
i suspect that the lens, it's my first roll with this body and lens, cosina ct-1 with kit 50mm f/2.0

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:04:04 17:28:09

>>2807999
Highly doubt it's the lens, looks like the emulsion got ripped off somehow, maybe the film got stuck together somehow?

>>2808004
the film is new, kodak color plus 200 expiry date in mid 2017, it can't be randomly ripped, the white spots make a pattern on most photos

>>2808020
Could be scraping in your camera, or in the development stage.

File: DSC04074.jpg (3MB, 4419x2946px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4419x2946px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4419
Image Height	2946
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:04 15:23:54
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	4.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC04083-1.jpg (3MB, 4082x2721px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4082x2721px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-6
Camera Software	RawTherapee
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4082
Image Height	2721
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:04 15:27:24
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 20156231.jpg (534KB, 1000x674px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1000x674px

Developed and scanned my first roll of film the other day and the results are...well meh

It seems very washed out desu. Could this have been because of the scan or because of the development process?

Film was Fujifim Superia 200

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 18:23:13
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-8.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 20156237.jpg (561KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 667x1000px

>>2808034

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 18:23:36
Exposure Time	8.5 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 20156225.jpg (742KB, 662x1000px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 662x1000px

>>2808037

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:03 22:39:34
Exposure Time	5.3 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-8.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 20156259.jpg (413KB, 1000x763px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1000x763px

>>2808042

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 18:24:53
Exposure Time	9 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2807911
Pennsylvania

File: tumblr_nq62ihpKp21u4df5qo1_1280.jpg (420KB, 1280x985px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x985px

>Olympus OM
>Nikon FE
>Pentax K1000
>Canon AE-1
>???

Which should I get? I know how to manual and want exclusively do that. No battery reliance preferred. Would prob use it exclusively with a 55mm. Don't wanna spend hundreds for the lens because leica.

Street photography. Aesthetics matter. :^)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPad
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:18 19:37:14
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	2.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash Function
Focal Length	4.28 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2808229


Leica M4-P

>>2808230
I'm poor familia.

>>2807678
great camera if you can find a clean one. go for the original f if you don't need a meter

File: climbs.jpg (827KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 996x1000px

>>2807959
Really tasty

>>2808034
Looks sligthly underexposed and unedited, otherwise what I'd expect from Superia. Try shooting it at 100 or 125 and it should look better.
The softness looks like a scanner issue.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:04 23:30:46

>>2808229
Canon FTB, all mechanical with a meter and the FD lenses are cheap, sharp and widely available

just found an old Canon A-1 with no battery door and drained battery, is buying the parts and a bunch of film worth it?

>>2808242
Thanks. The black one is gorgeous too.

>>2808229

pentax mx

File: resized.jpg (147KB, 999x662px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 999x662px

>>2808229
Seconding the canon

FD lenses are great and the ae-1 is really nice but also look at the a-1 and f-1

>>2808243
Worth. I absolutely love mine. The battery is nothing and the battery door you could probably find easily. Hell I'd send you one of my extras if you didn't mind it being from a broken ae-1

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-50
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:29 08:36:06
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>2808240
hmm I think I will just go for a flatbed scanner, might be too retarded for the whole DSLR scanner thing. Any recommendations?

>>2808229
Minolta SRT-101

File: climbs.jpg (911KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

911KB, 996x1000px

>>2808266
A flatbed scanner wouldn't do you much better I think.
Looking some more at your picture it seems like the scan is not that bad really and it may be your post processing that's lacking.
Why don't you post a raw file on http://wetransfer.com or something and let some of the people here have a go at it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 00:19:42

>>2808271
that would be really cool! I mostly just followed the steps in this guide http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/

Here's the RAW for >>2808034 this picture we(dot)tl/2E1NOBgTqn

>>2808232
>go for the original f if you don't need a meter

i need the auto for funshooting, the boring slow shooting is covered by medium format.

