/film/ General Thread 3

File: 20160718_012149.jpg (211KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1200x800px

Just noticed something in one of my photos. See the light streaks coming from the lights at the top right? Also the thing that looks like a light leak in the bottom centre, which is actually coming from a sprocket hole.
Is it the fabled bromide drag? This is the first frame of the roll, the rest of the film seems to be fine.
Delta 3200 in Microphen

>inb4 electronic is better than mechanical and plastic is better than metal because "more modern" even though it won't last as long and more parts can go bad or it just ends up not working period

>>2885136
totally needed this

File: stairs are for plebs.jpg (812KB, 1440x532px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1440x532px

>trying to number the general.
"no".

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	EPSON scanner
Camera Software	EPSON Scan
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016-07-09T00:31:08-23:00

File: 18013031372_632b5b36b6_b.jpg (322KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1000x1000px

Best budget 6x6 SLR camera is the Bronica SQ-A. No contest. If the $300-$400 entry pricetag is too much save up for another month. If you can't save up $300-$400 in two months or less shooting film is probably not a good idea period.

>>2885183
>meme camera that won't function without batteries
>"B-b-but muh leaf shutter high sync speeds"
>Mechanical is junk because reasons

>>2885186
I've had to change the battery twice since buying the camera in 2007...

>>2885196
That's fine, I just would rather get a camera that has the option of shooting without batteries for conditions where electronics would get fried, like cold or wet days or a really hot stint on the beach

>>2885183

SG-A is a very old camera. I suspect most of them are in a need of cla.

Add that to your price.

>>2885201
taken my camera on multi-day hikes in the rainy PNW and 110F+ Utah desert. It's been through the deserts of Nevada and on the beaches of Florida and Eastern Canada. I shot with it for years in rainy Vancouver.

Dunno why some people think just because a camera has a battery it becomes extremely fragile. I haven't babied my camera at all and it's never given me problems. It's been soaked countless times from rain and snow. It's been as cold as 5F and as hot as 120F (all on the current battery).

Mechanical cameras are great. I just can't think of an all mechanical 6x6 camera with the robustness and optical quality of the Bronica SQ. If you know of one please post.

What are your guys' thoughts on the Rollei slx/6000 series cameras?I like that they have the motor drive and the meter built into the body but that's really all I know about them

>>2885211
I can think of a few, the Rollei SL66 comes to mind

>>2885219
We're talking affordable/budget here though. Those are like 2x-3x the price of a Bronica.

>>2885136
Electronic is literally better than mechanical, though. Are you really going to get a machinist to custom make you a new spring or gear or whatever when some delicate moving part breaks? No, you're going to throw it away or at best you'll find a second camera to scavenge for parts.

It would be better to just have an electronic shutter which, admittedly, can't be repaired, but also doesn't really require maintenance or adjustment to stay accurate.

File: 19794434900_0b5ae32459_b.jpg (315KB, 765x1024px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 765x1024px

>>2885201
Are you from 1979? Electronic cameras have more than proven their reliability and durability for decades.

>>2885253
>Are you from 1979
No but the camera's electronics are

hey guys, i just found a kodak advantix f600 and the switch to open the film bay is stuck. the battery is dead. Is it locked on purpose to you dont accidentally ruin your film?

File: Photo08_8.jpg (190KB, 1000x652px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1000x652px

>>2885253
I want an F3 now

>>2885131
Could be, but looks like a lightleak to me. Bromide drag usually looks like the "blacks are being dragged down" creating halos around sharp edges in my experience, and it's weird that it would happen to only one of the sprocket holes.

Pic related, 1 hour semi stand in Rodinal.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:18 13:24:59

>>2885445
Oh, that could make sense. I was told by someone seeming knowledgeable that it was bromide drag.
That's what you get for trusting anons I guess.

>>2885399
It's not bromide drag, it's highlights overdevelopment due to unused developer from the shadows diffusing over to the highlights and further developing them - an effect of too little agitation.

>>2885448
was in reply to >>2885449 that was changed.

>>2885448
I tried writing a post and watching a yt vid at the same time and wrote gibberish, sorry, had to delete and rephrase that properly. I had the same streaks and opted for a tiny stir every 10 minutes in the hour of stand dev, enough to replenish the developer. I lose a bit of the compensating effect but if I had a strongly exposed photo adjacent to an underexposed one the highlights would exhaust all the developer in that area. Negs come out more contrasty but you save the shadows. Not as much of an issue on rolls of misty/cloudy/overcast shots.

File: rpx400002.jpg (91KB, 1000x787px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1000x787px

>>2885452
Aha, that sounds smart enough.
I'll try agitating more often next time I'm doing stand, at the moment it has been a bit hit or miss.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:18 16:32:36

>>2885399
fix your contrast dweeb

>>2885476
fix yourself

>>2885209
As do most cameras. I'm not sure what your point is here.
>>2885300
May be worth your time to read a manual.

honest question, what is it with people stand developing in rodinal? why do it?

>inb4 "to keep contrast and grain low"
then WHY are you using rodinal to begin with?

>>2885563
me-solely because it's cheap, botchproof and that's the only dev I can make at home. You reliably get a useable image you can freely modify in digital post to your liking. It'd be terrible for proper darkroom wet printing. If I wasn't stingy, lazy and paranoid about shelf life I'd use a better one.

Also, fine grain and tonal range compression in contrasty scenes.

>>2885563
>>2885567
D76/D-11 m80boys

shit's fantastic and works well diluted so long as you don't stand develop.

if you shoot foma make sure to agitate an extra 5% or so per minute

>>2885579
I don't stand develop or use Rodinal, but I use HC-110 which is cheap and easy to store forever and easy to mix up as needed in small amounts at any desired concentration. I think that's why a lot of people favor syrups like HC-110 or Rodinal over powders.

