[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

/film/

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 351
Thread images: 83

File: DP1M0241.jpg (645KB, 1056x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DP1M0241.jpg
645KB, 1056x800px
Film General Thread, aka FGT.
>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you shoot respooled dupe film
This is the thread for all of your stupid film questions, and to post your film snapshits without flushing them down the RPToilet.
It's OK to ask about film gear in this thread.

Your illustrious OP bought pic related yesterday, and is thus one step closer to patrician LF /p/aradise. As is customary, once I'm there I will no longer be able to communicate with mortals by posting photos, but to help with my ascendance I'd love some advice from other LF illuminati on the board in choosing a camera and associated paraphenalia.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSIGMA
Camera ModelSIGMA DP1 Merrill
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Focal Length Range19
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution180 dpi
Vertical Resolution180 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 12:46:10
Exposure Time2 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length19.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1056
Image Height800
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Unique Image ID3030333132323837F8C0184F34324337
Drive Mode2S
ResolutionHI
Autofocus ModeMF
Focus SettingMF
Exposure ModeA
Metering ModeA
Exposure5/-16384
Contrast-1.2
Shadow-1.3
Highlight-1.1
Saturation0.9
Sharpness1.0
Fill Light1.0
Color Adjustment12601/1296517459
Adjustment Mode0.2752
>>
Wow, LF film ready to be wasted in your camera tests. Exciting!
>>
>>2856933
Where did this whole camera testing thing you go on with come from?
>Here's some 220 Velvia I wasted trying to test it's response to some nice afternoon sunlight on an empty couch. The dev failed, presumably because the chemicals were exhausted, so gave my very weird half neg/half pos images.
>>
Where do y'all get your film developed? I'm doing a photography project that'll try to capture the essence of summer, so I'll be shooting portra and some fujishit
>>
>>2856950
>photography project that'll try to capture the essence of summer

so, self portraits?
>>
>>2856951
It's more trying to capture the vibe of the dog days of summer and the feeling of infinity. Plus I'm kinda giving away all of my camera stuff except for my olympus om-1 and make the move to Sony a7 or d700.
>>
>>2856948
>>2856933
It was a little disappointing, because the rest of the roll was stuff I actually wanted to turn out.
This is was the scans look like in colour, with a massive amount of red taken out.
Only photos that had massively overexposed sections of sky in them came out looking normal (as in brightly coloured, positive, transparent).
>>
>>2856950
the place i go to in SF does mail-in, it's $7 a roll but they're a professional quality lab that won't fuck it up.
>>
>>2856964
It must suck to have nothing but your lack of talent to blame for your awful photos.
>>
How many stops above metered grey can Velvia 69 go before it clips?
>>
>>2856951
Topest of keks
>>
Just bought some rolls of Fuji 400h, what should i expect?
>>
>>2857050
>>2857050
3 stops would be pure white without detail.
>>
>>2856951
oh snap
>>
File: crrt.jpg (428KB, 800x1021px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
crrt.jpg
428KB, 800x1021px
>>2857070

unsaturated and delicate fuji palette. pretty comfy emulsion.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelGT-X770
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7690
Image Height3557
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1600 dpi
Vertical Resolution1600 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:06:06 03:39:22
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height1021
>>
>>2857078

good, good. must use it wisely
>>
I have an Olympus OM-1 and I prefer to have a working meter with it. I can't find any mercury batteries anymore and the lr44 adapter for it cost almost the same as the camera body itself.

Should I just sell the camera and get an OM-2 or a Nikon FE?

I'm tired of using my phone as a meter. Are there battery alternatives?
>>
File: pinhole_05.jpg (293KB, 652x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pinhole_05.jpg
293KB, 652x1000px
>>2856926
I like my Linhof Technika, but haven't really used any other LF cams. It's nice that it's so (relatively) portable and it seems very sturdy. Speed graphics seem nice too, but lack back movements, which may or may not be important to you.

The Stupid question thread is ded, so I'll ask here if anyone knows what Kevin Barnes means when he sings «domino» in Women's Studies Victims
«I check my shutter speed, my aperture, my domino
Can't focus, can't stop staring at the face I used to know».

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 12:43:37
>>
File: EBuntzenLake.jpg (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
EBuntzenLake.jpg
1MB, 1000x1000px
>>2857078
It's a cooler toned film. Mine always seems to have an overall bluish/purple tint to it especially if shot in shady or overcast conditions.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5289
Image Height5281
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2012:11:17 18:21:40
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height1000
>>
>>2857186
Just use a 1.5v battery and align the needle on the plus mark instead of the middle. At least that's how I use mine and my exposures are fine.

Or I think you can use hearing aid batteries with some filler in the battery cavity.
>>
>>2857220
>seems to have an overall bluish/purple tint to it especially if shot in shady or overcast conditions
retard alert
>>
File: ChurchRockwoodRes.jpg (287KB, 800x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ChurchRockwoodRes.jpg
287KB, 800x800px
>>2857241
Enlighten me. Compared to Portra, which remains quite neutral, 400H definitely goes towards the cooler side in my experience. There's a noticeable overall hue difference when looking at the negatives on a light table side by side, with 400H going cooler/magenta.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width800
Image Height800
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution416 dpi
Vertical Resolution416 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 22:12:06
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width800
Image Height800
>>
File: BirdMotion.jpg (844KB, 800x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
BirdMotion.jpg
844KB, 800x800px
>>2857253
All 3 of my examples were taken years apart with different stock and scanned with different scanners yet they all have the similar coolness to them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2491
Image Height2500
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:06:06 22:15:37
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width800
Image Height800
>>
>>2857232
>Just use a 1.5v battery and align the needle on the plus mark instead of the middle.

Won't using a higher voltage battery like the 1.5v LR44 damage the electronics of my camera?

>Or I think you can use hearing aid batteries with some filler in the battery cavity.

Any idea how I can make a filler or where I can acquire such?
>>
>>2857275
The difference in voltage isn't enough to do anything to the electronics, it will just throw the readings off somewhat.
>>
>>2856951
sheeeiiit
>>
>>2857220
>>2857254
>>2857253

400H is no T film, its pale, neutral and "airy", it shouldnt have that strong blue cast. if anything, fuji tends toward greens. youre doing something wrong.
>>
Anyone here got experience with Minox 35 cameras?

Just got a GL for €1. I knew they often have shutter problems but I figured I'd take the risk for that price (and if it's completely broken I can always take out the sweet lens and adapt it).
I put in 4 SR44 batteries, which is a bit higher voltage than the old mercury ones but is supposed to work. The strange thing is that the meter seems to respond correctly, but when I press the battery test button the needle instantly goes to and stays at the bottom. Is this normal behaviour?
More importantly the shutter doesn't close after firing for some reason. I looked at the shutter mechanism and everything seems to be fine so I think it might be related to the above problem.
>>
>>2857382
Fixed it.
After endless messing around with the shutter mechanism (and nearly breaking it) I finally found out that a small tab in the hotshoe wasn't in the right position.
>>
Please post your film scanning setups, trying to find one that works
>>
File: Film look 4.jpg (2MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Film look 4.jpg
2MB, 3504x2336px
>>2856926
Pretty proud of this one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 30D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographerunknown
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3504
Image Height2336
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:05:20 19:40:09
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/9.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length46.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3504
Image Height2336
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2857451

i use an old v500. works pretty ok for everything.
>>
>>2857490
jfc take care of your negatives
>>
>>2857499
no
>>
>>2857499
he's probably doing it on purpose for A E S T H E T I C S
>>
>>2857496
Post sample scan pl0x
>>
File: Film look 2.jpg (2MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Film look 2.jpg
2MB, 3504x2336px
>>2857505
This is correct.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 30D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographerunknown
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3504
Image Height2336
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:05:20 19:28:00
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/9.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/9.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce
Focal Length46.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3504
Image Height2336
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: copia.jpg (928KB, 1000x987px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
copia.jpg
928KB, 1000x987px
>>2857506

this >>2857078

pic related is v500 too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEPSON
Camera ModelGT-X770
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width7376
Image Height7234
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution3200 dpi
Image Created2015:01:04 23:41:12
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height987
>>
Can anyone recommend a film processing/scanning postal service in the UK?
>>
>>2857507
>>2857505
so basically a hipster who shoots garbage but needs validation for using film, got it

kill yourself my man
>>
>>2857519
http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/cont/E6film.php
decent prices, quick turnaround (post monday, get it back thurs usually).
>>
>>2857554
Pretty expensive, £5 for developing, £5 for low res scans and £3.50 delivery.

£13.50 a roll

Sigh, I might invest in digital
>>
>>2857509
MF?
>>
>>2857559

pentacon six + ruski 45mm
160vc iirc
>>
>>2857563
I see. I might start shooting MF sometimes myself, but for now I'm looking for something to scan my 35mm film with. Have you ever tried it with your V500?
>>
>>2857532
haha, jokes on you, it's not film, it's a fucking edit you moron.
>>
>>2857568
Yeh, its fucking abysmal
>>
>>2857451
For 35mm i use a plustek 7400 and an Epson v550 for medium format.