>>2808284

original f has a better, brighter viewfinder and metered f's are probably massively out of whack by now.

>>2808286

okay. i might get the original f then. maybe only for the wide angle lens.

File: invert.jpg (217KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1000x624px

>>2808274
Here's what I get. I didn't futz with sharpness or dust.

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

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

File: 20156229-Edit.jpg (150KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x664px

>>2808274
I would edit it something like this, even if it may be a bit blue for some people's taste.
The softness looks like it's due to camera shake, either on the original neg, or in the scanning camera.
The light looks uneven too, you can see the sprocket holes being bounced back over the picture part of the frame.
How are you lighting this?

>>2808294
that's pretty neat, mind giving a quick overview of the steps?
>>2808297
yeah, accidentally uploaded the wrong file which was a bit out of focus, but the general settings were all the same

Gonna post a picture tomorrow, since it's getting late, thanks though m8!

>>2808315
Briefly: Lightroom>VueScan>Lightroom

>>2808297
>I would edit it something like this
>uploads worst edit ever

stop giving any advice, thank you.

File: cat.jpg (285KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x667px

>>2808326
I will.
I was mostly trying to get rid of the soft look in OP picture, didn't bother too much with the colors, but I do think Superia looks better faded than with more pop.
Of course my æsthethic preferences rarely coinside with /p/'s, which is just as well I guess.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 01:14:54

>>2808267
There's one at my local goodwill for 70 dollars

should I buy it

>>2808348
WAY too much unless it has something like a 58/1.4 lens in front of it. You'd be WAY better off getting a minolta body off of KEH and get a 50/1.7 which is VERY good and VERY cheap. This way, when the camera doesn't work, you send it back to KEH and they send you one that works.

>>2808350
>58/1.4 lens in front of it

It does have that

>>2808351
If you're absolutely sure it's that lens then yeah pick it up. The lens is worth about $70 usd on it's own

>>2808351
What >>2808352 said.
And I apologize. Just looked at keh and they don't have squat in minolta manual bodies right now.

>>2808020
>it can't be randomly ripped
You're right, but it can be ripped going into the canister, being taken from the canister, being spooled onto a reel, or being stuck to something while still wet or drying.

In fact. It's not random at all!
>>2808229
I'd go for the Canon if it was my first camera
If it was a camera for me, I'd 100% go for the Contax, Rollei or the M4-P. I have a hard on for M4's but can't seem to find nice ones for cheap.

File: 07810027.jpg (3MB, 2048x3045px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x3045px

Hey /p/haggots,
I've been having this non-frequent problem on my camera.

Sometimes, the frame counter rolls back 5-7 frames, so say I'm on shot 13, after a day or so it rolls back to 8. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happened two-three times and it's annoying not knowing exactly how many shots I have. Do any of you guys know what the problem may be?
Camera body is a Sears KSX-1000, a copy of the Ricoh KR-5 Super.

Also, what film can you recommend that has warm tones? Something similar to pic related, which was Lomography's ISO 800 film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:12:23 00:29:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3045

File: OldStuff_03.jpg (548KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1200x801px

Dumping.

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

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

File: OldStuff_05.jpg (310KB, 801x1200px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 801x1200px

>>2808408

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

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

File: OldStuff_20.jpg (522KB, 801x1200px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 801x1200px

>>2808408

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

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

File: OldStuff_12.jpg (216KB, 1200x801px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1200x801px

>>2808408

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

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

File: OldStuff_17.jpg (584KB, 801x1200px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 801x1200px

>>2808408

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

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

File: RobCliff2.jpg (275KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 800x533px

The Canon FD system is so god damn killer.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1799
Image Height	1229
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 12:29:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	533

File: PeteBikeRides2.jpg (235KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 800x533px

>>2808440
My scanning skills are not.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1800
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	266 dpi
Vertical Resolution	266 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:05 12:37:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	533

File: Print 6.jpg (377KB, 1250x900px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1250x900px

contributing some film snap shits.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8240
Image Height	5840
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:05 01:27:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1250
Image Height	900

File: print 8.jpg (807KB, 1250x1759px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 1250x1759px

>>2808483

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5807
Image Height	8272
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:05 01:32:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1250
Image Height	1759

File: Print 9.jpg (583KB, 1250x902px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1250x902px

>>2808484

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8223
Image Height	5840
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:05 01:34:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1250
Image Height	902

>>2808440
>>2808442
These are pretty nice.