Why is it so hard to get Acufine up here in Canada?

Does anybody here use Diafine? It seems really expensive and most stores won't ship it, and I find it hard to believe that it works as flawlessly as all these internet articles claim. Can you seriously take a bunch of different film stocks and throw them all into this shit and get out perfectly developed negatives as easily as people claim?

File: dust.jpg (220KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1000x665px

Why are my negs so fucking dusty?

I dry them in my toilet and scan immediately after they are dried

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	PhotoSmart S20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	17968
Image Height	2448
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:07:18 23:32:58
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	665

>>2885612
Did you wipe it with toilet paper or something? How long do you hang it up for? Have you changed your air conditioning filters this century? That seems like a really abnormal amount of dust.

>>2884794

Yeah, it's not ideal. Best I could get for the price. Less than half the price of a Linhof 617 or Shenhao 617, not including the cones with the former.

>>2885612
"I dry them in my toilet"

Elaborate.

>>2885680
>tfw your photographs are literal snapshits

>>2885612
Do the negatives look dusty? Is the dust surface level or does it seem stuck on? Check your scanner (or whatever you're using to digitise) too. Does the dust persist even after wiping down with the sort of cloth you'd use to clean your glasses?

Toilet jokes aside mate, sorry to hear you're having trouble.

>>2885697
What does this have to do with my photography?

>>2885703
Nothing mate, sorry, it was just a joke. On /p/ snapshot style photography is referred to as "snapshits", or "snapshitting", in a usually facetious or dismissive way. I was playing with that and the idea of "I dry them in the toilet" being a double meaning. Meaning 1, I dry them in the room in which my toilet is located. Meaning 2, I put them into the actual toilet where shit would be.

Nothing personal, just a bit of wordplay.

I ordered a Mamiya 645 from ebay yesterday. I'm gonna need a new lens for my enlarger. I was thinking about El-Nikkor 75mm, but apparently this lens is regarded as "shit" on the Internet because it only features a 4 element Tessar-like design (whereas the 50mm and the 80mm are 6 element). Will it really matter? If I buy the more expensive 80mm instead, am I going to be throwing away money for nothing?

>>2885718
It probably won't matter much, but people are pretty much giving all enlarger lenses away for nothing so why not get something better if you have the option? Where are you looking that enlarger lenses are expensive?

>>2885725
Just browsing ebay.

File: DSC_3809-2.jpg (646KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 1500x1500px

So how do you people scan medium format? I have a Plustek scanner which works decently enough for 35mm, but it won't cover medium format so I've been trying to DSLR scan instead with the negatives placed in an enlarger and the digital camera where the enlarger lens would go. I'm pretty ready to blow my brains out from all the tedium though, and the results aren't even any good. And by the time I'm done cropping to a square with all the jagged edges and stuff cut off I've lost like half my image which means less than 6 megapixels left.

I could shoot at 1:1 magnification and stitch together several photos to get more resolution, but the enlarger doesn't allow for any vertical and horizontal motion to get all the photos to stitch together.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Photographer	JORGE MARTORELL
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	778
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:18 18:48:27
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2885697

Meant to say bathroom not toilet.

I don't have a loupe and by naked eye I can't see any dust.

My scanner is ok because I have scanned some other negatives and they are fine.

I washed the negs again and now used microfiber cloth to wipe most of the water away. I let them dry a while and scan again.

>Ib4 wiping wet emulsion with cloth.

>>2885743
>used microfiber cloth to wipe most of the water away
>>Ib4 wiping wet emulsion with cloth.
If you already know it's a stupid idea then why did you do it anyway? Don't touch your negatives with anything, just fucking wash them and let them air dry, it's not hard. They're going to be covered in fibers from the cloth now.

>>2885743
Agree with the poster above. Stop touching your wet negatives with anything. Run the shower if you have one to steam up the air, some people say that helps keep dust down. Some photo-flo or the ilford equivalent (sold as record cleaner) may also help as it helps bring down the levels of static charge which make the film attract dust.

File: New scans for p.jpg (5MB, 2996x2000px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2996x2000px

>>2885563
I don't use stand dev, I think it's just ultimate poorfag false economy, but I do use Rodinal as developer of first choice for my Rollei Retro 80S.
It gives great contrast and acutance, and low grain.

>>2885598
diafine lasts forever, I'm still using what I mixed up two years ago and I've dev'd over 100 rolls. and yeah, you develop 3 minutes in part A and 3 minutes in part B, the times don't change according to the film, since it develops to completion, part B developing all the part A that was absorbed by the film. it's just kind of a pain to get a hold of it depending on where you live. websites like macodirect ship worldwide, but it can be pretty expensive if you're outside of europe. if you're in the states, try adorama

I found 6 rolls of HP5 Plus in an old camera bag in a closet, it has to be atleast 2 years old at the minimum.

Will it still be okay to shoot with?

Is there an app that I can scan film and invert the photo without the blue tint that comes with it?

>>2885743
>I don't have a loupe and by naked eye I can't see any dust.
thats a 35mm negative right? that dust should absolutely be visible to the naked eye.

are you sure its not in the scanner? or maybe on the lens of the camera itself?

>>2885822
yes
pull it for good luck

File: image.jpg (79KB, 380x253px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 380x253px

A savage dude in my village sold the Leica M3 with 50mm of his grandfather for 30$, FOR 30 FUCKING DOLLARS.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	380
Image Height	253
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2885822
2 years old is perfectly fine.

Any light meter apps you guys use on Android?

>>2886019
Please tell me you bought it. If not kys

In a general census, what does /p/ think is the best B&W film?