Pic related is 35mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:07:12 17:02:57
>>
Pic related is medium format scanned with v550.
>>
File: IMG_4.jpg (1MB, 2000x1658px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_4.jpg
1MB, 2000x1658px
>>2857610
Shot from an SQ-A sanned with a V500 and holders from BetterScanning.com

(I didn't notice a jump in image quality, but I did prefer working with the new holder, since the included Epson ones feel like crap)
>>
>>2857613
do you develop your own?
>>
>>2857605
Thanks my dude.
>>
>>2857615
I do. Tri-X in XTol, no dilution.
>>
>>2857617
I was thinking about it, I'm not sure I could be bothered with the effort.
>>
>>2857613
Thats a nice scan.
Yeah I second that, the filmholders feel totally flimsy and the film never lays completely flat in them.
I actually thought about getting the betterscanning holder too, but I'm not 100% sure I want to keep the epson.
I'm kinda lusting for a Plustek120.

Oh and the Plustek7400 scan was Ilford FP4 in a Pentax Me Super with the 50mm f1.7. The V500 pic was shot with a Bronica S2 with the 75mm Nikkor.

Pic related is Portra400 in a Yashica Mat124.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:10:20 14:00:56
>>
>>2857618
For black and white, it really can be quite a cost savings. It's a little annoying, but really doesn't take THAT long. For me, developing was more fun and more emotionally rewarding than scanning. It's certainly not difficult though.

Color film, I never got into. With B&W you can make little changes that will make positive affects on the result, but with C-41, you either do it perfectly right and it looks right, or you mess it up and it looks worse.
>>
>>2857620
Lately I've been shotting film exclusively, but I'm starting to think in the long term getting it developed and scanned will be too costly.

To be honest, I think I'll keep my film camera and just use it for special occasions. In the meantime, I might buy a portable digital, the ricoh gr for example.
>>
>>2857622
shooting*
>>
>>2857619
>Thats a nice scan.
Thanks. Everything sort of came together on that one, and it's what I think is my sharpest most detailed scan I have. Most others are far more mushy. I could never really nail down where my issues were coming from before more or less giving up on shooting film in general. I think it was a mix of camera technique and scanner poopiness.
>>
>>2857622
>but I'm starting to think in the long term getting it developed and scanned will be too costly.
Yeah, when I started off, I was having a lab do it all for me, and a single roll of TriX was costing me close to $20, start to finish. On medium format, that was close to two dollars per photo, and I was out shooting at least two rolls a week. It was adding up. I got my own chemicals, and a scanner, which got me my results faster, got me more consistent results, and cut my costs down by about 65%, but it's still giving up time and a bit of storage space. I don't regret doing it, but I also STOPPED doing it, so...
>>
>>2857607
looks pretty okay, good enough for 4chan posting certainly. Seems like the Plustek7400 is sold out on Amazon though, would the 8100 do a similar job?
>>
>>2857626
Although how would we ever know without trying?

I think combining a mixture of digital and film will be a happy medium, hopefully
>>
>>2857627
Absolutely,its basically the same scanner sold with different software.

Another Plustek7400 scan.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7400
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2014:12:10 23:24:41
>>
>>2857613
I do like that nice crispy detail on the bark in the middle.
Is that more a sharpening in post effect, or a Tri-X in X-Tol effect, or a taking photos in good light effect?
>inb4 all 3
>>
>>2857197
Yeah, I fiddled with a Technika IV and a Crown Graphic at the camera fair where i bought all the film, but they all wanted collector's rates for them, and nothing was what I would call *mint*.
I will say though, that for an old machine that hadn't been kept in pristine condition, the Linhof still felt like a fine precision instrument.
At the moment though, I think I'm leaning towards a Tachihara.
>so pretty
Although I'm not sure you can fold them away with a lense attached, which would be a PITA.
>>
File: focusbench.jpg (324KB, 1000x685px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
focusbench.jpg
324KB, 1000x685px
How'd I do

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelOfficejet 4500 G510n-z
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2532
Image Height3490
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 16:35:59
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height685
>>
>>2857642

Directional light to cast good shadows, camera on a tripod at f/5.6 or so with mirror lock-up and a cable release.
TriX in XTol without dilution, and then down-sampled fairly cleverly to maximize detail. I down-sample in increments of about 15% from full resolution down to around 1500 pixels doing light sharpening at each stop.
>>
What's the cheapest place to buy Ektar and Velvia in 120 (or 220) in Jakarta?
>>
File: image.jpg (814KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
814KB, 2448x2448px
Hello everyone, spent a good bit of time in the darkroom today, printed up 8x10s of everything from the most recent rolls, and a few 11x14's, pic related. Tri-X in XTOL with a number 3 contrast filter is the magic combo honestly.

Thread coming soon for my series, sorry for the size/quality, posting from my phone.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2448
Image Height2448
>>
>>2857668

looks pretty fucking good.
>>
File: 23.jpg (886KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
23.jpg
886KB, 3000x2000px
Went for a grittier, contrast-ier look with this one. Is it too much?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 21:08:49
>>
Is a fuji gw690 a bad idea or am I missing something
>>
>>2857718
I think it looks noice
>>
>>2857726
Depends on what you use it for. Most regard it as having a very sharp lens. 6x9 is a pretty cool format, plus it's a rangefinder. No meter though, so use a handheld or just guess. It would probabakt be really cool with slides for landscapes.
>>
>>2857732
Would mostly use it for landscapes and lots of city stuff

Bummer it has no meter especially since I'd love to use it for a lot of night stuff

Anyone know a good 6x9 that has a meter that's not too expensive?
>>
>>2857737
Do you have a dslr? You could just use it to meter. Or buy a handheld meter on ebay for like $10
>>
>>2857738
Yeah I have a dslr that's a good point

Is there anything different as far as exposure goes with 6x9?
>>
>>2857741
I wouldn't think so. If ISO is set correctly on your DSLR it should work fine. You can even look at your histogram on there to get more accurate readings.

This guy had only ever shot digital and he rented a Hassy and used his DSLR to meter. Got some good looking shots.
https://fstoppers.com/editorial/dslr-shooters-guide-medium-format-film-50387
>>
>>2857741
Yes! If you focus closely, you'll lose stops of exposure. If you stay further than one foot it shouldn't matter. Also it's worth a test to see your lens' T-stop, but otherwise I would increase exposure by 1/3 stop for negative (but probably not for slide.) (And I doubt the Fuji lens has bad transmission)

So if you can keep an eye on those things, exposure should be easy.
>>
>>2857742
>>2857743
Thanks a bunch. I think I'll definitely stick with they fuji since they're very cheap and seem to be fantastic

It's not even that expensive to shoot portra 160 120 but I'd definitely like to get some nice slide film through it once I've got the hang of it
>>
>>2857748
Light Meter Free+ app is killer for your smart phone.
>>
>>2857317
I'm not saying it has a strong blue cast, just that when put side by side to Portra it is cooler looking. Nowhere near T film blue though.
>>
File: scan copy.jpg (264KB, 1000x702px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
scan copy.jpg
264KB, 1000x702px
I scanned this physical print into my computer. How do I crop it since the image I want is tilted?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelOfficejet 4500 G510n-z
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2550
Image Height3300
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 21:49:18
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height702
>>
>>2857810
Straighten
>>
>>2857186
Just compare with a camera you know has accurate metering and compensate with the iso dial. Usually 1 stop and a bit lower.

Alternatively you can fix the problem permanently by soldering in a small voltage reducing diode right after the battery chamber. If you know what you're doing it's a 5 minute job, really easy. I don't recall the exact spec of the diodes I used, but you can easily google it.
>>
How large can I get 35mm prints before they start looking overly grainy and shit?
Mostly shot using ektar 100 and I want prints say 12"x12"
>>
>>2857519
AG photo lab.
>>
>>2857958
12x12" should be fine. I can only fit 8x10" paper in my easel but those still look superb. Of course it won't ever be like printing 120mm film to the same size paper but it should still retain excellent quality up to that size.