>>2808484
please tell me you don't knead that dough

File: Contact 3.jpg (779KB, 1586x1862px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 1586x1862px

Also, have a contact sheet. Don't whine, it's under 1mb.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9403
Image Height	11859
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:05 02:44:08
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1586
Image Height	1862

>>2808394
Sounds like a minor mechanical problem with the ratchet for the frame counter. If you took it to a camera service place they could fix it easily but it would probably be reasonably costly (i.e far more than that camera is worth).

Warm tone films: Ektar is my favorite, really accentuates reds and oranges. Most film will get a warm tone if you overexpose it slightly. I usually shoot Fujifilm C200 (Superia 200s shitty cousin) at 100 and it comes out wonderfully.

>>2808516
These look really nice. Is this a proper enlarger contact sheet or a scan?

Either way these are some nice photos

>>2808521
This is a scan of an actual contact sheet. Thanks for the compliment, I'm starting on the full size prints tomorrow probably.

>>2808496
not that its any of your bussiness, pal.

>>2808516
sweet contact sheet, i love things like this, 35mm contacts are always too fucking random or repetitive.

>>2808496
What a masochist, he kneads the dough, and she goes and eats the whole pie

File: image.png (592KB, 776x644px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 776x644px

I need your help guys.
I'm going to central Africa for a month or two this summer and I can't decide which film to take with me.

I usually shoot the Fuji Pro 400H and the Kodak TriX, the speed is perfect for my northern European weather, I'm afraid that it will be too sunny for that stuff in Africa.
Are my worries unfounded and the difference could be fixed by reducing the exposure time? Or should I start looking for alternative films? If yes, any suggestions?

>>2808575

id bring some iso 100 rated slide film. hp5 because its what i use. and if c41 is a must, some portra. 400h ive found it to be great for uncontrasty pale stuff, but lacking for actual colorful stuff.

>>2808575
Does your lens stop down to F22? Do you have an ND filter? If you answered 'yes' to either of these questions, you'll be fine

File: Contact small.jpg (268KB, 1200x946px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1200x946px

>>2808551
Thanks. I really love the contact sheet look so I always try to arrange things in a nice way, pic related.
>>2808575
In the realm of black and white, you can take your pic of any 100 speed film. Pair it with a yellow filter and you'll be set. If you really want to use tri-x, or any other faster film, get a red filter. Just don't take any portraits with it on, unless you want people to look like aliens. Or do what >>2808580 said and get an ND filter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5751
Image Height	7210
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	720 dpi
Vertical Resolution	720 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:03:14 00:06:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	946

>>2808578
I love the pastel look the 400H, I wasn't really able to recreate that with porta, but I'll look into it again and get some practice.
Totally forgot about the HP5, I even have some leftover rolls in my fridge, thanks!

>>2808580
I'd rather not stop down to F22 as I only shoot 35mm.
The ND filter is a great idea, buying one right away.

File: CHICO 1200PX.jpg (318KB, 1200x935px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x935px

>>2808604

400h has a very recognizable look indeed.

[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	4526
Image Height	3525
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	2015:10:27 01:51:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	935

>>2808604
Might as well get a proper ND filter set if you're going to be shooting landscapes. An adjustable one is invaluable when you need to reduce the dynamic range, especially if you're shooing slides

>>2808608
That looks pretty cool, any shots with flash?

