/film/

File: OM20HP535.jpg (222KB, 1191x800px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1191x800px

>>2829206
And have a cat photo taken with OP cam and film.
The OM20 is a very nice camera for low light; the auto metering was perfect for the whole roll, shot in dim loungeroom at night lighting.
Reasonably slick shutter helps too, this was probably about 1/8 at f/1.8.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1191
Image Height	800

File: OM20HP525.jpg (225KB, 1207x800px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1207x800px

>>2829212
And again with this one. Even with the bright worklight in the frame, it didn't underexpose.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1207
Image Height	800

File: T3HP515.jpg (285KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1200x800px

>>2829217
Also, worth discussing.
Is /p/ black and white illiterate?
I knew that using a B&W shot as OP would probably hurt the thread, however I really prefer the idea of having the /fgt/ OP being a film shot, and I don't really shoot that much colour.
But it's my general observation that B&W OP threads sink like a rock on this board.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800

>>2829242
is that your print?
I rarely see good usage of the sabbatier effect, but this is pretty cool

>>2829263
Not a print, just manipulated the scan.
Works well with hard flash shots, particularly, because there are two distinct peaks in the histogram, for your subject and the background.
This isn't really one of the good ones from this set, but it's the only one of a random douche.

File: img168.jpg (538KB, 1080x945px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 1080x945px

Shot MF velvia for the first time on a borrowed Hassy SWC. I didn't spool the takeup reel correctly and got some creases and fucked up exposure but overall it was fun.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:01 20:34:59

File: img170.jpg (485KB, 1038x1080px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1038x1080px

>>2829301

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:01 20:35:01

File: img167.jpg (460KB, 1035x1080px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 1035x1080px

>>2829301

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:01 20:34:58

File: Velvia220001-16mini.jpg (393KB, 1181x800px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1181x800px

>>2829301
>>2829306
>>2829310
Wow, looks real bad.
There's a reason based god Rockwell tells us in his scriptures to always use a warming filter w/Velvia, mane.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment
Projection	Rectilinear (0)
FOV	9 x 6
Ev	13.26
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2829301
>>2829306
>>2829310
these are junk

and these people look like losers

Haven't shot any film in a while, but I just rerolled some 120 redscale on to 620 to use in my old 6x9 brownie later this week. Been a while since I've shot redscale I hope I don't fuck this up.

What's the best way to try out large format aside from pinhole boxes? Are there "mainstream" brands of cameras/lenses that gets the job done reliably but costs less because they dont have the cachet of a fancy name? Kinda like Pentacks vs Leica, respectively.

>>2829301
>>2829306
>>2829310
While these are not without there flaws, this:
>>2829324
is fucking vomit tier. Please tell me you aren't telling him his shots are bad and posting this shit to prove it....

What 35mm film stock do you recommend for hiking? Where do you get your colour film developed? The local place I get mine at do shitty scans so I stopped going there.

>>2829371
What does your local drug/wholesale store sell? Just about anything will do you good but if you're ordering film online for a bit extra then Velvia would be a good film to use.

Shot the RB67 for the first time today since my accident, previously the camera was too heavy for me to carry around but yesterday I was able to limp with it, if I can find the tripod head I can go back to carrying it like an LF setup mated to the tripod and carry the glass and film in its carry case I made a little while back. I fucked up big time I shot the roll for black and white with BW scenes with high contrast processing in mind and it had Ektar 100 in it so, should be interesting to see how it handles shitty midday overcast lighting

Felt good, one more step closer to walking normally.

File: lines (1 of 1)-16.jpg (285KB, 1000x690px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x690px

>>2829387
Pic was portra 400 scanned by them

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

>>2829398
That's honestly not too bad. When I'm just getting low-tier films processed like gold or superia I take them to Walmart and whoever does the processing for them do a subpar job at scanning as well. Do you gets prints and/or negatives back as well?

File: 20160406-_DSC6819-Edit.jpg (232KB, 1000x702px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1000x702px

>>2829406
I get both back. Ive tried my head at DSLR scanning before and I havnt gotten the hang of it yet. I'm going to be getting some Nikkor 50 3.5 macro soon but I'm using a bunch of macro filters.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:06 20:34:01
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	0.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2829398
No amount of high quality high resolution scanning will help a shit pic be less shit, anon, unless you chose the shot of an overcast bland rainy day for a reason. Do you meter your shots or use the camera's auto or priority modes, btw?

>>2829410
I think until then you should just keep using their scanning service for the sake of quality. I realize it's not the best now, but once you get a lens that is relatively sharp and has a near macro* focusing distance then your options are heavily limited.

File: lines (1 of 1)-17.jpg (240KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1000x667px

>>2829415
I know its a snapshit I was just testing my f100 to see if it worked. I had on aperture control.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

File: lines (1 of 1)-22.jpg (225KB, 487x800px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 487x800px

>>2829418
Its $25 for each scan and another 11 for prints. I saw that the darkroom had 11 a scan which isn't that bad. Here's some fucked up ektar. I shot it on some bullshit Yashica which ruined every photo except this one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

File: kNrQNJLnnaQ01jztkUQ0Z0DgLAB8F9Hw_R_yuDF69hc=.jpg (179KB, 1415x1024px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1415x1024px

>>2829419
I'm proud of this one, is it a snapshit? I like the colours

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1536
Image Height	1024
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	2016:01:01 17:05:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1415
Image Height	1024

Pretty noobish question here, but does the camera body make any difference at all to the final picture beyond shutter speed range?