Source: limited experience in my own small-scale darkroom
>>
File: A009762-R1-37-35A-1.jpg (893KB, 624x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
A009762-R1-37-35A-1.jpg
893KB, 624x1000px
This is more or less un-post-processed from the film. Reckon I should desaturate?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2016:06:07 13:06:31
>>
>>2858019
Well what are you going for? This gives me heavy 90s vibes being so heavily saturated. Slap some Window logo and a lensflare on it.
>>
>>2858029
it's all in your head

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:07 14:08:40
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width838
Image Height671
>>
>>2857958
It depends on the film, your scene, and your technique. Optical printing? or scans? What type of paper?
>>
>>2858032
Sick mate.
>>
>>2858032

S A D B O Y S
S E S H
>>
File: emotions_0_0.gif (783KB, 580x276px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
emotions_0_0.gif
783KB, 580x276px
>>2858042
LOL
>>
File: ADOX_Scala_160.jpg (767KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
ADOX_Scala_160.jpg
767KB, 1600x1600px
So how do I develop this at home?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D800
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
PhotographerGiulia Degasperi
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern922
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:05:19 10:57:37
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating800
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1600
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>2858047
Depends if you're a leftist hippie or a conservative right-winger. If the prior, go the potassium permanganate route and enjoy the stains, if the latter, the potassium dichromate route and enjoy your cancer and environmental pollution. Bonus points if you only plan on doing this once or twice, get the ilford reversal kit or the kodak tmax reversal kit online. Or you could, you know, use google.
>>
File: _DSC3740.jpg (2MB, 1920x833px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
_DSC3740.jpg
2MB, 1920x833px
How do you guys get the color reproduction on point?
I scan with my d3200 and that part i got it covered. But i cannot seem to get the color just right.
I use darktable on Antergos if that info is of interest

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3200
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.0.4
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.6
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern22852
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)51 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2016:06:03 20:26:20
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceFine Weather
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length34.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height833
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
ISO Speed Used400
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceSUNNY
Focus ModeAF-S
Flash Compensation0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested400
Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
Lens TypeNikon G Series
Lens Range18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Noise ReductionOFF
Camera Actuations4436
>>
>>2858078
pic unrelated btw
>>
>>2858078
What's your light source?
If your source is good, usually the issue comes from a white-balance issue.
>>
>>2858078
I get white balance by shift clicking on things that I know are supposed to be some shade of gray, and it gets the white balance approximately in the ballpark, then drop color samplers, and tweak the WB until I get the RGB values within a range of 10 units. That gets it approximately right. I also have a color calibration hardware system (Eye-1) that I use to calibrate my monitor. Even with all of that technical stuff, it often comes down to personal preference, and fine tuning as such. If you have Ps, you can edit even jpegs in camera raw, where white balancing is really easy, with sliders and thats where the color samplers are too.
>>
>>2858047
It's literally the same emulsion as silvermax 100. They're just marketing it as new scala because with its clear base and characteristics it works very well for reversal. If you want to develop it yourself, either do it as a negative using silvermax times, for reversal you'll need to buy a reversal development kit. Foma make a easily available one, but there's others out there. Results seem to be better when the fogging step is done chemically and not through second exposte, so watch out for that. If you really want to go diy, you can mix the chemicals yourself, a few people online came to with formulas and steps that yield good looking results. If you're not interested in diy and just want transparencies, there's a few labs that do it quite well. Dr5 come to mind, they have a proprietary development that works with tons of emulsions, they can make great transparencies with film like hp5 pushed to 800 apparently.
>>
File: R0000020.jpg (419KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
R0000020.jpg
419KB, 1000x667px
How does this look?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: flash.jpg (77KB, 623x900px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
flash.jpg
77KB, 623x900px
I have this canon 300EZ, and I want to use it for some flash pictures on this OM-10. I know the flash fires when the shutter is pressed, but will leaving it on its auto mode work? The OM-10 uses an analogue integrator to close the shutter when enough light has been reflected off the film, so I don't see why it wouldn't work, other than the flash firing before the integrator starts integrating.

If it doesn't work automatically, how do I work out manual settings? I'd go for 1/200, f/9 at ISO 200 but that's just an eyeball. Can anyone suggest a rule? The Olympus flashes had a sync speed of 1/60 (as is indicated in the viewfinder) so do I need to set it to 1/60 and put the aperture down to f/16?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerChairman Mao
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
Calling all darkroom fags, need some opinions about Fiber vs. RC.

I'm going to be printing up something like 15-20 11x14 prints and I'm ordering my paper. I've exclusively used ilford RC papers in the past, both pearl and glossy, and I've been more than happy, plus I know how to work with the paper. I've never used fiber before, is it worth the extra trouble and expense to use it?

Also, thinking of ordering the double weight "portfolio" paper if I go RC, any opinions on that?

These prints would be for gallery display.
>>
File: 1399395513577.jpg (17KB, 205x205px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1399395513577.jpg
17KB, 205x205px
>mfw when my Lomo Lubitel 2 negatives shit fury over my Leica negatives in terms of quality

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2010:01:31 20:33:52
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width205
Image Height205
>>
Random question: Does anyone with a Pen FT know if the rewind lever is supposed to turn as you advance the film?

I know on a lot of cameras you can see it turning, but with this one it doesn't seem to turn at all.

I made the mistake of opening it up, and the film did seem to have advanced though.
>>
>>2858165
[citation needed]
>>
>>2858164
>These prints would be for gallery display.
go for fibre based paper

its not really that much more difficult to use than people act like it is... just wash for longer (which requires no effort on your part), and place some heavy weights on it to dry flat
>>
>>2858207
Thanks for the opinion. Honestly I just ordered 50 sheets of the RC paper I always use, but I'm going to order like a 10 pack of fiber paper and try it out. I don't have a screen or anything with which to dry it flat anyway.

It's not a high-brow or serious gallery setting, so I think the quality of the prints should be fine for that.
>>
>>2858139
That's not a good flash to be using, as there's no way to control it's output, or even work out what it's going to be, and it doesn't have any auto functionality except on an EOS camera.

If it's your only option, however, set the camera to 1/60th and use an aperture of f/4 for subjects about 3 metres away, f/5.6 for closer, with 100 iso film.
With 400 film, use f/8 for subjects 3 metres away, use f/11 for closer.
>>
>>2858166
Some cameras disengage the rewind crank when it's pushed in or the handle's folded away.
My Canon F-1 does this, presumably so it doesn't present some kind of spinning deah hazard with one of the psychotic optional motor drives attached.
>>
>>2858218
Hmm it may be that then. I've never noticed it not turning on any of my other cameras, which is what prompted me to open it.

I'll see how the roll came out when I pick it up tomorrow.
>>
>>2858164
>>2858207
FB paper is just a bit lusher and more fibre-y.
Matted behind plexi, nobody would tell the difference unless their nose was right up against them, which for 11x14's they probably wouldn't be.
For smaller prints, or ones that would be handled, the fibre is just a nicer option though.
>>
>>2858300
>nobody would tell the difference unless their nose was right up against them
there are differences in image quality, but you are right most people would not notice. only seasoned photographers who have used both

however, that isn't why I recommended fibre paper for gallery work. fibre paper is archival and will simply last longer and retain its quality without eventual tone distortion, fading, darkening etc., which is especially important if you are going to be selling your prints for a reasonable amount of money (such as through a gallery)
>>
Did anyone try Portra B&W? The mere idea of a B&W film developed in C41 makes me reject it immediately, but maybe its somewhat good.
>>
>>2858080
i use a Yongnuo yn560 IV, i place the film holder on top of the bounce plastic, and set the camera wb to flash, i know the source is not the problem, the scans are pretty good.

>>2858096
i'll take that into account, for now i just invert the tone curve and fine tune it with a gray/white spot, but they seem to be a little off/shifted sometimes
>>
>>2858166
it only advances occasionally. loading the film properly isn't hard, so just do it right and you don't have to worry about the lever turning.
>>
>>2858032
nice
>>
I've got a defective Pentax ME Super with a shitty Tokina 70-210 lens that has haze.

Some guy wants to give me 5 Fujifilm Superia 400 for it. Is it a good deal?
>>
>>2858630
>Some guy wants to give me 5 Fujifilm Superia 400 for it. Is it a good deal?

ask for more.
>>
>>2858630
Define defective, something like a failing light meter is different from a stuck mirror/broken shutter per se. If the camera is trashed ask for more, if the camera is in working condition he's stealing you
>>
>>2858630
>5 fujifilm superia 400
that's like, $10.
>>
>>2858820
>>2858838
>>2858846
Ok this is what happened. I actually didn't ask for more. I told him that the camera still works on the manual setting and the lens has haze. He suddenly backed out and said things like I should include a lens and he'll give me a portra 400.
I then told him I have no other lens so he chickened out even though I already agreed with the deal.

Oh well. I just want to let go of the cam and have some money from it to buy for some films. I already have a Pentax MX.
>>
I have film G.A.S. /film/

What can I do?
My film cameras:
Olympus OM-1, Nikon FE, Nikon F100, Pentax MX, Pentax KM, Konica Auto S2, Yashica Mat 124g, Canon A-1

I don't want to part ways with any of them but I would want to acquire more. There's someone selling me a Yashica Electro 35 GSN for $20. What do?
>>
>>2858846
>$10

thats $0. any 400 asa consumer film is garbage.
>>
>>2858865
Get it
>>
>>2858867
Tri-x, Portra?
>>
>>2858857
>I told him that the camera still works on the manual setting

thats a working camera you cuck.
>>
>>2858870

these are pro films.
>>
>>2858865

thats a steal. get it and then stop with the 35mm meme and get MF goodness, ur mundane as fuck right now.
>>
>>2858878
What constitutes a pro film? What about ultramax or gold 400?