>>2886019
>village

File: still-film-service-page3.jpg (308KB, 940x790px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 940x790px

>>2886102
the one you have on you? ;]

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix E500
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:07:17 11:03:42
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.4
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	940
Image Height	790
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2886102
adox cms20 for sharpness

foma for affordability and DEM MIDTONES

ilford delta for general professional use

>>2886182
>adox cms20 for sharpness
are you retarded or just an adox shill

>literally just big expensive microfilm
>iso 20
>can only be developed by special and expensive process
>unless you have a $3000 zeiss lense, you're not even going to get close to the sharpness that the film can provide you

>>2886194
Damn son you mad

A roll of 120 CMS20 can be gotten for £4.36 per roll. Per individual roll that's less than a roll of HP5 usually costs over here. A roll of 35mm individually can be gotten for £3.40. HP5 for example tends to go for around £4 per roll. Developer isn't that expensive. Maybe consider buying good lenses and cameras that support them.

ISO20 isn't a problem for what I do. I tend to buy Delta 100 or Fomapan 100 because I don't need huge resolution. However when someone asks "what's the best film" I'm gounna think of it technically. And for the best quality, Adox is up there.

Just ordered a Voigtlander Compur Brilliant. What am I in for?

>>2886198
>adotech
>cheap

I don't know what weird bongstate you live in, but here adox is always more expensive than kodak or ilford

File: mynolta.jpg (132KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 960x720px

found this camera from my parents basement, when I get paid I think I buy some film and new batteries and test if it works.

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

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

>>2886182
>>2886198
dumb option, just use rollei 80s or rollei atp with a regular low contrast developer if you really do need fine grain.

>>2886232
I live in a bongcountry where adox film is, roll for roll (and thus in bulk even moreso) substantially cheaper than lower resolving and more expensive films by Ilford and kodak. The developing costs, negligent as they are in comparison, don't offset this cost in any meaningful way

>>2886241
You are aware that it uses APS film, I presume?

>>2886263
>You are aware that it uses APS film, I presume?
Why would you presume that?

>>2886270
Just trying to be polite, m8.

>>2885201
for any of that to apply your camera would have to become cold enough for the aperture blades to stiffen up, the camera too hot to touch, or enough water to get into the camera to fuck the film and lens elements.

>>2885738
flatbed

File: girls_und_panzer_movie_teramoto_03.jpg (29KB, 358x363px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 358x363px

>>2886199
you're in for some cute anime times

>>2886281
I was actually just about to ask about the V600. Should I get one? I didn't really want to have to buy more shit but if that can give me decent results at least for web resolution with less hassle then that's great. The V800 seems a bit better, not a huge difference but enough to be sort of noticeable but I don't want to pay that much. I'm open to buying an older V700 or something used but ebay didn't seem to have any for much cheaper.

Should I just go ahead and get a Better Scanning film holder too? It's another $70 but they seem pretty highly recommended.

>>2886345
no matter what, images will look bad on flatbed, but they are the cheapest solution

>>2886345
V550 if it's cheaper than the V600. The others are only really worth it if you're shooting LF or need to digitize more strips at once.

The better scanning film holders are okay if you can get one locally. If you're in Europe that may depend entirely for you.

Looking to get into developing my own negatives at home.

I had a Pentax k1000 with a whole bunch of different lenses but it got lost in my love and I've been out of the game for a few years.

Use to get my stuff developed at the store but I'm looking to start developing my own b&w shots. Got a 35mm Minolta off of Amazon and aside from reels what other chemicals and supplies so I need? How much should I expect to pay? Will probably scan negatives for the time being because poor but eventually wouldn't mind upgrading to a projector.

>>2886367
Love = move

Damnit

All I have is Gimp to edit any photos I DSLR scan myself. Is there an easier way to fix a blue color cast without doing the whole Equalize thing? The results are too grainy at 200 daylight when I do this.

>>2886284
Just as planned

That said though, my camera is a TLR

>>2886551
It's a pseudo-tlr with no focusing aid. The viewfinder is solely for composing the shot and making the cheap rolleiflex lookalike seem better than the slightly more versatile nox camera it is.

File: detail.jpg (5MB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2400x1600px

>>2886479
These are my results when DSLR scanning 200ISO colour negatives.
Learn to suck less dick.
Don't use auto adjustments.
When converting your RAW scans to jpegs, choose a custom white balance that gets the colours as close to neutral as possible once they're inverted.
After inverting, use curves to adjust your colours and contrast.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:18 09:33:16
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/13.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2886569
What are your presets generally at so I could work from there? I'm using a Rabal to scan as well along with a soft white fluorescent bulb for backlighting.

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

455KB, 2138x795px

>>2886589
>presets
What?
I remove all RAW sharpening, I desaturate black and whites.
For colour I do what I said before.
Take a photo of an empty frame, use it to set a custom white balance.
Then in RAW conversion, use curves to invert the negative, and move your white balance colour shifter around until it looks OK.
Then set back to a neg, export JPEGS, and invert those using the invert command in Gimp Batch Image Manipulator (you need to download it).
If you don't know what "use curves" means, you're too new to bother teaching any of this and I can't help you. Do your own research.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:28 08:08:19
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	1.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2138
Image Height	795
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

>>2886589
lol, presets.

wb off empty film
crop in so it's just image (no border, no sprockets, this is important for your histogram, youc an change it back later)
min higlights, max shadows, set your white and black point using alt.
invert RGB curve
Top and tail the r, g and b curves so the histogram peaks and troughs line up
congratulations, your image is now adequate and comparable to a raw out of camera

If there's anything there you don't understand, go learn lightroom some more, gimp is a waste of everyone's time - no-one is going to advise on the intricacies of shit software, by using shit software you acknowledge that you can read the instructions for popular similar software and "translate" them into your product.