>>2829514
>>2829514
the short answer is no. It makes no difference.

The long answer is, sort of. different cameras have different lens mounts. get one with a nice mount and you'll have access to better lenses. Get one with exposure modes and you might get shots that you could have missed with a manual camera. Use medium format and you can print bigger, etc, etc, etc.

Get a camera that works for you and gives you access to features you want/need.

File: xa-DSC_5199.jpg (32KB, 460x347px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 460x347px

just got a really sweet deal on one of these little cuties

cant wait to have a real quick tiny rangefinder that's still got a decent lens with me at all times

File: rsz_20160502_094207_richtonehdr.jpg (497KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1024x768px

sup /film/, since there's currently no designated weird redundant fuckery (LF) thread and this is the only one by definition related to silver halides, might as well ask here:

Have any of you ever dabbled in the whole collodion thing, or any of the other oldtimey processes, i.e. salt/albumen prints etc? I got a bunch of these and am looking for ideas to put'em to use.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-P605
Camera Software	P605XXUCNF2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:02 09:42:07
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Unknown

>>2829525
tfw my XA had an electronic failure in my second roll through it

File: 1424655873274.jpg (60KB, 488x525px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 488x525px

>>2829539
I'm so sorry anon

please dont let happen to me camera deity

>>2829522
Thanks wise brah

File: BZ9A3767-Edit 2.jpg (544KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1000x667px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:02 20:29:09
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	65.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2829522
>>2829514
If a body has issues with film flatness, light tightness or accuracy of frame spacing, your photos can definitely be negatively affected. Some cheaper cameras exhibited these problems straight out of the box.

Also, cameras that are notoriously unreliable can also hurt your photos. For example, if your frame advance lever suddenly stops engaging there's a good chance you're going to keep exposing the same frame and not get any photos at all (I've seen it happen).

If you're just getting started with film, decide which features you want and pick one of the following. Nikon F100 if you want auto-focus and exposure. Nikon FG if you want auto-exposure but manual focus. Nikon FM if you want manual everything. A lens like the Nikkor 50 1.8 AF-D will work on all of these cameras.

If you're looking for a film to get started with, try Portra 400. It can be shot anywhere between ISO 100 and 400 and developed as normal - or you can shoot it at 800 or 1600 and have it push-processed with decent results.

>>2829574
>recommending portra for the new guy
It's like you want him to lose as much money with beginner snapshits as possible.

File: 44.jpg (552KB, 999x662px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 999x662px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:05:02 13:37:45
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: 17.jpg (652KB, 662x998px) Image search: [Google]

652KB, 662x998px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:05:02 13:39:17
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Sup fgts.

Thinking about displaying some of my instax wide snapshits. Anyone got any ideas that aren't fucking Pinterest bait? Thinking of just buying some tiny frames...

>>2829626
I just put mine on the wall with blu-tack.

>>2829626
hang them from the ceiling on little bits of string

>>2829635

Ok Aunt Linda what about that DIY wood staining technique u said would go great with my armoire?

>>2829626
I put mine back in the cartridge they came out of and use them like a frame.

>>2829671
I'll stain your face with my wood technique, faggot

>>2829419
slide film is opposite of negative, you need to expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows...

but, your mistake somehow looks really cool

>>2829420
>$25 for each scan
holy shit, where do you live?
those scans are ever shittier than my local lab's mediocre scans, which are $8 for a roll.

are you sure they're the only option? are you in university?

>>2829690
Well, with slide, really, you want to expose for the scene as a whole. Yes, there is more shadow latitude than highlight, but there's still not much, and bringing up shadows will look like fuck. Low contrast scenes, carefully blown highlights, and excellent scans are important to have great looking slide film, generally.

>>2829674
come at me linda believe it or not ive wanted to fuck u up for a minute

File: 20160406-_DSC6809.jpg (169KB, 1000x643px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1000x643px

>>2829692
Rite aid in the us. I'm a high school student so I don't have that much choice. It ticks me off because I have to wait 2 weeks for one set and it comes on a shitty dvd. I've complained a ton and they won't do shit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:06 20:31:59
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: lines (1 of 1)-23.jpg (245KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1000x667px

>>2829690
I don't understand. This was shot on portra 160 which I shot for the shadows

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

>>2829424
looks like a Meyerowitz picture

>>2829371
For hiking, if you're hiking in green areas, Fuji Superia 400 works really well to bring those greens out. Maybe too well? Up to you.

Ultramax 400 is better if it's more rocky.

These are both film stocks you can get at your drug store.

I'm also the Lomo shill so I'll recommend Lomo CN 800. The grain isn't bad at all for 800 imo and the color is really warm, so if you're looking for warm colors then go with that. You'll have to buy that online.

I get mine developed by a minilab. Scans are alright.