What film would you guys recommend for me to shoot in my new AA35 half frame when I finish my test roll (of expired Vista 200 shot at 100)? I've mostly shot expired film on my other half frame (Agat 18K) so far because I mostly just use it for fun snapshots, but I want to try something different now that I have a "proper" one. Was thinking maybe Ektar, but slide could be cool too... and as I'll probably get about 80 shots on the roll, not too expensive per shot.

I want to try some color for now, but I'll switch to black and white later. Hoping I get that '71 New York look.

>>2808623
>any shots with flash?
nope, just shot one roll of that and it was all overcast daylight.

>recommend for me to shoot in my new AA35 half frame
first of all, i have to address tham im fucking made of jello right now. thats some sweet ass camera.

now, about recommendations, my rule for half frame shooting is to get the most fine grained film for color, and the coolest grain looking for b&w. that said, asa 100 slides work excellent, portra 160 would look superb too. i dont like ektar too much so i cant comment on that.

Need camera that has:
>meter
>manual control
>good looks
>cheap easily found lens
Pls repond

>>2808635
Is a Zenit 11 too basic for your needs?

>>2808635
>good looks
you need to grow up, first.

I'd recommend a Contax G2 but it depends what you consider "cheap".

>>2808635
>im lookin 4 a nice dildo
>>2808637
>ayyy bb, try this one with rusty spikes ;)

>>2808635
Based Pentax

>cheap
>cheap, good lenses
>you can use every Pentax lens ever made, bar 4 (if I remember correctly) which have internal aperture control
>the meter is based (mine tells me the exact shutter speed I need to be on for the aperture I have selected and the film speed I have
>built like tanks
>look great

literally what more do you want. mine was purchased in 1985, used by my mum up into the mid 2000s, passed down to my sister, passed down to me. In that time it has suffered some pretty bad abuse, and never missed a beat. Never been serviced, never babied and still works like the day it was made

>>2808637
The meter on it is shit tho.

>>2808639
500 ish bucks for body only is no one's idea of cheap

>>2808649
these are cameras, not chocolate bars or USB sticks

If you want a cheap camera get an FED 2 from ebay. £40. The lens *could* be sharp.

>>2808651
Mate you can get fully functioning big name film SLRs with a nifty fifty for $30 all day long. Unless you need one of the more advanced features that the Contax provides (not sure what that would be, exposure bracketing maybe?) then the SLR will do exactly the same job for $470 less, and will likely last far, far longer than the very electronic G2

>>2808635
Praktica MTL5B

>>2808655
Yeah that is a fair point; my apologies.

>>2808639
I'm not asking for an apple product here (I prefer Lenovo aesthetics anyway).
As for the price it seems you can get body and decent lens for less than $100.

>>2808637
Looks sexy. Will have to read up on the meter though.

>>2808640
;^)

>>2808643
Which model would you suggest?

>>2808696
I use a Pentax P30 / P3. I think I've already advocated for it earlier in the thread. Shutter speeds 1 second to 1/1000th, bulb mode. Meter reads from the center of the viewfinder, however it has meter lock so you can get it to meter for the shadows. I rarely 100% rely on my meter these days, but it's very accurate and pretty much foolproof for the beginner film user. Select your aperture, half press the shutter and the meter shows up on the left side of the viewfinder, highlighting which shutter speed you should select. If there is too much light, or too little light the speed will flash, and you adjust the aperture until the speed is not flashing. Pretty much takes any difficulty out of metering. Film and advance and rewind is traditional SLR style. Autowinders are available but you won't need one. The body is fully metal apart from the viewfinder eyepiece which is plastic. The film loading is made easier since it uses a 'sticky roller' system rather than a traditional uptake spool. So you pretty much pull the leader across and down the far edge of the sticky roller, close the back and the force of the back combined with the friction of the roller will allow the film to be advanced without checking if the uptake spool is taking the film. I always get 38/27 shots out of my rolls because of this. The camera has considerable heft to it. It's at least as heavy as my Nikon D5200 despite being quite a lot smaller. This is a good thing. The operation is very mechanical. The shutter clicks satisfyingly, the aperture ring has clicky stops and half clicky half stops. The advance lever ratchets, and the film door pops open with a nice mechanical sound. Par for the course with these sort of cameras. Again par for the course is the thunderous slapping mirror and curtain sound of the shutter. It is very loud. You won't press the shutter and think "I wonder if I took a photo then", since everyone in a 10 meter radius just heard you do it