File: gif.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

You all will die by the power of lord Satan.

>>2886569
This image actually looks like shit and I kept waiting for it to load correctly. I hope this is a massive crop of a much bigger frame.

>>2886687
>I hope this is a massive crop of a much bigger frame
>35mm superia 200 scanned one shot with a rabal
I hope that future you will feel bad about how dumb and ignorant present day you was.

File: IMG_20160720_161124.jpg (1MB, 1597x1064px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1597x1064px

Why don't you guys just make a dslr scan general? These threads have become so boring.
Here is a picture of my cat.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 7400
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:05 21:55:55
Image Width	1597
Image Height	1064

File: 1469023944427.jpg (47KB, 427x315px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 427x315px

>>2886702
Hey, why don't you make a plustek general too?
Someone might post your missing dmax/min/rows of pixels/credibility.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 7400
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:21 00:16:48
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	427
Image Height	315

File: saimaa.jpg (333KB, 1000x617px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 1000x617px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	PhotoSmart S20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3560
Image Height	2456
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:07:20 20:52:05
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	617

File: 2016-07-20-0001.jpg (436KB, 1000x679px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1000x679px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	PhotoSmart S20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	17968
Image Height	2448
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:07:20 21:06:39
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	679

File: 2016-07-20-0002.jpg (469KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 668x1000px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	PhotoSmart S20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	17968
Image Height	2448
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:07:20 21:15:41
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	668
Image Height	1000

File: Untitled-1.jpg (288KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1000x563px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:20 21:17:16
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	563

File: image.jpg (33KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x300px

>>2886061
No, I think it's time to....

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	300
Image Height	300
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2886103
Yeah village, what is wrong with it?
Btw film completely dead in Pakistan and Americucks bought almost all of the classic/iconic film cameras for very fucking very few bucks.
Now you can find cameras like
Mamiya 645 for 150$
Rb 67 for 80$
Yashica mat 124 for 40$
Rolliefliex for 200$
In good condition

>>2886826
how do I buy cameras out of Pakistan?

>>2886710
You have no idea what you're talking about. Hurrdurr dmax blablablub.

>>2886833
There's a massive pixel shift right through the middle of your image. I showed a crop of it.
I presume it's either fucked, and does that to every scan, or you bumped it mid-scan.
But also, from the scan you posted, the shadows and highlights are both massively blocked up as well.
And I know you gave it a soft as shit negative to work with, but the resolution is pretty bad too, while we're at it.

getting my 6x7 Pro SD with 127mm and 65mm in the mail next week.

>>2885201
>conditions where electronics would get fried
These are conditions where films get "fried" too.
I think you're a bit confused.

File: 20160720_235403.jpg (170KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1200x900px

I recently acquired a 30m bulk roll of Ilford HP5+ - very cheap, I have to say. However after developing the film, I've noticed that the film is marked differently than the regular HP5+ sold in casettes.
See picture - "Safety film" marking apparently hasn't been used for quite some time, the font is different etc. Also the film seems to be much more grainier than what I usually get from HP5+, but that might be because it was the first roll I shot with a new dark red filter and being inexperienced with how much I have to compensate, I might have overexposed it.

Did I buy a fake HP5+? Or some very old stock?

>>2885598
>throw them all into this shit and get out perfectly developed negatives as easily as people claim?
Diafine is a special purpose developer.

It's true you mix and match films without worrying for dev times or temperature too much.

But you don't control contrast. The reaction is done to completion, you can't alter contrast through dev times or dilution. And contrast could be too flat sometimes.

Also, you need to be careful and because if you somehow manage to use the 2 developers in the wrong order, you'll have destroyed not just your film, but also the first developer.

>>2886890
>>2886905
Nice to see you around again.
I doubt you'll stay, though; you're too good for this shithole.

File: image.png (141KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x366px

>>2886946
:*

>>2886894
Just check the box/tin. No-one is selling "fake HP5". Tho I may start reselling Foma400 as HP5 now to trick innocent goys like you.

File: jjhj.jpg (887KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 2048x2048px

MAMIYA 6 REVIEW
>bought a Mamiya 6 2 weeks ago
>used it on a trip to Uluru

Good:
>meter is accurate, even in difficult lighting situations
>camera feels a lot more solid than people say

Bad:
>I enjoy using my Hasselblad waaaaay more
>its extremely difficult to see the selected shutter speed in the RF

>Sold Mamiya 6 yesterday

On a good note, I have another Hasselblad on the way and a 150/4. Probs sound like a gearfag, but I need a backup camera. A couple road trips ago I had to turn around and come home because my only camera (Hasselblad) jammed. The Mam6 was supposed to be my redundancy, but I didn't like it - so I'm just getting another Hassy.

Also looking at purchasing a Hasselblad Flextight scanner because I'm sick of paying out the ass for shitty scans.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:19 20:40:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	2048

>>2886689
>>2886689
Nowhere did you say it was scanned with one shot.

If I were you I'd just get a flatbed. You'd get better results than that rabal shit.

>>2886894
HP5+ in bulk has exactly these markings, nothing to worry

>>2886894
>tfw all film is safety film now and nobody makes nitrate based film anymore
I wish I had violently flammable film so I could light my shitty photos on fire.

>>2885479
Did you ever shoot that roll of purple?

>>2886962
>its extremely difficult to see the selected shutter speed in the RF

I feel like that may have been an issue in particular to yours. I don't remember mine having that problem.

>I enjoy using my Hasselblad waaaaay more
Once you go WLF there's no going back. Same reason I sold my 6 as well. Hope you at least broke even selling it.