File: cave-hill-p.jpg (207KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1000x662px

My first foray into film, yes I know it's godawful but I'm learning.
Shot with a Praktica BC1 with a 28mm on Agfa Vista 200 from poundland. Hadn't realized the lens hood would vignette hence the corners. Think I accidentally fucked the exposure a couple of times, this was shot a while ago.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 5.70.047 (101013)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1545
Image Height	1024

>>2829849
I like the colours

File: DSC01298.jpg (728KB, 1920x1271px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1920x1271px

Ilford fp4
Ilfosol S

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5098
Image Height	3374
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:02 19:56:10
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-19/640 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1271
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2829761
because that's a relatively low-contrast scene, compared to the other picture

you lose shadow detail faster than highlight detail in negative film because that's where there is less film striking, thus less image being developed. if your shadows are too dark, there is literally nothing there, so you can't bring back detail in post. but with the highlights, you have too much light striking the image, but there is still information on the negative. thus when printing or scanning you can burn-in the highlights and retain that detail.

on transparency film its the opposite, since the image is ''positive''. so you lose highlight detail slightly faster than you lose shadow detail. and in general transparency film has less latitude i.e. room for error when exposing, compared to negative film

>>2829877
>film striking
supposed to be ''light striking''

File: Dn3IzwOYg9j7xzrC6mVq_ycxe00hG7ZvBWxoM2Z0w8g=.jpg (188KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1000x665px

>>2829879
But I've only shot portra on all of my shots. I've tried to meter for the shadows anyway. Here's what I can get from my current scanning with a DSLR

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

>>2829895
you are allowed to adjust levels and add masks when scanning film you know

I purchased 3 Svema 120 colour 1980 expired films, can't wait to experiment with them :3

How were prints made before scanners? Wet prints?

>>2829943
How?

>>2829951
What do you mean how? You don't know how to use a levels tool?

>>2829949
light sensible paper + enlarger

>>2829953
How would you edit it then? I have a ton of trouble removing the tint to it.

>>2829963
Clean it before capture.
Adjust levels so that the image is no longer under exposed, at the very least.

>>2829854
It did work out strangely well for £1 a roll, I think dark damp greens come up really well with it and reds are nice and saturated, once I'm done my dissertation and have some time I'll hopefully shoot a roll out in some of Ireland's forests.

File: [babby intensifies].jpg (4KB, 184x153px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 184x153px

>>2829949
>rule #2

>>2829390
>Shot the RB67
>I fucked up big time
>Sugar !egyYvoBZV2
oh if you could see my look of surprise...

>>2829864
>he fell for the hyperfocal meme
Focus your lense mang...

>>2830035
its clearly motion blur on the man, you dingus
look at his leg

File: 11020021.jpg (1MB, 1423x786px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1423x786px

>>2829849
Editing jpegs because fuck everything. Tried not to adjust the colour too much with this one, really liking the exposure latitude you get with film.
Hard to beat those fancy Prakticar anti flare coatings right?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>Literally everybody on DPReviews hates film

>>2829569
What on earth made you think this would be good idea for a picture?

File: 2734-09.jpg (511KB, 1772x1772px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1772x1772px

My lab just bought a Fuji Frontier scanner (same as Indie Film Lab) - I actually still prefer the results from their Noritsu, though. Either way, I'm super satisfied with both.

Also, I'm going to the film capital of the world, on Friday. Life is good.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2079
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:24 10:53:48
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1772
Image Height	1772

>>2829774
yeah... no

File: whywhywhy.jpg (428KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1000x665px

>>2829895
>>2829951
>>2829963

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:02 19:52:10
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665

>>2830181
resize jesus
but that's really sharp and the colors are beautiful. specs on everything?

>>2830187
Hasselblad 501C w Carl Zeiss 80mm f2.8 CF T*. Portra 400 film at box speed. Dip and dunk processing, Noritsu scan.

I think when demonstrating the quality of a scan, a slightly larger file is fine. Also, the rule is 1000px on the longest side and/OR less than 1MB. The image I posted is just over half of 1MB in size.

>>2830195
I was kidding senpai I understood why you had it that big. It definitely shows off the quality.

Should've figured MF at that quality.

File: Japan184.jpg (818KB, 1160x1700px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 1160x1700px

>>2830187
>but that's really sharp
>>2830195
>quality of a scan
>>2830181
>getting sub-35mm IQ performance out of your trust fund Hasselblad

[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	2016:05:03 14:02:59
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	1160
Image Height	1700
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	Custom
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2830241
I get drum scans when needed (for printing). The scan I posted is perfect and economical for online use.

>>2830181
What is the film capital of the world anyways? I hope you don't mean Yodobashi in Osaka. See related /p/ thread. Presumably you're not talking about Kodak's defunct headquarters either.

File: 30VHP524.jpg (1MB, 1700x2456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1700x2456px

>>2830257
Sure thing honey.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1700
Image Height	2456

File: 30VHP529.jpg (2MB, 2567x1700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2567x1700px

>>2830275

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2567
Image Height	1700

>>2830241
>>2830275
>>2830281
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove, in posting these. A scanner that I've been looking at purchasing (2nd hand Flextight) produces images far more technically impressive than any you've posted. They don't even come close to drum scans, either.