>>2808713
2/2

As you might have guessed, this camera was aimed at the entry level market. This does not mean it takes poor photos, it just means it was designed with ease of use in mind. There is no ISO dial as it reads the DX code. If you want to push/pull film either make a custom DX code or just do the math in you head based on the metering. It also has an automatic mode if the lens you're using supports it. Turn the aperture dial to A and the camera takes over. I used this for my first roll, and it came out spotlessly. No autofocus though, you probably already know this. Comes with a good quality split prism focusing screen. Very accurate, very quick. Tip: when manually focusing keep the lens at infinity until you focus, as it's much easier and faster to back the ring off in one direction until it's in focus. With time you'll become very fast at this

The Pentax lens range is incredible, and you can get one of the many 50mm lenses made for the K mount for basically nothing. I use the 50mm Pentax-A SMC 1.7, but pretty much any lens with the Pentax name on it will be good.

Overall I would recommend this camera and system to someone new to film or someone who just wants a no bullshit camera. It'll hold your hand if you want it to, otherwise you're free to do what you want.

File: IMAG1243.jpg (2MB, 3264x1840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1840px

>>2808320
a bit less briefly maybe?
>>2808297
alright here's my setup

Basically It's a headlamp lighting an acrylic piece of white translucent plastic and the film is slid into the paper holder (wanted to get a proper 35mm holder but I can't seem to find them everywhere)

Camera I use to scan is a Fuji XE1 with an MD-FX adapter with a 50mm f/1.7 lens and a 2x macro teleconverter

File: IMAG1244.jpg (981KB, 1840x3264px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1840x3264px

>>2808720

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	HTC One X
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 16:54:53
Exposure Time	499/10000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	320
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	3.63 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	3264
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	0 EV
Sharpness	Soft

>>2808516
woah how short is she? She looks like a tiny person.

>>2808635
Need camera that has:
>crutch meter
>isn't a point and shoot
>makes me attractive to girls
>cheap lenses because I have no job

Sounds like you want just about any fucking SLR desu, pick one, choose what's important to you for shutter speeds and flash sync and take some fucking pictures.

>>2808765
Thanks for your contribution to the board.

>>2808635
I've always done well with my X370. They're cheap, solid, and reliable. Have to replace the seals sometimes, but that's not unique to them.

>>2808720
yikes, that's probably the worst scanning setup I've ever seen
>teleconverter
>shitty spot light source
>film is not flat at all
>shit lens
fix these ffs

>>2808773
>teleconverter
what's wrong with a teleconverter? Some people use extension tubes, are those better?
>shitty spot light source
but it gets dispersed with the acrylic, parts. Anything else I should use here?
>film is not flat at all
trying to fix that, but it's hard to find a 35mm film holder
>shit lens
?

>>2808773
>that's probably the worst scanning setup I've ever seen
You've not seen my scanning setup yet :^)
Mainly because I've not got room to set it up properly yet. Having issues with holding the negative at a reasonable place and diffusing the light.
>>2808779
I'd use an extension tube over a teleconverter. You're putting more glass in the way and IQ will fall.
>hard to find a 35mm film holder
Pick up one of the frames on ebay or amazon for the household 135 scanners.

>>2808779
>>teleconverter
>what's wrong with a teleconverter? Some people use extension tubes, are those better?
>>shitty spot light source
>but it gets dispersed with the acrylic, parts. Anything else I should use here?
>>film is not flat at all
>trying to fix that, but it's hard to find a 35mm film holder
>>shit lens
>?

drop the excuses you shit faggot.