File: KeysBridgeBoat.jpg (680KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 800x800px

>>2887030
But damn, were the images great from that thing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4927
Image Height	4984
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2011:12:29 08:07:34
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2885171
what camera, what lens???

>>2886829
You have to go to the market.
There is no PayPal in Pakistan. That's why sellers are not in the stuff like eBay.

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o4_500.jpg (120KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x750px

hey babes! have some recent images:

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:07:20 11:13:48

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o2_500.jpg (125KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 500x750px

>>2887137

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:07:20 11:13:43

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o5_500.jpg (111KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x750px

>>2887138

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:07:20 11:13:15

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o3_500.jpg (141KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x750px

>>2887139

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:07:20 11:15:39

>>2887025
Not yet Choppy, I'll post results when I do.

What's the best method for cleaning my negatives? Got them back from the developers with dust and finger prints on some, is this normal or should better care be taken?

File: final.jpg (4MB, 4796x2112px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4796x2112px

attempting to scan my negatives today, scan goes okay, then when i invert in photoshop, i am left with an almost pure white image,

what am i doing wrong?

i used an epson scanner fist then tried a dslr backlit with my phone screen, same results for both

i have included a sample from the dslr, i know it looks like shit but it was quick just to show you guys

thanks

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:21 15:27:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4796
Image Height	2112

>>2887209
Use a high % alc rub, apply with a fine qtip and let evaporate. Also that shouldn't be happening from any half decent lab.

File: edit.jpg (3MB, 1991x1319px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1991x1319px

>>2887295

okay so i messed around with levels and ended up with this, but as you can see it is terrible, is my camera over exposing the photos in the first place? or is it shit scanning technique?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePix S9600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3488
Image Height	2616
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:21 15:41:24
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	0.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	11.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1991
Image Height	1319
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2887295
Scan looks far too dark. What model Epson is it? Are you sure you have it all set up right?

>>2887305
>>2887295
its a horrible scan, not the film

i don't know much about scanners but it looks like whenever i accidentally set my scanner to "reflective mode", like for scanning opaque prints and documents

>>2885136
>no because best is Macrotus digital Agamemnon RX995 with Imperator class 4 sensory input and Zebulon Kudu lens

>>2887121
no thanks Mr. Taliban recruiter sir

What's a somewhat decent MF TLR I could get for something like 200-300$?

>>2887350
Look around I got my mamiya c330 for 500$ Canadian with 4 lenses and a hardcase. There's also the yashica mat, c220, all the rolleicords ect.

>>2887316
Its an Epson rx640, I just scanned it in from Photoshop as the scanner function isnt working because no ink

>>2887330
Maybe I should put some ink in the printer so it lets me use it properly, however I downloaded silver light and it wouldn't recognise my scanner

>>2887364
Wrong type of scanner mate, you need one that can backlight your film. There are some very modest Epsons, some reasonably priced ones that can do other film formats than 35mm, and some nice dedicated film scanners. Do a bit more research and try again.

If you're already trying to DSLR scan that might be a better bet. Just get a nice soft, bright light source (a lightbox/tracing table, a difused flash) and something to hold your negs flat. If you're using a smartphone you'll get the pixels from that screen in the final photo and it'll look nasty.

>>2887372
it has a dedicated film scanning function though and negative holders stored in the lid

>>2887386
Ah yeah, okay! Googled it and you're right. If the scans are all turning out like that it'll be one of three problems.

1) Your negatives are exposed badly.
2) The scanner is physically set up incorrectly (like a shroud or whatever not removed to let the backlight shine through).
3) The scanner software is not set up correctly. Make sure it knows you want to scan film, and try everything on "auto" and see how that works.

>>2886367
a tank, fixer and a watch. use coffenol c its cheap and easy to make

File: bosna-hot-dog_mala.jpg (308KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1000x662px

LCD backlight scanning is such a meme

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X20
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:21 19:39:51
Exposure Time	0.8 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.10 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2221
Image Height	1470
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2887424
youre not the first one to recognize this. looks much worse in color tho

>>2887061
X P A N, 45mm, Agfa Vista 200.

>>2887386
take off the white reflector m8

>>2887387
thanks man, ill give it a go in the morning, i think im just gonna have to get ink for it though for it to work properly as it doesnt let me past the "get more ink" screen

>>2887462
i took the white reflector off but there is a smaller white one on the inside lid right above the negative strip

I'm curious, what are situations where you guys would shoot medium format instead of 35mm film?

>>2887573
When I can afford the extra time and effort needed to take the image, and think the image will be worth it.

File: CrowsChillinGoatMountain.jpg (385KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 800x800px

>>2887573
If I've already made the decision to shoot film it comes down to whether I want to carry a camera around or not.

If yes, I'll take my medium format camera
If no, I'll take my 35mm p&s that fits in my pocket.

Usually if I'm going on a hike or somewhere cool and already taking a backpack the medium format camera will join. If I'm going out for a couple of hours or doing something where having a backpack isn't necessary I'll just take my point and shoot.

Personally, I fail to see the point of using a big camera (SLR, big rangefinder, etc) to shoot 35mm...which is why I don't own one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5015
Image Height	4983
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2011:10:28 19:17:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2887577
Even though I personally own a large non-pocketable rangefinder, I prefer your setup and rationale for it. (Though I carry mine on a simple blackrapid strap)

File: comfy.webm (730KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

730KB, 960x540px

comfy af tbqh

>>2887573
When you're willing to trade convenience for image quality. Every increase in film size means bigger heavier cameras with fewer photos per roll (or even a single shot for a sheet) and also the bigger you go the less convenience features the cameras tend to have. You can get a 35mm autofocus SLR with basically all the high tech features of a DSLR if you want to, but if you're doing medium format it'll almost certainly mean manual focus and little if any automation, and large format is even more basic and clunky.