>>2830273
Yes, I'm going to Japan. That thread surprised me. A friend of mine was coming back from Japan just as it was posted and he said just about every film was well stocked. There are 20+ Yodobashi stores, in Japan. I'd consider Tokyo to be the film capital of the world for a number of reasons, not limited to the fact that that's what a lot of other people have said.

>>2830303
>>2807093 is me. I've got a small collection of the various Superias in my fridge, and a little 400H/Provia/Velvia. I've not yet gotten through the Superias yet, probably won't until next winter. If you can find slightly expired older stocks, good on you.

>>2830304
I probably won't be buying any film, to be honest. I only really shoot Portra 400 and I just buy that in bulk from B&H. Still gonna visit Yodobashi, though - and I will be on the lookout for a few Hasselblad backs.

>>2830303
I was just having a go at your basic bitch lab scan by posting 35mm scans at the same res that are comparably detailed. And, you know, posting photos in the thread. They are some more from the snapshit roll I used to test out my crop-sensor 11-22mm on full frame.
>>2830310
I highly recommend Katsumido in Ginza for Hassy shooting trustfund babbys, and also Shinbashi-Ichi near the Shitamachi for stuff that isn't quite LNIB grade.

You have any of these drum scans to share, or are they mainly in your imagination?

>>2830310
>>2830331
Can you two fags have your penis sharpness measuring contest privately or some shit

>>2830332
Might I suggest Alt+F4, or perhaps Ctrl+Shift+T?

>>2830337
Might I suggest against acting like a child

>>2830332
somebody's jealous

>>2830181
Where do you send your film to devved+scanned? I use Hillvale in Melbourne but they're a little expensive and the last scans I got back from them had weird abnormalities which annoyed me a little

>>2830382
Isn't HIllvale only $5 for dev? That's pretty much as cheap as it gets.

I use to scan my negs in vuescan and than postprocess them in lr and ps.
The problema is that i turn the scans in positive flipping the curves in lr but than if I use any preset that touches the curves it will fuck up everything.
How do you turn your scans in positive before lr?

Do you guys use vsco "film look" preset on your film scans? Does it make any sense?

>>2830475
You could just invert it in Photoshop. Isn't that what the feature is for?

>>2830489
Photoshop opens it in camera raw

>>2830494
Do the inversion plain, and then export as a lossless tiff. Then do your work on the tiffs.

Just picked up a canoscan 8400f at goodwill for 2 dollars

We shitbed scanner now

File: 66650034.jpg (217KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1000x663px

Shot my first roll on my Yashica Electro 35 GTN. Majority of them were shit, here's a few keepers. Still trying to work out how to use it properly, haven't ever used a rangefinder before.

File: 66650008.jpg (440KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1000x663px

>>2830681

File: 66650003.jpg (546KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1000x663px

>>2830681
That's it. I was looking at a few blogs of people using the Yashica and their photos seem super crisp and clear and the colours are really vivid.

Is this due to the film I'm using? Or have they been developed scanned badly? Or edited in post?

File: untitled-1-21.jpg (193KB, 584x387px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 584x387px

>>2830698
Here's an example I'm talking about. It looks a lot sharper/crisper/vivid than my shots and there's little grain. Is this down to use a super fast film like ISO 25?

I was using Fuji Superia 200 for the shots above but they look quite grainy/washed out.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2830738
Better scanning
Probably a slide film with dye clouds rather than distinct grains
Down-sizing correctly
A good lens
A high detail film (not a relatively high ISO film like Superia 200)

>>2830748
What do you mean by down-sizing? It's a fixed lens camera so it's either the film/scanning I guess?

File: Image0480.jpg (67KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 400x533px

>>2830798
As in the shot you posted is 400px high.
My fucking brick Nokia makes crisp photos at that kind of resolution. Pic related.
The samples you posted are perfectly sharp except for the first one, and Superia 200 is an excellent colour film capable of plenty of resolution, the problem is just that lab scans are garbage.
That said, the 400px sample looks pretty much exactly the same as a lab scan, if you resize yours they'll probably look the same.
>your camera works great bitchboi, stop whining

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nokia
Camera Model	2730 classic
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: joel_meyerowitz_florida_1978_c_joel_meyerowitz_courtesy_howard_greenberg_gallery_2.jpg (235KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 720x720px

>>2830184
not from the quality, but from the aesthetics it could easily be a picture from the Cape Cod series

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Itek Colour Graphics Ltd
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	720
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:02:21 15:04:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	720

File: riley-1.jpg (311KB, 584x881px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 584x881px

>>2830816
Here's a slightly higher-res one which was shot wide open. It's probably the shit lab I guess?

My shots are fine but I'm just wondering how I can achieve the superior sharpness/contrast of these images. What colour film would recommend?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

File: Japan023.jpg (425KB, 1201x800px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1201x800px

>>2830831
Superia is fine.
Learn how to DSLR scan, learn how to process images. It's as simple as that.
Pic related is Superia 200, shot at 200.

[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	2016:05:04 09:09:40
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	1201
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	Custom
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

File: 20160503-_DSC7339.jpg (529KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1000x663px

1/3
I need help learning how to remove the blue cast.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1000 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:03 19:18:22
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 20160503-_DSC7350.jpg (326KB, 1000x671px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1000x671px

>>2830927
2/3
I like this one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1000 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:03 19:19:22
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 20160503-_DSC7332.jpg (145KB, 471x800px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 471x800px

>>2830928
3/3
All of this was shot on some Fuji xtra 400

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1000 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:03 19:18:54
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2830831
It's always the shit lab. They usually scan in at 2mp straight to jpeg, and only do the most basic autocorrect. Anything is better than those scanners.

File: Japan016.jpg (161KB, 581x800px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 581x800px

>>2830831
>>2830916
And here's a little nicer one.

[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	2016:05:04 10:20:03
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	581
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	Custom
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

File: 3.jpg (746KB, 706x2090px) Image search: [Google]

746KB, 706x2090px

Tried 6x17 for the very first time the other night. Large format lenses make low light photography impossible.

>>2830992
Gay uncle/10

File: 1.jpg (733KB, 703x2082px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 703x2082px

>>2830992
One more.

>>2830994
Is that bad, or really bad?

>>2830997
It has potential but it was wasted. I would've shot a huge vista

>>2831006
It was just an impromptu test.

As for vistas, an obscene amount of the work people make on panoramic cameras is vistas. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to take wide vistas- rather I believe that there's lots of potential for other applications. Part of why I bought the camera was out of a curiosity to try using it in portraits.

>>2831010
In that case it's not bad. You could do a hipster vista aka dude in the center of a vista.

File: gpa.jpg (590KB, 1132x1616px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1132x1616px

Shot a roll of Kentmere 400 @ 1600 tonight. I've read online that pushing this film doesn't yield great results but I don't think that's true.

>Development: 18 Minutes
>Fix: 6 Minutes

File: img238.jpg (2MB, 3300x2124px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3300x2124px

just took this photo tonight. really happy with my workflow, whoo! not so happy that the piece of tape holding the film strip to the reusable cassette broke off, and i ruined several frames opening my camera to see wtf was going on.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ArcSoft PhotoStudio
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:03 22:36:17

>>2831033
>I've read online that pushing this film doesn't yield great results but I don't think that's true.
it all depends on what you're looking for

your shadows are decimated, which some people dislike... I don't mind it in your case.
I can't comment much on the grain because the scan is pretty bad...

>>2831033
Pushing film ruins your shadow detail, as the other anon said. If that's what you want and it fits your style then that's fine, but it's not really ideal and it would be technically more correct to have a properly exposed negative with full detail so that you can then print it with as much or as little shadow detail as you want.

Also your negative is probably very thin. It looks like you scanned it fine, so I guess there's no harm in it, but if you wanted to make a print from a thin negative it would be harder to make a good print.

If all you want to do is scan your photos digitally then pushing probably isn't such a big deal, but it will give you technically inferior photos. Most people these days seem to like a lo-fi aesthetic with their film photos anyway so that's probably not a problem. If you were doing proper darkroom work with optical printing, then you would probably really try to avoid pushing because it makes negatives that are harder to work with.

>>2831056
>but if you wanted to make a print from a thin negative it would be harder to make a good print
can you explain why you say that?

>>2831058
When you push, you're underexposing your film and then overdeveloping to compensate. That gives you very high contrast with very little shadow detail, only the highlights will have any detail in them.

The negative will already be inherently high contrast, so you don't want to add any more high contrast filtering when you print it. But that means that you have very little margin of error to get the exposure just right so that you get deep black shadows while still having the right exposure for the highlights. If you go just a little over then your shadows will be a featureless dull grey instead of a featureless black, if you go under then your whole photo will be dark with dull muddy looking highlights. If the negative was properly exposed to begin with then it would be easy to just throw in a high contrast filter in the enlarger to get spot on deep blacks and bright whites.

With a scan it's easy to just get the exposure pretty close and then do curves after the fact to get the exposure just right and as good as you possibly can get from the shitty negative.

>>2831054
This was just a quick scan at 1200dpi to see how it came out. I also fucked up when saving it with photoshop.

File: image.png (231KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 640x1136px

I want to try and scan some film with my DSLR but I don't have any extension tubes. The best lens I've probably got is a 50 1.8 D. Is it worth buying decent tubes or will the cheap ones suffice?

These are £4 from China compared to the £100 you pay for genuine Nikon ones, why are they so cheap?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/ulk/itm/172137186287

>>2831105
More expensive ones have electric components to relay information from your lens to your camera. With these cheaper ones you can't adjust the focus/aperture and have to do it manually.

People make extension tubes out of toilet roll/Pringles boxes so I'm sure these will fine.

>>2831105
Just get a reversal ring. Works good for me.

>>2831105
The best lense you have is the real macro lense you're going to buy when you realise this fuckery gives you terrible results.

>>2831105
Kenko extension tubes should be cheaper but I find I manual focus most of the time anyway.

Consider this as well. I do a lot of mounted slides and, whilst not perfect, is much better than not having it
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37453-REG/Nikon_3213_ES_1_Slide_Copying_Adapter.html

File: 47c10afa0b5fca2f42e9fedd9cd7a5a3.jpg (36KB, 564x752px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 564x752px

Has anyone scanned film like pic related?

I have an old light box and my friends got a macro lens I could borrow. It seems like it would just give as good results as using a diffused flash no?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2013:08:11 21:56:56

I just got 7 rolls of colour AGFA film, 10 years expired. It is useful at all or is it garbage material?

>>2831208
go shoot a roll

>>2831200
Yes, the only potential would be the color of the bulb in the box. If it's not wide spectrum, or if it has a tint to it, it could affect your color balance. Do a custom white balance first, taking a photo of just the light box, and use that as a baseline, so it should take away any color cast. But if the bulbs inside are really old fluorescents, for example, they may have a stronger green cast, which would make your greens look a bit brighter, and reds look darker.

Should certainly be "good enough" though.

>>2831212
Okay thanks, I'd be shooting in Raw anyway so I guess I can colour correct it all later?

Hello /film/!
I've found myself in a situation where I want to take pictures but my DSLR is in a repair shop. I was thinking of using this as an opportunity to get into 35mm film, and I have some old M42 lenses. So essentially I'm thinking of picking up Praktica or some another M42 camera, and few rolls of film. What kinda film should a newbie use, colour negatives? What are your favourite films for street/architecture/landscape photography? Is there anything particular to know about getting older film camera, as long as the shutter and advancing the film works, right now I'm mainly eyeing Pentax Spotmatics and Praktica STL 2 (I'm picking an older camera, but in a store with good reputation so I'm not that worried about getting a lemon). I also take it that sunny 16 is good enough guideline for someone starting out with film?

File: 1.jpg (2MB, 2000x1887px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1887px

scanning medium format with my digicam and a macro lens, here's some examples

File: 4.jpg (2MB, 2000x1837px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1837px

film is fomapan 100 is rodinal btw

>>2831239
>>2831241
>>2831242
>>2831243
Nice medium format photographs of sticks, are you going to add them to your bundle?

>>2831245
at least I go out and take pictures you sad fuck

>>2831249
Sure, great, keep doing that, but maybe try finding a subject next time.

>>2831249
so do I, mate, but holding myself to the same standards I expect of others on /p/ I know when not to post literal garbage snapshits just because they were committed to film and personally developed. your gimmicky shallow bokehlicious mf dof is still applied to a literal bunch of sticks, bro, that's not my fault. but don't worry, one day you'll learn to differentiate the medium from the subject :^)

>>2831254
I actually do take good pictures, I just don't bother posting them in this shithole. stay buttmad

>>2831243
Honestly this is the only pleasant one and it is still a picture of nothing. That being said pictures of nothing can be great for interior design even if they don't make for museum pieces or book prints.

>>2831251
So a bunch of sticks doesn't qualify as a subject? What exactly makes a subject? A random girl in front of a sunset? Fuck off you pathetic piece of shit waste of space you fucking faggot.

>>2831258
Oh it's you.

A subject is something you're trying to communicate to your viewer, or something your viewer may find interest in.

But you're right, I should have been more clear, and said "maybe try finding a subject worth looking at next time, as literally everyone on this board has seen sticks before, and making it black and white an shooting it on film may make you feel special because it's "processed, and sort of spooky looking now you guys!" but to your viewer, it's just a whole lot of "muh insta art" on a photo of sticks.

>>2831257
Not everyone here wants to photograph shit for museums or book prints. There isn't such thing as "objectively good" photograph.

>>2831260
Nobody is talking about art here so I don't know what you're talking about. Photography is a tool that doesn't only pursue art.

>>2831254
>I know when not to post literal garbage snapshits

But that's like literally the only thing you post?

>>2831260
There's many great photos that have a boring subject or no subject at all

You can take a photograph that communicates with your viewer that has a cohesive message without an interesting subject as well

>>2831241
>>2831242
I quite like these two

Gives me a real 70's crime scene/true detective s1 vibe for some reason

>>2831267
I never said those standards are very high :^)

>>2831265
Nobody mentioned art, other than to point out that making something B&W and shooting on film doesn't create it. People are talking about photos worth looking at. When you take a photo, fine, it's for whatever you want. When you post a photo somewhere public, it's for viewing, and having people look at. When you post shitty photos of sticks, you're wasting people's time.

Drop the "I'm the best and I don't need advice or growth" act and accept that maybe next time you need to put a bit more thought and effort into your photography.

What are people's opinions of editing film photographs with software?

Is it cheating? Should film be kept pure and any editing done in the darkroom?

I crop/rotate and do some subtle curves for most of my photos and that's about it. Is it okay to start clone stamping stuff out and do heavy colour correction?

>>2831314
think of minimal editing / darkroom editing as a goal / exercise, not strict rules on yourself. in real life, edit what you like til you're happy with it m8

File: image.jpg (111KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x280px

>>2831314
This is the most expensive photograph in the world which was shot large format and heavily edited to remove buildings/people from the scene.

Edit to your hearts content m8.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1372
Image Height	768
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	2011:11:15 06:51:44
Color Space Information	Unknown
Image Width	500
Image Height	280
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2831314
If your photos can be improved through editing, edit them. This is universally true, unless you're shooting reportage.

The final product is literally all that matters. How you get there is meaningless.

File: image.png (2MB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1136x640px

>>2831324
This photograph really fucking annoys me. He spent so much time removing elements from the background but there's loads of white specks (rubbish?) on the grass which he didn't bother clone stamping out.

>>2831326
He's a master at retouching. If he left them there, he left them there for a reason. In this case, most likely to keep a sense of realism. When a scene is too perfect, your brain will flag it. But if you can see imperfections, you find it easier to accept it as a real scene.

File: DSC01325.jpg (482KB, 1920x1297px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 1920x1297px

Agfaphoto vista 200 (the £1 film) cross processed using BW developer.

came out OK I suppose

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:04 18:37:36
Exposure Time	0.6 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1297
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2831324
I wonder if all of this is bullshit, like could it have been sold to a group of investors then at a later date had their money refunded

>>2831275
Fair enough, but some people might enjoy sticks too.

So, since Superia 800 is discontinued, what's a good, cheap 800 film? The camera shop near me only carries Portra 800, but I want something more in the Superia price range that's still being produced.

>>2831424
Portra 800 is pretty much your only choice, you can still find expired Superia 800 and 1600 in a lot of places though. You can also extract the rolls from disposable cameras if they're available in your area. Fuji makes Venus 800 which I found quite impressive for its speed, but as far as I know it's only available in Japan. Just like Superia Premium, which I always try to bring home with me as much as I can afford.

>>2831340
Which developer/time/agitation did you use?

>>2831069
thanks, I've always heard people say that but never really realized why until now.

>>2831258
>you fucking faggot

Bold move from the guy who takes pictures of sticks.

>>2831430

Ilfosol 3, 12mins agitation, 1 every minute for 10 secs.

next time I'm going to develop longer or shoot the film at ISO 125 instead

>>2831340
Got me a few rolls of those at Poundworld myself. Do you think it's something a normal pharmacy developer could handle, or do I have to do it myself?

>>2831435

Yeah should be fine since in reality it's colour negative C41 process

>>2831208
it may be gold. I purchase expired films only, I love the artifacts and errors

>>2831424
Import Venus 800 from Japan?

>>2831433
wasn't even me but I think it's hilarious how misguided you guys are about subject matter. come back when you've learned to appreciate real artists like john gossage, robert adams or lewis baltz and not just pretty looking pictures of "interesting" subjects ya plebs.

File: john gossage.jpg (165KB, 804x640px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 804x640px

>>2831481
Please go into detail explaining why this is a good photo worthy of appreciation, and thought?

Be sure to be specific, and be sure that you don't accidentally explain why every terrible photo ever taken by anyone including google street view is actually a great photo.

>>2831490
>be sure that you don't accidentally explain why every terrible photo ever taken by anyone including google street view is actually a great photo.
I don't even know how to respond to such stupidity. do you even know what photography is?

>>2831493
So you can't do it then? Is that what you're saying?

>>2831490
stop posting already

>>2831241
>>2831242
These are very low contrast and glowy around the highlights. Did you use a Slavshit lense, or is it primarily the fault of the Slavshit film?
>please guys, even though the comments in the OPs of the /fgt/ are phrased as a joke, they're still tru

>>2831242 could actually be nice if you used some layer masks or something to control the highlights a bit better, cropped to fix your comp, and applied some heavy dodging/burning/vignetting

>>2831498
Why? It's a direct challenge to a very clear statement. Why would it be unacceptable to ask someone to explain the merits of something they just claimed had merits?

>>2831494
why the fuck should I go through the trouble of explaining something when you're too fucking lazy to even use your brain, or god forbid use google instead. there's plenty of well written literature on gossage on the internet. if you were actually curious and not being a defiant contrarian faggot, you'd of learned something already

>>2831504
Because I'm not challenging him, I'm challenging you. I think you're spouting bullshit you read in a book, without actually knowing anything.

So, explain it, personally, you. Or fucking leave.

>>2831499
>very low contrast and glowy around the highlights.
old lens, old type film and overcast day, I like the look though

>>2831506
you're pathetic

>>2831507
>you're pathetic
Said the guy that can't even explain the qualities of a single photo from a photographer he specifically suggested as being good.

Sorry to expose you for the fraud you are.

>>2831508
>>2831506
just stop posting

this thread has reached its autism quota

>>2831537
Still nothing huh? Wow. It's been a while I thought maybe you'd have something by now.

File: Film 1.jpg (470KB, 800x580px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 800x580px

I started shooting film with a Nikkormat FT-2. I like the result, however a similar defect occurs on several photos. I think it may be related to a weak/loose back hinge. Does anyone know what may cause this?

File: Film 2.jpg (550KB, 745x1000px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 745x1000px

>>2831542
Another sample.

>>2831543
>>2831542
You are probably correct.
The easiest way to fix this is to break open a used film canister, peel off one of the strips of felt, and glue it into the camera at the place where the old seals are degraded.
Make sure you clean off all of the old residue in the camera before trying to glue it though.

>>2831440
Good to hear, I've heard some horror stories about some of these cheap rolls not developing properly, and if there was some secret to them that you'd figured out. It's certainly weird seeing film this cheap on the high street when Boots are still hawking Kodak rolls for nearly £10 a pop next door.

>>2831481
Calm your teets anon, it was a joke. A pile of sticks is formally referred to as a faggot.

>>2831555
Thanks. I'll try it out.

>>2830181
hey what I follow you on Instagram and you follow me, /p/ fag

File: img177.jpg (231KB, 687x1080px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 687x1080px

made a 3d printed part to use 35mm in a TLR

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:04 19:19:42

>>2831779
film was kinda bowy in the scanner though. I would have used the dedicated 35mm but then I wouldn't get the sprocket holes. I'll try stretching it next time.

File: img174.jpg (253KB, 674x1080px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 674x1080px

>>2831779

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:04 19:19:41

File: img176.jpg (351KB, 684x1080px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 684x1080px

>>2831781

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:05:04 19:19:41

>>2831490
Honestly I think this is one of his weakest and just gets a pass because it's part of the theme of a bigger magnum opus. Would walk straight past it in a museum of flip over it in a book. This statement is unrelated to the guy taking pictures of sticks and not meant as a critique or endorsement.

>>2831574
I got a couple of rolls developed recently, cliche tier snapshit with awful quality scans, but used right I think it could be a very nice film.
>>2829849
>>2830080
Both shot on poundland film. Anyone tried Caffenol-C development with it?

what camera would you guys use more of these 3 and why
>contax g2 45mm f2 cz
>contax rts 50mm f1,4 c/y
>leica r4 50mm f2 summicron

>>2831944
imo g2
>much better lens
>smaller
>much better built
>autofocus
>rangefinder type body, quick to handle and quiet

unless you'd rather have a manual experience, with manual focus and settings, it's a much better experience

File: xp2_068.jpg (1MB, 1166x1872px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1166x1872px

>>2831947
the g2 is actually my main film camera...but iam not sure if maybe the leica or contax might get better results...as in softer grains + sharpness

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4080
Image Height	6553
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	100 dpi
Vertical Resolution	100 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:28 02:46:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1166
Image Height	1872

>>2831791
That was pretty much the point. Any time someone says "look at this great artist who takes photos with no subject at all, his stuff is considered good and important by books and professors, so you don't know what you're talking about" the person saying it is just not understanding why the photos they're talking about are considered good.

The photos that truly have nothing interesting or visually appealing are generally part of a larger set of images with a very clear subject, overall, and aren't meant to be looked at individually. And the set is usually standing next to a huge body of text explaining why it's important and interesting. When you go to a nice restaurant, you expect that the main dish comes with some garnish that you're not really supposed to eat or think about, it's just there to dress the plate. These photos are like that. They work for the total body of photos, but if you were to be handed a plate with nothing but the garnish on it, you'd be very confused and unhappy with your $100 bill.

That, or the photos used to hold interest, back when they were relevant, but aren't anymore in the context of 2016, since the social factors that made them important are no longer present.

If you're taking a photo today, and presenting it as one photo, or a couple of photos, there needs to be something for the viewer to care about in the set. Either in the photos themselves, or in the text along side the photos, giving us a way into the images.

A confused art student who's not paying attention in class will argue that celebrating the mundane is a worthy endeavor, but even the artists they'll cite to support the concept will disagree with them (or at least suggest that you can absolutely celebrate the mundane while also employing interesting composition and good light, etc)

>>2831927
I shot expired agfa c41 200iso film with caffenol (std recipie) - most metered shots came underexposed - dev'd 12mins. Either overexpose 1~2 stops to be on the safe side or overdevelop, it's very thin as-is.

>>2831952
>as in softer grains + sharpness
huh? the grain is a function of the film stock and development. and for sharpness most people agree that the contax lenses are as sharp as you can get in 35mm.

>>2831944
I would probably pick the Leica, in the hope that it had a nicer feeling shutter than the RTS. They just feel like clattery old SLRs.
Any good Nikon or Canon dominates them.
>>2831947
>g2
>>much better built
Sure m8, a camera full of angry insect-sounding 90's micromotors that can't be manually focused ftw.
>>2831952
This doesn't even look like film. It looks fucking awful.
Regarding sharpness though, the G2 would almost certainly be the sharpest combo. The Zeiss has the nicest bokeh, the Leica is a famously underperforming fast 50.

>>2832177
>This doesn't even look like film. It looks fucking awful.
it was a long time expired xp2...surprisingly this was the only one that had no black dots all over the image...

>contax g2
i like its sounds but the only thing that bothers me is small VF and yeah no real MF

>leica underperforming fast 50
sorry i don't understand this, what do you mean by that ?

another question would be
should i adapt one of these lenses, except the g2 on my fuji x-pro1 since the adapters are cheap and i don't use the film cameras that much
i have the xf 35mm 1,4 and 18mm f2 fuji lenses

also thx for the feedback

File: building.jpg (786KB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 3072x2048px

Disposable snaps until the real deal stuff comes back in.

By the way, would one of those Ilford disposables be a fun camera to use by chance?

File: snickeringatthelaw.jpg (834KB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 3072x2048px

>>2832314
pls flip the right way

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top

>>2832316
damn

>>2832314
>>2832316
Not bad though.
In my experience, simple graphical compositions work great with disposables.