>>2808720
>a bit less brief maybe?
I'll type something up later when I get home. Just wanted to make sure you were interested.

>>2808783
will try to get my hands on some extension tubes for the MD mount if I can sometimes

Something like this?

http://www.amazon.de/Ersatzteil-Epson-Holder-Slide-1423040/dp/B000JD3DKC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459875838&sr=8-1&keywords=35mm+film+holder
>>2808785
no need to start being rude m8, I was just asking some questions since I'm new to the whole film scanning film and I wanted to make sure that I'm understanding things correctly
>>2808790
thanks, appreciated!

>>2808793
Ye, similar to that. I bought one of these:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3-Pack-Additional-Negative-Holders-Scanner-USB-Digital-Color-Photo-Camera-Film-/281672103977?hash=item4194f73829:g:qH4AAOSwqu9VOkeM
Just cut/sanded down the frame guides so I could scan pano stuff.

File: image003.jpg (466KB, 836x1056px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 836x1056px

What do I get with one of those package-cameras like a Linhof Technika III or a Crown Graphic vs. a field camera? Is it just a little extra movements?

I'm looking at getting a Crown Graphic because of cost compared to proper field cameras, but I'm worried that I'm missing out on something important.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2089
Image Height	2639
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2808815
did you agitate that negative with a flailing cat, in its litterbox?

>>2808800
Alright will try to get one of those

Hopefully that and the extension tubes will help with the softness

>>2808815
I think that's what is it yes. Same deal, field cameras are just a little easier to carry around and sacrifice movement for it.

File: image004.jpg (557KB, 833x1052px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 833x1052px

>>2808853
Yeah I'm semi-regretting my monorail purchase. You have more freedom of movement than you could use unless you shell out for 8x10-appropriate lenses. Image circles on most 4x5 lenses aren't big enough to cover ridiculous tilts and swings. It was good and cheap at time of purchase, and it has left me yearning for more portability.

>>2808826
No, it's xray film. The emulsion is very very vulnerable. In the process of cutting them down to size from 8x10, you scratch them. They take on tiny cuts when you load them. Tray development cuts them to shit the most. I've found better results developing them taco style in drums, but I haven't scanned any of those ones yet.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2083
Image Height	2630
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: 15480024.jpg (3MB, 3045x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3045x2048px

>>2808520
I feel you, I think I'll get a quote anyways. The body was $20 on ebay and I'm happy with it other than that issue.

Yeah, I just got another Lomo 800 roll back and the tones are slightly bluer because I didn't overexpose it like it did the other one. I'll definitely check out ektar.

Pic related, my most recent roll of 800. Although some of them came out fairly warm, I was "metering" with my intuition rather than with an actual meter because just snapshits.

[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: 15480015.jpg (3MB, 3045x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3045x2048px

>>2808859
Here's a warmer one.

[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: 15480019 - Copy.jpg (199KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1000x672px

>>2808859
>>2808862
hm
Forgot to resize
Here's another from the same roll

The tones are bluer than I would've liked and there's some missed focus shots but my girlfriend seems to like them and I have a couple I do really like so I guess it's okay. They're just snapshits anyways.

[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: .jpg (99KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 600x800px

>>2808773
Rate mine :^)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ST21i
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	0
Focal Length	1.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	800

File: 1459880709724.jpg (808KB, 2148x2048px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 2148x2048px

>>2808859
This is minilab scanned. There isn't a chance in hell that the auto level algorithms are going to get color balance correct with those massive light leaks. The far left of the frame is orange and the software averaged that out and gave you blue green on the right. Here's what auto color does with the light leak subtracted. Not saying it's correct or as you would wish it, but it's closer to what the noritsu would have done with a properly functioning camera.

tl/dr: Fix your camera before playing hopscotch with different emulsions.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Noritsu Koki
Camera Model	QSS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3045
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:05 15:08:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2148
Image Height	2048

>>2808745
She's around 5'5 I think.