So I'll grab my medium format camera when I feel like seriously going out to take photos and I'm willing to stop and think carefully about every shot I take. It'll often require using a tripod too, which is even more of a pain in the ass.

If I'm just going for a casual photowalk or something where I still want to shoot film but don't want to carry around a load of shit then I'll stick to 35mm.

>>2887589
I'm sorry for your parkinsons

>>2887424
You're not supposed to lie the film on the screen you moron.

Get some opal acrylic, and spacers, and a way of holding your film flat, off the surface.

>>2887429
No it doesn't, the difference between using flash and lcd are non existent when done correctly.

File: DSC07171edit.jpg (457KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1000x1000px

>>2887424
You need to put white acrylic between the screen and film dummy. I have no problems using an LCD screen for back-lighting scans.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:12 17:38:28
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Probably a stupid question. But if I'm using exposure compensation on my camera I have to use the same settings for the entire roll of film?

>>2887744
It's a very stupid question.
No.

>>2887744
Depends what you're using it for. If you're using it because you're shooting in snow or on a sandy beach or shooting something backlit, then no.

If you're using it as a weird way to push/pull the film instead of simply changing the ISO to whatever you're pushing/pulling to, then yes.

File: image.jpg (124KB, 1200x489px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1200x489px

>>2887752
How do I exposure comp on a Nikon FE? It the same dial as the ASA

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	489
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2887832
>It the same dial as the ASA
Yes

>>2887589
developing chrome prints?
can we see the results anon

always wanted to do this but the process seems so long and drawn out that I can't imagine getting any creative printing work done. B&W works for me because I can see the results almost immediately

>>2887832
its just a different method of doing the same thing

>>2887832
lift the ring

>>2887851
Oh god I'm so stupid. Thanks. I was turning it without lifting wondering what the fuck it actually does as it just adjusts the ASA.

>>2887847
cibachrome doesn't exist anymore anon. that tank is made for developing film, he's just using the roller for a constant agitation.

>>2887856
>he's just using the roller for a constant agitation
what garbage

>>2887193
I'll be eating a bag of dicks like you recommended in the meantime.
Kinda curious to see if it looks just as terrible when you shoot it, though.
I feel like it should at least not be so grainy.

File: untouched.jpg (308KB, 850x561px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 850x561px

How does a noob get gooder colors? I have this scan, and I'll post an edit in a sec.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:22 15:18:06
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: img090-2.jpg (424KB, 850x593px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 850x593px

>>2887926
I got this out of it, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the way it looks yet.

Can anyone recommend me some reading or tips about what adjustments to make?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:22 14:50:25
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2887927
the original's better but they both have a green cast. you gotta use color adjustments to reduce it. slightly warmer and more contrast

File: 1469215357301 copy.jpg (376KB, 850x561px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 850x561px

>>2887926

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	850
Image Height	561
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:23 00:15:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	850
Image Height	561

File: 1469215357301.jpg (415KB, 850x561px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 850x561px

>>2887926
>>2887927
Learn to use curves. Image->Adjustments->Curves in photoshop. This took a few seconds, literally.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	850
Image Height	561
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:22 17:15:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	850
Image Height	561

File: 1469215357301.jpg (296KB, 850x561px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 850x561px

>>2887927
>>2887981
>>2887982
git good faggits

>>2887998
>>2887982
>>2887981
>>2887927
>>2887926
There is literally nothing about this photograph worth wasting your time editing it for. Its a badly focused shot of a teenager smoking. Move along.

>>2887891
Nice, bon appétit. I'll try to shoot it at 100 speed and see what happens.

>>2887860
>>2887847
Nothing wrong with using the motor for constant agitation. Saves a bit of time and is easy for C-41.
>>2887637
You're not far off.

File: image.jpg (127KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x640px

Bought some opal acrylic today, going to do some test scans tonight. Will post results in the morning.

I'm using a Yungnou flash at 1/128 and shooting with a 50mm + extension tubes at 1/125, f8, ISO100 and white balance set to the warmest setting.

That's all the correct settings right?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	640

>>2888004
It's just an example dude. I found it worth playing with as an educational experience. It doesn't have to be high art...

>>2887982
Lol, you took the time to remove some dust?

I got a rz67 mk ii along with all of the backs and a flash for free. The problem I have is that it looks like the shutter button was locked in the on position, and it's very hard to fix it. Should I send it to Keh or just ignore it? I have to use thr battery to act as the shutter trigger

>>2888019
>constant agitation
>C-41

oh, well yeah. for some reason I thought that post implied that it was black and white, my bad

>>2887589
How much do those things cost? I really want some for constant agitation.

I got out of digital photography last week because I honestly can't stand the workflow of it anymore and I have WAAAAY more fun in the darkroom than I do in lightroom.

So right now my main camera is a Ricoh GR1V and I want to get into a film system. I am comfortable with Rangefinders and SLRs in 35mm. I wear glasses and already know what viewfinders do and don't work for glasses.

I have around $1500 to spend, here are the systems I am considering

Fuji TX1/Hasselblad Xpan - Entire budget would be for camera + 45mm F4. My only beef with this camera is slow lenses. I do shoot at night sometimes.

Canon 7s + 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2 - This seems like a fun camera and I hear the viewfinder, despite being 0.8x, has usable 35mm framelines for glasses wearers. My only beef is the meter stops at ASA400 and I often push tri-x to 1600

Nikon F3 + 28mm, 50mm, 85mm AIS nikkors

Konica Hexar RF + 50mm M-Hexanon + 35mm f1.4 Nokton MC - Probably the best overall rangefinder for left-eyed glasses shooters.

I am open to suggestions. If you had $1500 to spend on a 135 setup, what would you do?

>>2887854
normally it is the other way around, twist for comp, lift for ASA

>>2888088
Contax T3 and spend the rest of the money on film.

>>2888088
$1500 will go a long way if you stick to 35mm SLRs. Personally I'd get an F3, 28mm f/2.8 AI-S, 50mm f/1.4 AI-S, 105mm f/2.5 AI-S. That leaves a whole lot left over if you want any particular special purpose or exotic lens, whatever extra darkroom gear may make your life easier, lots of film and paper and chemicals, maybe a quality tripod.

Are you sure you want manual focus? You could also get an F100 instead and switch those lenses for their AF-D and AF-S equivalents. Maybe you could even afford an F6 instead.

>>2888088
Coming from a canon fd shooter, get an f3

>>2888088
Personally I'd go for two cheaper, different kinds of camera rather than one expensive camera. An SLR and a rangefinder, a TLR and a point and shoot. Any kind of combo because no camera is totally perfect, and because realistically film cameras are old already and more likely to break/be unable to be repaired for non-extortionate prices.

>>2888094
I already have a GR1V though. I feel like a T3 would be kinda redundant

>>2888096
I think the F3 is definitely the front runner right now. I want a manual focus camera to offset my AF point and shoots (aside from the Ricoh I like to collect cheap point and shoots).

>>2888098

I still play to shoot the GR1V because the lens is fucking absurdly good so I figured a less automated camera would be a good 2nd camera. I figured an SLR works best since it lets me look through the lens and the GR is a viewfinder.

Thanks for all the help so far from everyone!

The xpan keeps coming back to mind because it offers something fairly unique. I just wish I could get fast lenses for the damn thing. Maybe I will get a Yashica Lynx 14E to fulfill my night shooting needs.

>>2888102
PS make sure you get the HP prism since you mentioned glasses. Also look at all the accessory focusing screen options besides the stock split prism/microprism one. I have a screen which is all matte with no focusing aids shitting up the view and it's great. There's neat little options and accessories for everything you could think of with the F3.

>>2888109

Oh for sure. I actually used to own a Pentax LX (basically the Pentax version of the F3) and a bunch of accessories/screens and glass but a fellow Pentaxian offered me entirely too much money for my setup so I sold it to him.

I actually think the LX is a better camera than the F3 but I want to try something new and the F3 seems logical to me.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (139KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1280x720px

>>2888102
why does it have to be so handsome

>>2888088
I'd get an EOS 30V, 11-24L, 35/2 IS, 50L, 85L, 100-400L.

>>2888116
Why the shitty e series 50mm? That probably feels like garbage on the f3.

>>2888125

I didn't even notice the lens, my bad. Just some shit off google

How do yall feel about the micro nikkors?

File: s-l1600.jpg (267KB, 1600x968px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1600x968px

Saw this pic in an ebay page for ferrania 100.
Sadly that film was long discontinued and hard to find.

Is there any other film out there that can achieve results like this? Personally, it looks like grainy, overexposed Provia or Portra. However, those films aren't really cheap.

File: 12711055_675630495872715_2604228936298666758_o.jpg (130KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1200x630px

>>2888135
>ferrania
Lel. This made me check on the latest excuse to come out of the vapourware factory

http://www.filmferrania.it/news/2016/lessons-of-a-naive-new-father

>I am feeling like a father of a two year old child - but with all them sweet kickstarter monies and nothing but vapour to show for it

>>2888140
so basically kickstarter gave them a shitton of money and they didn't even really think through how to get the plant working again?

>>2888144
>so basically every kickstarter ever

>>2888149
sounds about right. I kickstarted 6 things in 2013 and I have received 2 of them so far lmao

File: 12939358_10156841007500201_475856882_n.jpg (138KB, 627x960px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 627x960px

Pentax PC35-AF + Tri-X 400

Scanned with Epson V600

>>2888088
XPAN and Bronica owner here. Don't do it unless you REALLY, REALLY enjoy shooting pano.

I'd go for the Konica/F3 and pick up some sort of MF rig. Probably an RB67.

File: 13482904_1181291808555827_2339244485502021278_o.jpg (348KB, 1196x800px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1196x800px

>>2888153
>Pentax PC35-AF
Hey hey, someone else using one of these.
Mine's a PC-555, but same shit.
They're the best, right?

>>2888154
I am not a huge MF fan, desu. I had a Bronica ETRSi and it was awesome I just strongly prefer 35mm.

The Konica is such a good camera, I am really tempted by it. 1/4000 max shutter speed, smart metering, good viewfinder for glasses, no rewind crank so I can keep my left eye up to the camera, and a very agreeable price.

File: 2016-07-22-0002.jpg (251KB, 1200x1225px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1200x1225px

>>2885738
I gave up and bought a V550. Holy shit vuescan is up there with the worst goddamn computer programs I have ever used.

Finally got a half decent result though, this is before processing too. Now I just need to take photos that are actually worth scanning. I'm also kind of disappointed in how weak this yellow filter is, I should've just bought an orange instead. Or should I just skip straight to red?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Epson
Camera Model	PerfectionV550
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	13704
Image Height	13989
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	6400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	6400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:22 21:27:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1225

>>2888157
They are excellent little cameras. I own 2 and keep them in my non-camera bags since I don't particular care if they get banged up. I have captured some of my favorite images on them.

something something the camera you have with you

>>2888159

that skyline looks familiar but I cant quite place it...

Houston?

>>2888080
There something wrong with constant agitation on black and white?

>>2888159
>I gave up and bought a V550
>Finally got a half decent result though

*keks visibly*
Retards gonna retard I guess.
On the bright side, the bigger the film format you waste, the more you feed the volume required to sustain production.

File: image.jpg (133KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 800x800px

>>2888158
Hexar owner here. It's excellent and I can't recommend it enough. It's comfortable to use and has great metering and ergonomics. The body feels solid without being heavy. The view finder is large and bright, with a contrasty RF patch. If you are on the fence, just do it man.

I use a 35-50 combo as well. I've heard lots of good things about that 35/1.4, but I've also heard it has focus shift from 2.8-5.6. I use the 35/2.5, and a Canon 50/1.4

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2888125
The metal version of the 50 Series E actually feels pretty good. Like AI quality, except for the shitastic aperture ring. That's still a rattly plastic piece of shit.

>i love you, 50 series e

>>2888164
Yes

>>2888170
So what do you suggest, smartass? Because I think it looks decent enough for web sizes. I won't be printing from scans anyway, I do wet prints.

>>2888169
yes
garbage false economy technique

File: f3 price.png (159KB, 1172x937px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1172x937px

damn you can get a nice f3 system for super cheap.

>>2888190
oh I just thought the only purpose of it was to speed up development time.

My agfa rondinax calls for constant agitation and I can't tell a different from that tanks results vs agitating my patterson every minute.

File: 13482904_1181291808555827_2339244485502021278_o.jpg (65KB, 878x675px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 878x675px

>>2888197
It's more fun to spend the whole budget though.

>>2888197
>buying a 35 and a 50
That's useless, get a 28 and a 50 or a 24 and a 50 or something. Also the 105mm Nikons from that era are pretty legendary, I'd probably pick one over an 85. Also FUCK ebay buy from KEH instead.

>>2888169
>>2888190
>>2888198
It will give you garbage low-contrast results with plenty of film-dev combos.

>>2888204
interesting. Everything I develop in the rondinax is massively pushed tri-x so I might not have noticed the low contrast because of that.

>>2888203
if you notice, I got everything from Roberts Cameras instead of the japanese sellers who rate everything as [EXCELLENT+++++] and claim the lenses have no haze when they are hazy AF.

I guess I could just go get it from Roberts website directly but you get 10% if you buy it from his ebay store.

>>2888203
also, yea, I will look for a 105mm.

I have the GR1V for 28mm, I wanted a cheap, wide, fast lens for cheap so the 35mm f2 makes sense.

More than likely I am going to go through the cart again and buy nicer versions of everything, just assembling some test carts to price the systems out.

>>2886019
>village
>dollars

are you a bong or a burg?

>>2888088
The Hexar is a great body but a little overpriced

I wouldn't recommended the hexanon lens though, it's a little cheap feeling and the focus barrel tends to get loose.
The ziess planar m mount 50/2 is better choice for that price range
I might skip the nokton and go for the 35 2.5 skopar instead, it's hard to catch focus at 1.4 with a rangefinder and the nokton is heavy as shit

Everyones gonna tell you to get something different, just go to a good store and try some stuff out

>>2888221
Thanks for the advice. Other people have recommended the zeiss stuff to me. I have also seen other people saying the hexanons are great, I figure I can't exactly go wrong but I think I trust zeiss a bit more since the hexs are just copycat lenses.

The nokton didn't strike me as heavy when I used it but I will go try one out again. My local camera store has some nice rangefinder stuff to try.

>>2888075
send it to keh you stupid fuck you're so fucking stupid

>>2886962
>35mmBandit
>cant stop buying MF cameras

uh, okay?

File: 1360979066860.png (9KB, 162x147px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 162x147px

when I shoot film, nobody knows I'm shooting garbage-like photos

>>2888182
>>2888170
inb4 dslr scan

>>2888212
Best situation to be in.
If an items not as described the seller has to pay for return postage, and it has to be signed for, so they baulk at the £80 postage costs as they don't want to spend that much to get trash back so you get your refund and keep the lens.

Then you can try taking it apart for cleaning, its not lime the lens cost you anything but time.

Ime though jap stuff is in infinitely better condition than eu stuff.

>>2888271
I actually did exactly this with a $300 lens. The jap dude sent me it in the wrong mount and just told me to keep it. Flipped it up on CL for $350 and the jap guy refunded me.

>>2888182
Dslr scan, a good enlarger lens, bellows and some opal acrylic can be had for under £50. Will smash anything short of drum scans, and then the dslr still has much more potential

File: _DSC5523.jpg (447KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1000x667px

>>2888034 here

This is one that I've scanned/edited. I'll be posting the hi-res shot and a RAW file.

File: CNV00019.jpg (1MB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1840x1232px

>>2888278
Here is the original unedited file I got back from Max Spielmann. I think their machine just applies a preset contrast curve/auto sharpening which looks like shit.

This is apparently the biggest they can scan film as well.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-016
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:14 14:38:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

>>2888279
>>2888278
Their colours are so much better than yours.

>>2888279
Here's a link to the hi-res JPG and RAW file. Did I expose the scan right? This is the first time scanning film so any advice would be great.

I think there might be too much blue in the scanned image, on a closer look the bricks look slightly green.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B59aznf4J5UhUHJyR2FEZjVFS1U

>>2888281
I think that's probably my shitty editing. I'm fairly new to photoshop. I can probably re-create the tones of their scan but with better quality from mine?

>>2888283
>editing
>photoshop
Shit nigger what are you doing?

What does everyone think about ONA bags?

I just ordered a Prince Street for my XT1, XT10, a 56mm lens, and a water bottle. Will I be disappointed?

Opinions on the Bronica ETRS? I have the option to purchase one for $100 with 75 2.8, waist level viewfinder and 120 film back, although the lens does have a bit of fungus.

>>2888314
good price, get it, great entry into MF.
check the seals, check the back doesn't pop open at the slightest nudge