What's wrong with superia 400 and what makes it a consumer film? Is superia xtra 400 a consumer film?

I have so many questions
>>
>>2858869
>>2858880
Actually my bad it was $25 and I'm not sure if it's still working.

> stop with the 35mm meme and get MF goodness

MF film cost a lot of money and I don't know where to develop them...
>>
>>2858894
>MF film cost a lot of money

Not really, you can get portra 160 120 for 5$ a roll

>I don't know where to develop them...

This is slightly more difficult
>>
>>2858882
>What's wrong with superia 400 and what makes it a consumer film? Is superia xtra 400 a consumer film?

yes they are. the entire superia line is done for vacation snaps and everyday snapshitting. hence the price. reala, 160ns, 400h, all these god tier films are professional, as they give finer grain, more stability, better dynamic range, lots of those are optimized for skin tones and professional portraiture. they print better too.
>>
>>2858894
>I don't know where to develop them

do you live in the middle of fuckall?
>>
File: DSCF8735.jpg (687KB, 1013x1024px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSCF8735.jpg
687KB, 1013x1024px
got this baby a few days ago.
was shooting street with a nikkor af-d 35-105 f3.5-4.5 entirely at 35 until now, the lens was fine and sharp but kinda prone to distortions and the minimum focusing distance of 0.85m was really bothering me, so yeah the 35 f2 AI feels like a nice update!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:08 23:36:31
>>
>>2858880
>35mm meme

120mm is the meme
>cost a lot of money
>thinking it has better quality over full frame
>holga and diana uses them
>lomography
>>
>>2858896
>portra 160 120 for 5$ a roll

Where to cop? Local shop sells them for $10 per roll.
>>
>>2858918
amazon
>>
>>2858916
lowqualitybait.bmp
>>
>>2857451
I use an ancient Coolscan 4000 for 35mm.

For 4x5 and 120, I put the negs on a light table and then use a DSLR with macro lens and stitch the results. a bit of a PITA because of the stitching, but works ok.

Gonna try using the Sigma DP2 as an alternative to the DSLR once I get the close-focus lens in the mail and see how it compares. Bayer arrays suck for film detail/grain =(
>>
>>2857557
Sending 1 roll is expensive. Scan your own and send 5 rolls at once and you pay £5.70 each.

If you shoot 35mm film putting £80-100 into a plustek pays for itself in 16-20 rolls.
>>
>>2858925
>Gonna try using the Sigma DP2 as an alternative to the DSLR once I get the close-focus lens in the mail and see how it compares. Bayer arrays suck for film detail/grain =(
post results for this, I've been thinking of using that setup as well
>>
>>2858405
Thanks. It's been a while since I shot film, and while I was pretty confident I loaded it correctly the rewind lever not turning threw me off a little.
>>
What are you guys using in terms of film scanners? I've been wanting to give film and home developing a shot, but the cost of a film scanner seems high for something that I may not care much for. I don't feel like spending $100+cost of developer et al just to get digital copies of my photos when I have a dslr that does all of that all ready.
>>
>>2859159
a canoscan 8400f that I got at goodwill for six dollars

I havent attempted dslr scanning yet even though I have a decent macro lens because I dont have a flash
>>
>>2859159
V500 that I dislike.
>>
>>2859159

v500 that i love vehemently.
>>
>>2859172
>>2859179
ROUND 1: FIGHT!
>>
How much should I be paying a friend for an om-1 or om-1 n body with a random lens? He wants $150.
>>
>>2859247
there's one on ebay for 70
>>
>>2859251
My friend's is in top condition and the lenses are decent, better than what I see the bodies are paired with on ebay. This one for 70 is the lowest I see online.
>>
>>2859247
Depends on the condition, but 150 sounds like too much. Whats a random lens? 50mm f1.4 would be worth more than a Soligor 28mm f2.8 or something.
>>
Anyone care to recommend some links for a reasonably objective film comparison? I haven't really done much since the early 90s, shooting Kodachrome slides and some Ektachrome 64T. There are lots of google results, but most of them seem biased or simply inconsistent.

Currently getting set back up with a Pentax K1000, a Kodak Pony 135. May also have a Vivitar V3800N coming, waiting to hear back from someone. Grabbed some TMax 400, Ektar 100 and ACROS 100 to play with, but wondering what else is out there.
>>
>>2859263

flickr/flickriver.
>>
File: hum.jpg (400KB, 1152x766px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hum.jpg
400KB, 1152x766px
Did my first home dev of C-41 yesterday, everything went better than expected.
Used the Digibase pre-diluted kit, and this roll of Fuji Press 800 that came half shot in an old EOS camera I was given.
Finished off the roll at 400 using the EF 40mm.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1152
Image Height766
>>
>>2856951
oh shiiiiiiiiit
>>
I want to do night photography with film.
Does anyone have any experience using a digital camera as a light meter?
If I take a photo with digital then transfer the settings over will I get the same exposure or will the difference in lenses fuck the eposure?
>>
>>2858071
>>2858047
I came up with a bleach method that looks reliable and doesn't have the toxic and enviromental issues.

Posted here http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/copper-sulphate-b-w-reversal-bleach.137943/
>>
>>2859392

for normal night shooting? i have found you have to give lots more light to film. at least a full stop.

for long exposures, if i get that ill need 30 sec in my digital camera, i give 45 secs to the film exposure. have never needed super precise readings, the more light you can give film, the better.
>>
>>2859392
Apertures, shutter speeds and ISO's all mean the same thing on all cameras, so yes, you can do this.
The only issue is that film doesn't necessarily respond to light in a linear fashion at lower light levels, whereas digital does.
So once your digital exposures get out past a few seconds in length, you might need to make a longer exposure on film to match it.
It's called reciprocity failure.
Google that and and the film you want to use, and apply compensation as necessary.
>>
>>2859397
>>2859396
thanks a ton guys
>>
>>2856951
>>2857073
>>2857286
>>2859391
Samefag.
>>
I am going to buy a film camera but it is kinda tie between Nikon F3 and Nikon FM2
Please anons give your opinions which camera to buy?
>>
>>2859580
The FM2 is smaller and lighter and cheaper and has a better shutter and a hotshoe and doesn't need batteries.
The F3 is "pro" and can autoexpose.
>>
File: DSC07097.jpg (507KB, 800x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSC07097.jpg
507KB, 800x800px
Haven't developed anything I've shot on 6x6 since last summer. Got a bunch of rolls back but no legit way to scan. Pretty stoked on some of the shots though!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution278 dpi
Vertical Resolution278 dpi
Image Created2016:06:09 20:14:45
Exposure Time1/2 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-5.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceTungsten
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2859590
Thanks for the reply.
But which camera is the best one between these two is the real question?
>>
>>2859597
Yeah, if only there was some way people faced with any kind of choice, who had all the relevant information spoonfed to them, could rank their priorities based on their particular needs and make decisions of their own, hey...
>taking bets on this being the same cunt who wanted to know if he should buy an F3 or an FM10
>>
>>2859597
They are different. The f3 is more modular and more sophisticated. I wanted a simple and sturdy camera that is not battery dependent, so I got the FM2. Black version. The brass starts to shine through. Looks so hot. Omg
Also, fully mechanical 1/4000th of a second shutter.
>>
>>2859625
>fully mechanical 1/4000th of a second shutter.
does this actually hold up on a 60 year old camera? or is it just a gamble every time you buy one?
>>
>>2858903
Nice, how is the glass state? It seems a little beat up outside, but as long as the first one is good it's all good.
I'm considering getting a 35mm f1.8 g for work myself
>>
>>2859326
what did you use for scan? i would kill for that f1.2 for portraits and muh bokeh
>>
File: EMPortra40021.jpg (367KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
EMPortra40021.jpg
367KB, 1200x800px
>>2859652
Funnilly enough the other roll I souped on that first go was a pretty dead Portra 400 NC I shot in that Nikon.
I think I just shot this at 400.
The lense isn't kill-worthy imho.
Nice, but nowhere near as nice as the FD 50L.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
>>
>>2859637
The Fm2 was released in 1982 and in production till 2001 so 30 to 15 years is more likely. I don't know how accurate the highest shutter speeds are on these cameras. Anyway, they have proven to be extremely reliable. There are plenty of workshops that still service them of there is something wrong.

>. The camera's precision-tapered, high-strength vertical metal shutter blades were fabricated originally of lightweight titanium (later production FM2 shutter blades were made of aluminum), while the mirror/shutter mechanism rides on self-lubricating bearings. The mirror linkage uses the same mechanism found on Nikon's professional F2, with some modern improvements designed to further reduce effects of vibration and mirror bounce. The FM2 also features Nikon's famous close tolerance assembly and minimal space lubrication, meaning that it will reliably operate in temperature extremes of −40 °C to +50 °C.
-wikipedia
>>
File: tmx0012.jpg (344KB, 772x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
tmx0012.jpg
344KB, 772x1200px
>>2859662
oh, wow I was looking up the wrong camera
thanks anon

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>2857718
nah it's great
color scheme remembers me of tdkr beginning though
>>
>>2859652
>i would kill for that f1.2 for portraits and muh bokeh
Someday, you'll get a super fast prime and come to the same realization that many talented portrait photographers come to: that f/1.2 isn't actually very good for most portraits. Nothing is in focus. Once you hit that point, you start to bounce back and find yourself shooting most of your shots at around f/4 or f/5.6, and simply working to compose your shot differently so that you get your subject in focus, and the scene looks nice. That's when you start chasing nice directional light and become an actually talented photographer.

I wish you well on your journey anon.
>>
File: heh.jpg (75KB, 1233x206px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
heh.jpg
75KB, 1233x206px
>>2859575

hurt summerfag :^)
>>
>>2859659

this processing is crazy. looks more film than film, like a caricature in a good sense. what are you doing here?
>>
>>2859717
huh? it's pretty standard looking portra, looks hella grainy for 400 though
>>
>>2859625
Thanks anon :)
>>
>>2859624
Shut the fuck up.
I am noob and I just wanted some advice and I got it
>>
>>2859714
Nice photoshop.
>>
File: 26 (2)S.jpg (443KB, 1019x680px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (2)S.jpg
443KB, 1019x680px
latest scans

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:30:11
>>
File: 26 (4)S.jpg (939KB, 997x1491px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (4)S.jpg
939KB, 997x1491px
>>2859886

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:32:29
>>
File: 26 (5)S.jpg (751KB, 1020x1517px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (5)S.jpg
751KB, 1020x1517px
>>2859889

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:33:05
>>
>>2859637
I got mine out of a bargain bin with a corroded battery chamber for $25, and all of the high speeds gave me perfect exposures on Rollei Ortho 25, which is very high contrast and would show a broken shutter clearly.
The 1 sec speed got a bit hung up, but that went away by the time I'd put a roll through it.
>>
File: 26 (10)S.jpg (818KB, 1455x1020px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (10)S.jpg
818KB, 1455x1020px
>>2859892

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:27:46
>>
File: 26 (11)S.jpg (657KB, 990x1424px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (11)S.jpg
657KB, 990x1424px
>>2859895

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:28:16
>>
File: 26 (12)S.jpg (683KB, 994x1457px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26 (12)S.jpg
683KB, 994x1457px
>>2859897

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:29:25
>>
File: 26S.jpg (734KB, 996x1469px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
26S.jpg
734KB, 996x1469px
>>2859899
nikon 35ti
ektar 100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8200i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution78 dpcm
Vertical Resolution78 dpcm
Image Created2016:06:09 12:34:41
>>
>>2859889
>>2859892
>>2859901
Nice stuff.
>>
File: EMPortra40002.jpg (524KB, 1199x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
EMPortra40002.jpg
524KB, 1199x800px
>>2859659
>>2859717
>this processing is crazy
Not really breh, it's just fucked old film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1199
Image Height800
>>
>>2859895
>>2859897
>>2859899
What apertures were you using for these? They seem pretty smeary away from the centre.
>>
>>2859159
I have a v500 and I'm pretty happy with it
>>
I want to try to get into 120mm film photography. Is a Yashica mat 124g a good camera for $150? What should I be looking for?
>>
>>2860155
The 124g is a good quality camera yes.

Also, 120 film isn't 120mm. It's actually 60mm. The number 120 has nothing to do with units of measurement.
>>
>>2860155
I love the results from my 124G but I really don't enjoy shooting it
>>
>>2858916
>thinking it has better quality over full frame
It does
>holga and diana uses them
And?
>lomography
ples go b8
>>
>>2859263
Only one I know of
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/a-colour-film-comparison/
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/
>>
File: F1Superia25.jpg (192KB, 540x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
F1Superia25.jpg
192KB, 540x800px
>>2858896
>Not really, you can get portra 160 120 for 5$ a roll
ayyy
The cheapest Australian seller has them for only $14.80 each.
>>2858897
Superia is based. I'd rather shoot Superia 200 to Portra 400 10 times out of 10.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width540
Image Height800
>>
>>2860241

Dunno why but I get my kicks out of Agfa Vista :D most likely some nostalgia "from childhood" kind of thingy
>>
>>2860241
>mfw I'll probabaly never get to shoot a roll of superia in 120

Feels bad man.
>>
File: F1Superia09.jpg (233KB, 571x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
F1Superia09.jpg
233KB, 571x800px
>>2860269
ikr?
I looked when I was in Japan, no such luck.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width571
Image Height800
>>
>>2858166
Are you me? I did the exact same thing recently.
Felt like an idiot after doing it.
Getting the negatives back today though, so I will see how bad I messed up.

A little frustrating because I was testing the meter against the meter of one of my digital cameras, so those shots might have got messed up.
>>
>>2860245
Nowadays vista is rebranded superia or c200 though.
>>
>>2860269
Yeah it's a pretty nice film. Why do you think you can't shoot 120 superia? Search on ebay.

Pic related is superia400 in a yashica mat124g.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2015:11:03 17:25:12
>>
Superia has never looked looked that nice to me. ::shrugs::
>>
>>2860231
Why don't you enjoy shooting the 124g?
>>
File: BZ9A3888-Edit.jpg (902KB, 1050x717px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
BZ9A3888-Edit.jpg
902KB, 1050x717px


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1000
Image Height667
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:06 21:31:54
Exposure Time0.8 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length65.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1050
Image Height717
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2859263
did you even fucking try? you can just google search for literally any film comparison, e.g. "tri-x vs. hp5" and there are tons of results that pop up

>apug.org
>photo.net
>rangefinderforum.com
>thephotoforum.com

these are the big sites and have literally thousands upon thousands of threads of people asking these same questions. there are like 100 threads for comparing tri-x and hp5 alone
>>
>>2859931
not sure. i know i was trying to make out shutter speed (250 on the camera) so they probably were all around 5.6-10 range

>>2859916
thanks mayne
>>
>>2856926
>at the university, waiting for my turn on the exam
>watching the showcase cupboards because bored
>saw a whole cupboard filled with old Exakta SLRs, various rangefinders (Zorki 3, Contax G2 etc...), a damn nikon FM2, all with CZJ oldder and newer lenses (except the Nikon)
>Pancolars, Flektogons everywhere
>In the back, a goddamn FD 50/1.2
>all covered in fine dust but otherwise looked well, no fungus or haze

I've got to ask about them at the end of the exam.
>Oh, nobody uses them anymore, nobody uses film so they are just junk.

I'm still not sure what to think about this. I'm feeling all kinds of emotions.
>>
>>2860570
same thing happened to me anon. just grab a few.

they are either going in the garbage or to be sold ridiculously overpriced to collectors and hipsters who want shelf decorations on ebay... either is a fate worse than hell, just take em
>>
>>2860579
Can't, property of the institute. At least they could dust them off from time to time.
Oh, there was a Super 8 camera too with a few lenses.
>>
>>2860586
>Can't, property of the institute
I think you misunderstand me anon

take them, as in "steal", so much as you can "steal" someone's trash
>>
>>2860592
You misunderstood ME, my dear friend. Unlike you I ain't no dirty stealing nigger, mate.
Hence why I go to the university to study instead of stealing.
>>
>>2860595
>being this much of a pussy
youre literally taking someone's trash

they'll probably be glad to have it off their hands
>>
>>2860596
>not having a steady income to support his hobby's budget.
Spoken like a true nigger.
>>
>>2860597
it was never about being able to afford cameras you mong, its about not letting perfectly usable equipment go to waste

keep backing yourself into that corner, though
>>
>>2860599
You clearly suggested to steal them. I said I ai'nt no stealing nigger. You got all butthurt about it and now you are trying to get a moral ground?
Don't make me laugh, nigger. I bet you stole the computer too.
>>
>>2860318
>those tones
>that sharpness
>the subtle color cast
JUST
>>
Anyone have that dslr scanning infograph

Don't have a flash but I have a macro lens now. Where to get small pieces of glass to press negative on?
>>
>>2860634
You don't need a flash, a mirror a lamp and some diffuser material will do just as well.
>>
>>2860643
but a flash is better, anon. not that you can't do it, but the result is better and faster.
>>
File: 3242-12.jpg (369KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
3242-12.jpg
369KB, 1500x1500px
Fuck, I love Portra 400.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3552
Image Height3499
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:11 05:52:28
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1500
>>
>>2860658

feels.

god damn
>>
>>2860674
>imblying
>>
>>2860658
Tower is overexposed.
>>
File: carropont2.jpg (1MB, 5211x1723px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
carropont2.jpg
1MB, 5211x1723px
>>2860658
agree: portra 400 masterrace
snapshit from fuji 617, picrelated 1 of 2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5429
Image Height1892
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution800 dpi
Vertical Resolution800 dpi
Image Created2016:06:11 01:18:20
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width5211
Image Height1723
>>
File: zoo_hipppo.jpg (846KB, 2660x855px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
zoo_hipppo.jpg
846KB, 2660x855px
>>2860658
2 of 2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2660
Image Height855
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:11 01:18:54
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2660
Image Height855
>>
>>2860720
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
>>
File: DSLRScanning.jpg (455KB, 2138x795px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSLRScanning.jpg
455KB, 2138x795px
>>2860634
My glass came out of an old display cabinet.
"Not scratched" is the main selection criteria.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelGR
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015:10:28 08:08:19
Exposure Time1/40 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating320
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Brightness1.6 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length18.30 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2138
Image Height795
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
>>
Hi /p/
I am going it buy a Nikon FM2. I am a noob in film so which things should I check before buying it.
>>
File: thefuck.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
thefuck.png
1MB, 1920x1080px
Help me /p/.
I can't use my DSLR to scan my negatives atm and wanted to just get some flatbed scans for online posting.
I have the canon lide 600F and film adapter and have used it with no issues before, but out of nowhere today its making these lines in all my film scans.

Normal scanning works fine for paper
>>
>>2861043
Clean the calibration area.
>>
>>2861056
fuck thanks that's so obvious now idek whats wrong with me
>>
File: $_85.jpg (51KB, 726x545px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
$_85.jpg
51KB, 726x545px
Got this for 60 euros (+13 for shipping). I think that's a great deal, did I do good?

Can't wait to develop my first roll. It doesn't have a reel for 120 film though. Are those tanks universal? Like, can I buy a reel and it will fit? Or am I fucked?
>>
are 4x5 Polaroids a good alternative if your scanner doesn't support 4x5 sheet film? Also have you tried letting the negative side dry out and scanned the negative?
>>
>>2861276
>4x5 Polaroids a good alternative if your scanner doesn't support 4x5 sheet film
no, its actually the worst alternative I could think of, kek

just make contact prints of your negatives and scan those. or find a scanner that does negatives
>>
>>2861259
most of these tanks ca be filled with either two reels of 35mm or one 120. does the enlarger have a holder for 120?
>>
File: hLF20.jpg (658KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hLF20.jpg
658KB, 1000x714px
>>2860306
Got the roll back and surprisingly hadn't messed up as many shots as I expected.
Ended up with about 36 shots from a 24exp roll.
3 with minor light leaks, and 2 with quite a lot (pic related), and just one or two shots that were un-salvageable.

Olympus Pen FT
Agfa Vista Pro 200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 7600i
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1659
Image Height1184
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUnknown
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1800 dpi
Vertical Resolution1800 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:06:11 22:24:01
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height714
>>
File: Half5.jpg (1MB, 1000x732px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Half5.jpg
1MB, 1000x732px
>>2861388
And a test shot which didn't get messed up.

The light meter seems relatively accurate. The shots metered with an X100 are a tiny bit brighter, but not much difference.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1000
Image Height732
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:11 22:18:51
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1000
Image Height732
>>
Yes i have a stupid question to bump with, do they make underwater enclosures for film cameras? Specifically 35mm?
>>
File: IMG_6326.jpg (736KB, 3264x2995px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_6326.jpg
736KB, 3264x2995px
I've been using a single lens on my film camera, its been fine for around 2 months and then suddenly it starts hard vignetting and the image quality is totally destroyed. Is it possible the lens elements have separated or broke or something?


top row - before it fucked up

bottom row - fucked up
>>
>>2861412
Yeah, good idea shit for brains, it makes a lot of sense to ask this question without saying what camera and lense you're using.
>>
>>2861412
You have weird shit happening all over the sprocket holes too, so might be something wrong with the body as well.
>>
>>2861412
did you drop it?
>>
>>2861388
that actually turned out kind of cool!
>>
>>2861388
>36 shots from a 24exp roll
no
>>
just got like 50 rolls of
Polaroid High Definition 200 Films
for free...my contax g2 will get 25 exposures out of it
any experience with this film ?
expiry date 2005
>>
>>2861544
the pen is a half frame camera which means he should've gotten 48 shots from that roll.
>>
>>2861553
that's what I get for not reading
>>
File: HDMHP527.jpg (170KB, 536x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HDMHP527.jpg
170KB, 536x800px
I like my Fuji HD-M a lot.
It's definitely become my most used compact since I got it.
>tfw more in focus shots with a scale focusing program-only cam than with my rangefinder

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width536
Image Height800
>>
File: HDMHP502.jpg (104KB, 537x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HDMHP502.jpg
104KB, 537x800px
>>2861590

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width537
Image Height800
>>
>>2861388

how about not being a total faggot, and uploading the bunch of good pics? but not here, maybe in your own thread.
>>
File: HDMHP523.jpg (185KB, 1193x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HDMHP523.jpg
185KB, 1193x800px
>>2861591

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1193
Image Height800
>>
File: HDMHP525.jpg (254KB, 540x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HDMHP525.jpg
254KB, 540x800px
>>2861598

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width540
Image Height800
>>
>>2861598
>>2861602
strange tones, are you pushing hp5 or is it digital processing ?
looks nice either way
>>
can you shoot film in raw?
>>
>>2861629

i shoot ur mum in raw everytime desu.
>>
File: HDMHP506.jpg (441KB, 1223x800px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
HDMHP506.jpg
441KB, 1223x800px
>>2861628
Dev in T-Max Dev.
Shot at 400.
I adjust everything in Gimp.
Tone is a social construct.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1223
Image Height800
>>
>>2861634
...I dont know why you wrote such an autistic answer to a simple question, but you must edit it pretty heavily in GIMP. hp5 at box speed in TMAX should give excellent shadow detail, and yours has close to none
>>
>>2861629
You can scan the film in raw using a DSLR or a scanner with custom software
>>
File: IMG_0308.jpg (1MB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0308.jpg
1MB, 2250x1500px
>>2861639
I'm not sure what part of my answer was "autistic"?
>here comes a REALLY autistic answer
Ask Objective Provia-san what I think of people who have these fixed ideas of what certain film stocks look like.
A black and white photo on a computer screen is pixels arranged in a square array, each having one of 256 potential shades ranging from white to black. Changing any of those relative to one another is both so trivially simple and necessary to presenting a viewable photo that it is moronic to claim that you know what 'tones' you should be getting out of scanned HP5.
The film is a medium. It's an intermediate stage between the scene that was in front of the camera and my output.
I decide what the picture looks like, not Ilford.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareDigital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2250
Image Height1500
>>
File: letitgo.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
letitgo.jpg
20KB, 480x360px
>>2861648
>Ask Objective Provia-san

no need to still be butthurt at the fact that i can process your files better than yourself.
>>
>>2861648
its autistic because you could just say "its the way I processed them digitally". instead you're sperging out over a simple and valid question and just arguing semantics and presenting it as some profound artistic philosophy
>>
>>2861664
>its autistic because you could just say "its the way I processed them digitally"
>>2861634
>I adjust everything in Gimp.
>>
File: 80970001.jpg (736KB, 1000x1012px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
80970001.jpg
736KB, 1000x1012px
Decided to put the Nettar to use for once. Here come some snipshats from Madeira vacation trip.

Also a question: What do you people consider to be the definitive 120 black & white films? I don't really like to shoot color in MF because I must rely on lab scans which always fuck up the colors, and the Vario shutter is too limiting for shooting slides with confidence. As such, I'd prefer to stick with B&W as far as medium format goes.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2079
Image Height2048
>>
File: 80970002.jpg (421KB, 1006x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
80970002.jpg
421KB, 1006x1000px
Entrance to a photo store ran by some asshole.
>>
File: 80970005.jpg (635KB, 1000x1015px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
80970005.jpg
635KB, 1000x1015px
Funchal fish market after the day is done.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.10.011 (130930)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2079
Image Height2048
>>
File: 80970004.jpg (656KB, 1006x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
80970004.jpg
656KB, 1006x1000px
Fruit vendor doings his routine on a couple of tourists.
>>
File: 80970012.jpg (491KB, 1022x1000px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
80970012.jpg
491KB, 1022x1000px
Lastly, le serene hotel morning photo.
>>
>>2861696
These are some really shitty photos, dude.
>>
I just obtained a point-and-shoot that seems to work, but I can't see the shutter opening. Is there a way to test to see if the shutter is actually working without running a roll of film through it?
>>
>>2861703
Seriously, what is up with you morons asking numbfuck noob questions like this but not telling us what the camera is?
>>
What does /p/ use for scan software, I tried vuescan and silverfast and the latter seems nice but pricy and I can't seem to find a crack.
>>
>>2861779
Just use a camera and learn how to use curves to edit.
If you really want to be a decent photo editor, you'll need that ability anyway.
>>
>>2861781
>If you really want to be a decent photo editor, you'll need that ability anyway.
I have a scanner tho...
>>
File: fuck-meme_00370790.jpg (130KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fuck-meme_00370790.jpg
130KB, 1600x1200px
>>2861696
>>2861697
>>2861698
>>2861699
>>2861701

Blown out whites
>>
>>2860853
if it works
on all speeds
>>
>>2861698

holy fuck this was taken with a nettar?
i had the 517 i think, ended up selling it because it could only do lomo like stuff.
>>
>>2861703
Open the back when it's empty, look through it and point it at a source of light. If the shutter is working, you'll see a flash of light when you fire it
>>
>>2861259
>Are those tanks universal? Like, can I buy a reel and it will fit? Or am I fucked?
Look on the bottom of the tank, if it's a 600ml tank Then you're good to go for medium format

look for this:
Each film uses,
120/220 - 500ml


Also
the white reels twist and turn into 120, go google a youtube tutorial.
>>
>>2861897
>go google a youtube tutorial.
No.

Just tell him to fucking twist the reels.
>>
Anybody have any photos of Superia 400 pushed to 800 and 1600?
>>
>>2861922
it gets too grainy and "faded" looking to be useful, imo

just get venus and natura instead
>>
>>2861928

Well, shit. I was hoping to go the cheap route since Superia 400 is available to me locally and cheaply. Thanks for the info.
>>
>>2861921
I did though
>>
Pushing superia400 to iso 1600 is absolutely doable. But do not underexpose, it will get washed out and shitty. I have some shots on my harddrive, maybe i'll post an example later.
Anyway you're better off pushing portra400.
>>
>>2861935
>Pushing superia400 to iso 1600 is absolutely doable.
>But do not underexpose
do you even know what pushing means?
>>
>>2861929
they make a Superia 1600, I think. its also grainy, but it holds up better in low light and if you order it online its really cheap.

>>2861935
pushing IS underexposing. and underexposed CN film gets very grainy (opposite of BW)
>>
What's the best film scanner that I can get for under $200?
>>
>>2861990
probabaly an Epson one for under 200$ but iam not an expert...
>>
>>2861941
>underexposed CN film gets very grainy (opposite of BW)
um, what?

>>2861990
for 35mm, a used plustek. for 120, a used epson.
>>
>>2862009

Do you have any specific models that you would recommend to get the best quality/resoultion for 35mm?
>>
>>2862017
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EOS-M3-Digital-Camera-Twin-Lens-Kit-18-55mm-55-200mm-EF-Adapter-bundle-/301981026440?hash=item464f78c888:g:~5cAAOSwUuFWzq~s

Lrn 2 Dslr scan, fgt.
>>
>>2862009
>um, what?
in colour negative film, grain is most apparently in underexposed parts of the image. without getting too technical, its because of the way the dye clouds react to light in the emulsion. certain layers will "smooth out" the visible grain as they become denser

people sometimes overexpose CN film by 1/2 stop to 3/2 stop, because it responds to light better and the film's latitude can handle it
>>
>>2862071
I think it's the
>>2861941
>(opposite of BW)
line that's letting everyone know you don't really know what you're talking about right now.
>>
>>2862077
??

in standard silver-based black and white negative film, higher density = more visible grain. its one of many many factors which contribute to grain.

it sounds like you're the one who has no idea what they're talking about. it takes only a very basic understanding of how film emulsions work to grasp these concepts.
>>
>>2861941
Pushing does not mean underexposing. Of course it does in a certain way, but you compensate for the underexposure in development and still should expose correctly for the pushed iso. If you push an iso400 film to iso1600, try to at least expose correctly for iso 1600 or give it some slight overexposure.
Blabla. I think we both know what I meant anyway.
>>
>>2862144
>Pushing does not mean underexposing
you're right, it means underexposing and overdeveloping

by "compensating" you are just pushing the midtones up to artificially extend the range of values, which makes the image "look" correctly exposed (i.e. the brightness matches the scene). but its still underexposed. the negatives are thinner because they've been struck by less light, and no change in development can compensate for that
>>
>>2862162
>>2862144
>>2861941

go and get better at photo instead of arguing about words, you dumb faggots.
>>
>>2862171
how can you get better at photo if you don't understand the process?

besides, its not like anything else is happening in this thread anyway
>>
>>2862162
>you're right

thanks

I have bottles of c41 developer (tetenal rapid kit) lying around that I have not used for a few months. Does anyone know if I can still use that stuff? Last time I developed some portra anything was fine.
>>
>>2862172
>how can you get better at photo

by learning photography and not arguing about stupid words maybe?
>>
>>2862174
>>2862183
>reading the first couple of words of a post and ignoring the rest

i love this new meme
>>
File: fullsizerender2.jpg (888KB, 2012x1456px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
fullsizerender2.jpg
888KB, 2012x1456px
I'm new to film, and it's been a rough journey so far. My first camera, a Zenit EM was busted when I got it, and broke completely, so I had to borrow my girlfriend's Canon. It's way easier to use, but my pictures came out terrible, and I've heard a million different explanations why.

I was using 400 speed kodachrome, and I've heard that Fuji has better greens and blues for landscapes, and kodak has better reds and browns for people. The earth tones popped, but not the plants.

I also heard that not using a UV filter made the picture washed out since it was high light, high altitude conditions. Finally, someone was telling me the exposure settings were wrong and things would look fine if it wasn't overexposed.On top of which, iphone pictures tend to be more saturated in general.

These flowers are blooming for one more week, next weekend. I need to have my shit together before then if I want to take another crack at it. What did I do wrong? Why does my iphone picture look so great when I know film can do just as good?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Exposure Time1/2079 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating25
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness11.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: FullSizeRender3.jpg (346KB, 1412x948px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
FullSizeRender3.jpg
346KB, 1412x948px
>>2862201

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6s
Camera Software9.3.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)39 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:12 21:30:05
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3024
Image Height1900
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2862201
>I was using 400 speed kodachrome

wew land. next time dial in less of the "troll" slider. 2/0 for effort i guess.
>>
>>2862201
DELET THIS
>>
OP here, can someone else make a new thread, I can't be fucked.
Please make a high quality OC image, make sure it clearly contains FILM, not just film gear, and copy the op text, subject and name, substituting something suitably witty for what makes you gay.
>>
File: BZ9A3927-Edit.jpg (552KB, 1050x639px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
BZ9A3927-Edit.jpg
552KB, 1050x639px


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1000
Image Height589
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2016:06:13 14:01:57
Exposure Time0.4 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length65.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1050
Image Height639
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Just picked up a Konica FT-1 in good condition with a 28mm lens, and 50mm and a 80-200mm, plus 10 rolls of film and some other random accessories and whatnot for $50 bucks at an estate sale. Did I do good? First film camera btw.
>>
Any of you have experience with R5 monobath?
>>
These were opened 15 years ago. Do you think they will still work?

The Rodinal bottle is stuck so hard that I can't even open it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelNexus 5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2016:06:06 18:38:59
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
F-Numberf/2.4
Focal Length3.97 mm
Lens Aperturef/2.4
White BalanceAuto
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
FlashNo Flash
ISO Speed Rating774
Exposure Time16664153/500000000 sec
>>
File: index.jpg (84KB, 859x859px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
index.jpg
84KB, 859x859px
>>2862205

I wasn't kidding, but I was incorrect. I believe it was actually Porta 400.

Now that I look at the pictures again, I think I just really overexposed the hell out of it. The light meter was telling me to do these at 5.6/ 250, and that seems way too high. Isn't the rule for sunny day pictures f16 with shutter speed the inverse of film speed (1/500 for 400 speed film)?

Alternatively, are any of these fixable by messing around with the levels? Or am I gonna have to reclimb that mountain this weekend?
>>
>>2861388
>orange
>>
File: voigt_R3A_grey_06.jpg (219KB, 800x514px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
voigt_R3A_grey_06.jpg
219KB, 800x514px
yo /p/

iam not a super gearfag but there is this
Voigtländer Bessa R3A for 450 €
does it make sense if i get a non m mount lens
but a decent good one and use an adapter ?
let's say the c/y CZ 50mm 1,4
because thats the only good old lens i own right now and not using it..
>>
>>2862618
No, you fucking moron. If you adapt other lenses to RF's there is no way to focus them except by guessing.
>>2862233
Please, anyone.
>>
Hey guys,
recently I got a 2509n Jobo reel + drum to develop my 4x5. Some of my negatives are coming out with dripping goop type marks on them. Not all, though. A minority.

I use a local university darkroom and to simulate the jobo arm I place the container on one of those motorized rotators for colour development with paterson drums. It doesn't spin the most evenly, but up until now I haven't seen any splotches like this.

Is this a result of my process? Or am I perhaps not placing the fins in properly?
>>
>>2862685
well....you took some photos in the past and some of them got real good....after a few years later you forgot that you took snapshits in the past aswell and now you're thinking you got bad
keep shooting or leave it stop being hypocritical

btw that image is crap....imagine how many times i heard this when i posted my stuff....
but i also got amazing critics from /p/ lel
>>
File: IMG_0943.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0943.jpg
2MB, 2448x3264px
>>2862682
You can see it faintly in this print.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 4S
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)62 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:13 20:20:59
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness2.1 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2448
Image Height3264
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio1.8
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1465863695951.jpg (128KB, 800x786px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1465863695951.jpg
128KB, 800x786px
>>2862710
>>2862710
>>2862682
Circled in green is a water mark. Use a wetting agent in your final rinse.

Circled in red is uneven development, or possibly even another watermark, stemming from not immersing the whole negative quickly when you're developing. (Or possibly printing, is this mark definitely on the neg?)
The solution is to use enough developer to entirely cover your negs, you tight bastard. Or fill the tank quickly.
It happens because if there is just a splash on a part of the neg before the whole thing gets wet, it will get a second or so headstart on the rest of the development.
It's more common to see this effect on prints though, as the paper dev time is a lot shorter, so small time differences like that are exacerbated, and it's easy when putting a print in to develop to accidently leave a corner hanging out for a second or two.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 4S
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)62 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:14 10:42:44
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness2.1 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height786
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Digital Zoom Ratio1.8
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>2862201
>I was using 400 speed kodachrome
Kodachrome hasn't been made in years, m80. You're probably thinking of something else.

>>2862475
Sunny 16 is a guesstimate for when you don't have a light meter. Negative film can handle a ton of overexposure and still retain detail in the highlights. I'd try re-scanning them first
http://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/
>>
What are your experiences with Fomapan 100? I know it is not the best film at all, but I quite recently started with b/w film photography and home development, and I didn't want to waste top dollar on some practice rolls. The first photos I took and developed came out, well, not that great at all, but that is also to blame on the shitty camera (Olympus Trip 35 point and shoot which allows for almost no manual settings, plus I don't really trust the 50 y/o light meter/auto aperture contraption). I have a better camera (Olympus OM-1n) now and I'm going to shoot some practice/test rolls tomorrow, again on Fomapan 100, which I will then develop to see if all the shutter speeds etc. still work. Now, I don't really know what the concrete differences between quality film and budget film look lime exactly, so I'd like some reference material on Fomapan 100, taken by someone who knows what he's doing and has proper gear, so I can possibly cross out the film as a factor in sharpness etc. in the future, so I can decide a good point where my hopefully increased skill will warrant an upgrade to better quality film. Pic related was taken on Fomapan 100 with an Olympus Trip 35, pls no bully, it's just to give an impression of the 'quality' of my first self-developed roll, it's by no means meant as a good photo. (and, yes, I did forget to clean my scanner)

tl;dr can someone post his best picture taken on Fomapan 100?
>>
>>2863146
I don't use that trash, but I have a friend who does, and her shots are perfectly sharp. You just don't know how to focus your Trip.
>>
>>2863250
Well, it only has 4 crude focus settings, so it's a bit of a guess between whether something is at 'large stick figure' distance or 'two smaller stick figure' distance as it's a viewfinder camera. I believe the first setting corresponds with ca. 90cm but anyways, thanks for your answer. I'll be using a slr which I got in the mail today from now on, so I expect significant improvement sharpness-wise. That is, if I don't botch the development, but B/W development doesn't really seem hard.
>>
>>2863261
>it's a bit of a guess between whether something is at 'large stick figure' distance or 'two smaller stick figure' distance
It's a little weird at first but not that hard to get used to.
Just think "does my scene match what is on the focus scale?"
So if it's just one person and they fill most of the frame, go for the single stick figure, and so on.

If you aren't shooting people, just imagine whatever you are photographing as a person and apply the same thought pattern of whether it fills most of the frame etc.
>>
hey everyone, have you ever seen a "Kodak ColorPlus" film?
It's cheap, the colors are nothing special, the grain is nothing special and so on
I can't find any info on kodak's websites, so it's made by somebody else with the licence to use the name kodak or what?
>>
>>2863615
Thanks, I just got some colour photo's back from development (not chancing C41 after the stories I heard about it) and they came back quite sharp, I was actually surprised by it, although they were made with the same camera. I think the scanning method and the development, which are substandard at best, are mostly to blame. I'll just keep practicing the development and I think I'll look into a better scanner, as I really started to like film photography recently.
>>
>>2858047

Caffenol CL
>>
>>2863729
I suggest practising with some cheaper films to get a feel for the focusing.

It's a fun camera to use, and small enough to stick in a jacket pocket or bag and take anywhere. So it's worth getting to know it.
>>
>>2863834
Yeah I got a 10-pack of Fomapan in the mail today at ca. €3 a piece, I'm using that up to the point where I feel my quality is limited by the film instead of myself. The better films, like Portra and Tri-X (if I'm correct) are twice as expensive, so I'm not wasting the.m.on practicing when I feel the superior quality would not show through because I can't use it that well, if that explanation makes any sense. The films I have developed until now have shown a quick improvement though, so I might try some of the better films in the near future.

You're right about the Trip-35 by the way, it's really a fun camera to use, although it of course lacks many functions, and the quality of the photos one can make with it is really surprising, seeing that it's actually just a point-and-shoot. The half a century old light meter seems to still work perfectly. It's 'pocketability' makes up for its lack of functions just because you can just stick it in your jacket and make a snapshit of something fun you see underway. The next rolls I'm going to shoot with my 'new' OM-1 though, which is an absolute delight to use.
>>
>>2863675
Film manufacturers sell different film stocks under different names in different countries, or don't at all. Same with Ilford Pan 100&400, you won't find a word about it on their page. Film manufacturers are weird like that.
>>
File: IMG_0022.jpg (837KB, 1712x1128px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0022.jpg
837KB, 1712x1128px
Somebody in the last thread asked about that 20 year old roll of Kodak T-Max 100.
Turns out it was already exposed.
Two times for some frames, only one for some others.
Here are some results 'cause I look good in b/w.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1712
Image Height1128
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Created2016:06:16 12:02:30
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1712
Image Height1128
>>
File: IMG_0016.jpg (701KB, 1712x1144px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0016.jpg
701KB, 1712x1144px
>>2864273
ah, also I fucked up, I had exposed the film for 50 iso to make up for the lost sensitivity, then I told the girl at the counter I exposed it for 50 iso and she had it developed for 50 iso, so I edited the pics in Ps to make up for that.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1712
Image Height1144
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:06:16 11:34:46
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1712
Image Height1144
>>
File: IMG_0011.jpg (565KB, 1712x1148px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0011.jpg
565KB, 1712x1148px
>>2864275

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1712
Image Height1148
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionUnknown
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2016:06:15 20:22:32
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1712
Image Height1148
>>
>>2864273
how do the unedited negs look?

these look really terrible even for expired film
>>
File: IMG_0022_unedited.jpg (805KB, 1712x1128px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
IMG_0022_unedited.jpg
805KB, 1712x1128px
>>2864388
here's an unedited scan as it came out of the scanner software and then converted to jpg
one of the problems tho might be that the scanner sucks, it's a CanoScan 9000F
>>
Goddamnit, I should have asked beforehand.

I bought a ton of shit and it included developer, fix and stop.

Now the bottle of fix smells like rotten eggs. So that is done right?

Now I have 2 storage bottles also, one is filled up with fixer. It does not smell at all, but I see some silver(?) parts floating on top, also, the bottom of the bottle is yellow... Done also?
>>
>>2864511
Idk what you have bought exactly, but fixer generally doesn't smell like perfume. Also, it's reusable, but only up to a certain point. I don't reuse it at all, as I once had a roll of (what I thought were) nice photos destroyed by substandard fixer. It's not that expensive, so I just throw it out after one use.
>>
>>2857434
Awesome. I love when shit is easy to fix.
I once got a Nikon ftn or something like that for dirt cheap with the 50 1.4 on it and all it needed was a little piece of cloth trimmed above the mirror. It was keeping the mirror from coming back down. Now it works like the tank that it is.
>>
>>2862470
Yeah
>>
>>2864732
why not just re-fix it with proper fixer?
>>
>>2865101
Yeah I got scolded in the new film thread, I may have misunderstood exactly how fixer works, I haven't been home developing for long. As for that failed roll, I must have made another mistake there, the fixer can't be blamed.
>>
File: DSC07434resize.jpg (448KB, 1000x687px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
DSC07434resize.jpg
448KB, 1000x687px


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-3N
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height1373
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2016:06:17 12:33:48
Exposure Time1/6 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness-3.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height687
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>2865119
F L A T
L
A
T
>>
>>2865250
you mean the contrast? depth of field? can you elaborate?
>>
File: vepfxmdz.jpg (549KB, 984x671px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
vepfxmdz.jpg
549KB, 984x671px
>>2865370
>>2865119
it's just FLAT you moron and stop adding some ugly ass black borders to images

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2016:06:18 03:51:17
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width984
Image Height671
Thread posts: 351
Thread images: 83


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.