Is it a bad idea to start photography with a film camera ?
Considering the fact that you can't see your mistake right away and that it could be expensive to ruin dozen of rolls before understanding a bit the art of taking pictures.

>>2808914
Back in the days everyone learned that way and they didn't piss money away. You're not going to completely fuck things up most likely.

I have the choice between a Canon FTB, Canon AE1 and Pentax K1000. I haven't shot 35mm in years and want to get back into it. Which of these would you get and why?

>>2808916
I'd recommend either the ftb or ae1. Personally I really like the ae1 and fd lenses are very cheap and easily available

You can get the 50 1.4 ssc and 28 2.8 for very cheap

>>2808914
Bad idea? No, not bad. But worse than digital in literally every way. More expensive, harder to learn, slower, more sloppy, can't tell whether you fixed your issues or not, etc.

Once you've learned the basics of exposure, some people will tell you that shooting film helps to slow you down and think about your shots more, since each frame is expensive and you only have as many shots as you brought with you, but you can be just as mindful and slow with digital, all you have to do is force yourself. Tell yourself only one shot per intent, or use a small memory card, etc.

>>2808815
>>2808858
Awful photos.
Do you get 4 full sheets out of an 8x10 film?
Are you the guy who lives in a broom closet?

>>2808876
Post some pictures

>>2808941
I do. It's very frustrating to cut because 4x5's are actually slightly smaller. If you don't trim the edges of each, they won't fit into your holders. Right now I'm working out of some shitty community darkroom where their art-board-cutter thing is dull as a motherfucker and can't make straight cuts.

I used to live in something like a broom closet before I bought my monorail.

I got a filter to cut out the red light on my meter. The idea was to get more accurate readings that paralleled the orthochromatic sensitivity of the film. These photos are tests trying to nail down an approximate ISO.

>>2808890
Good to know. Thanks!

File: 2.jpg (657KB, 665x1000px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 665x1000px

>>2808958
I'm >>2807959. This is the first roll I have DSLR "scanned".

My main concern now is processing the negatives as I said on my previous post. I'd rather use a more straight forward process that doesn't involve playing with curves and hoping for everything to turn alright.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	665
Image Height	1000

File: stepone.jpg (115KB, 1595x774px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1595x774px

>>2809024
>>2808790
Ok, less brief info incoming. First off, when I do my own negatives, I use Capture One rather than Lightroom for the first step, but using your negative as an example, I have to use Lightroom because my C1 is Sony only.

Step 1, import raw to Lightroom, crop image, look at histogram and ensure no channels are clipped (important), export as full sized 16 bit tiff.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jane
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2808632
Haha, it's a funny camera. Feels like taking photos with a cassette walkman.

We have a bulk roll of Portra 160 loaded in the fridge, so I'll be shooting that for sure at some point. Think I'll try slides first, I think the store I go to has at least Provia and Precisa. Or there's one roll of Rollei CR200 in the fridge too, might try that.

>>2808914
Yes and no, I did it (though I shot a lot with my phone too and borrowed my gf's 7D a bunch). My issue was exactly that I so rarely saw my pictures, because I so rarely got film developed. I still have about 20 exposed rolls in the fridge. Scanning sucks and I hate it. Old cameras not working well also sucks. But it was fun to me and entry costs were low, and I was really just having fun anyway, and not seriously interested in photography.

File: steptwo1.jpg (315KB, 1904x981px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1904x981px

>>2809075
Step 2, import to VueScan. Click "default settings" in the "Color" tab, click "Auto Levels" in the "Color Balance" drop down, press preview. Pic related is the result. At this point there are many different ways you can go about things, and a lot of them involve a LOT of time practicing with VueScan and dealing with its quirky nature. We'll keep it simple on this walkthrough. Next up: White Balance.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jane
Image-Specific Properties: