/film/ General Thread

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o8_1280.jpg (892KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

892KB, 1280x1920px

>>2891008

[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 11:14:18

File: tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o10_1280.jpg (334KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1280x853px

>>2891011

I live for snapshits

File: 5.jpg (920KB, 1000x693px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 1000x693px

Scanned my first roll of film today

nothing too exciting as it was just a tester roll to check the camera was working alright

gonna dump a few of my favorite ones

feedback appreciated

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:27 21:52:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	693

File: 6.jpg (709KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

709KB, 1000x672px

>>2891014

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:27 21:53:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	672

File: 12.jpg (856KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 1000x655px

>>2891016

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2160
Image Height	3296
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:27 21:53:57
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	655

File: 17.jpg (940KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 1000x655px

>>2891017

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:27 21:54:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	655

File: no dice.jpg (331KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 800x1000px

Rate my dev?
It was raining yesterday but I still wanted to make a photo, so I decided to try using Supergrain with my RPX400 instead of stand devving in Rodinal. Reasonably pleased with the results.

[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	2016:07:27 22:03:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: 25.jpg (991KB, 1000x830px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 1000x830px

>>2891018

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1648
Image Height	1072
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:27 21:55:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	830

File: leaky.jpg (374KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 800x1000px

Also had this happen. I'm 99% sure there was no fuckups during exposure, but the light leak pattern looks like it's caused by the darkslide coming slightly undone. The holder has been loaded and lying around for months, so maybe it's been slightly opened?

[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	2016:07:27 22:03:22
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: 000002.jpg (2MB, 4535x3035px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4535x3035px

did some gigantor sans at work the other day, feels good. i really like shooting black and white but i need to buy the chems to do my own developing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-1500
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-6.6-0E-818
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:26 12:17:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4535
Image Height	3035

File: img009.jpg (352KB, 1024x645px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 1024x645px

actually an old snapshit

thinking about blowing my disposable income on an slr and mirror lens combo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3312
Image Height	2087
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	2016:06:23 21:37:59
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	645

File: AE1TriX018.jpg (154KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x800px

>>2891021
>>2891019
Are you practising lense tilts?
It looks like your film isn't flat in the first one.
And suit yourself, but I wouldn't be happy with that shadow detail.
pic unrelated
>>2891008
Is it really that hard to copy the text and formatting correctly?
Is it really that hard to take an OC photo?

[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
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:26 13:48:29
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2891019
>>2891021
>testing your gear
go outside and take some actual pictures for fuck's sake. these retards that take shitty pictures of nothing as an excuse to "test their gear" are so pathetic. it doesn't count as using your camera, you're still a raging gearfag

File: 0025.jpg (1MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1818x1228px

r8 my testshot

File: F1HP5033.jpg (293KB, 1185x800px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1185x800px

>>2891040
Looks like trash.
Is this developed in Slavinal?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:20 14:24:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1185
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2891040
>>2891036

File: baby I can see your halo.jpg (269KB, 1000x652px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1000x652px

>>2891036
I take shitty pictures of nothing, outside, most of the year round, as evidenced by my semi-frequent photo threads, but it was raining cats and dogs. I've never been happy with my LF processing, so I decided to use some time and a few sheets to try to better it. Sorry if that triggers you.

>>2891034
I figured when I was first experimenting I would. Tried to make the plane of focus run along the table plane and not the film plane, to get the dice in focus and the table out of focus. Didn't work out exactly.

I was quite happy with the dev now, certainly much nicer than the same film stand devved, in pretty much every aspect, but I'm open for suggestions on how to improve it.
I devved this in Supergrain at 1+15, the most diluted concentration, which I assumed gave the lowest contrast, but it's still a bit contrasty over the stand dev.

[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	2016:07:27 23:37:36

I bought an entire darkroom equipment for €30 today, does someone have spme good tutorials for b/w and colour printing? I read a lot but I'm looking for more information. Any tips are welcome. Also, I got a bunch of chemicals with it, although I've got my own too which should arrive tomorrow. I estimate it's from the late 90s but the harmonica flasks have apparently been sealed well. Could it still be usable?

File: rule of twos.jpg (515KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1000x667px

>>2891048
Just to be clear, quoted pic was stand dev Rodinal, not Supergrain.

[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	2016:07:27 23:45:54

I always develop with specified concentrations an temperatures.
What will happen if I increase/decrease the concentration and/or temperature, can I achieve some nice looking or interesting effects or it just won't work? I assume there is at least some fudge factor included. Specifically, I'm asking for the Ilford PQ Universal developer.

File: dziat.jpg (4MB, 3414x2222px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3414x2222px

another testshot lol pls rate

File: kotka.jpg (474KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1000x667px

>>2891040
>>2891054
Looks like shit, very nice.
What game are you playing?
Also, that picture of the old man is really old? I think I've seen it before.

[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	2016:07:27 23:51:03

>>2891034
who the fuck cares mate, be less autistic

File: o proszę, kolejny.jpg (1MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1818x1228px

>>2891057
First one is from a friend's lowest tier lab scan of an underexposed game of Discworld: Ankh-Morpork, second is indeed a really old extremely overexposed (black w/o shining a strong light through) negative from a small town photographer's attic. Circa early '70ies.

File: image.jpg (4MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3072x2048px

Walmart scans are just fantastical magical in every possible way.

Expired Fujicolor 100 has some really nice but unpredictable colors. Seems the more shallow the dof is the more washed out everything becomes. Though I may be going mad and the sun was hiding behind the clouds for those particular pictures, remembered the day staying consistently sunny. This one specifically was a test roll, and since everybody here has to explain themselves as to what needs to be tested my story is that I ordered the film in bulk and needed one to sacrifice so I could get a bearing on what was to be expected for future shoots.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_20160728_075605.jpg (291KB, 750x1000px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 750x1000px

Weeeewwwwwww blowing through this Provia fast.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	F-04G
Equipment Make	FUJITSU
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:07:28 07:56:06
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	1536
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	2048
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	5.5 EV
ISO Speed Rating	38
Exposure Time	1881/250000 sec

>>2891122
that's not provia that's your viewfinder silly white-pants-kun
>>2891121
t-t-t-t-test rollllll

File: DSC_0121.jpg (301KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 900x1200px

>>2891122
Hey I took one of those dumb instagram viewfinder photos too last week and forgot to post it. Is the SQ the new memecamera?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6503
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
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	2016:07:24 20:59:22
Exposure Time	1/64 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.90 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2891122
Hang on, why is your darkslide in? How are you on frame 16, did you manage to find 220 film somewhere?

Learn to link to previous thread faggot.

File: church.jpg (792KB, 1300x825px) Image search: [Google]

792KB, 1300x825px

Nikon N4004 (outside the US known as F-401) with the standard 18-55 for digital cameras. Yes i can't afford a proper lens.
I used Kodak BW400CN. God, i'll miss that film, it was discontinued in 2014.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	6400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	6400 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:11 14:42:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1300
Image Height	825

File: Foto160.jpg (1MB, 1200x1894px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1894px

Same Nikon N4004 with the same lens and film.
View from the San Bonaventura al Palatino convent in Rome.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:06 01:41:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1894

>>2891125
Weeeeee got me there!!!

>>2891128
Been a meme camera since the 80s dude

>>2891133
This was after I shot the photo. I'm using a 220 back so I have to fire to ~frame 16-17 before the film is totally wound up.

I do have a crap ton of 220 C41 though and they do still sell 220 here in Japan (160C, 400H, Velvia IIRC).

File: picaama.jpg (467KB, 1200x728px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1200x728px

Same camera, same lens, same film.
Amatrice, Italy.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	6400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	6400 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:13 01:43:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	728

File: pic120.jpg (942KB, 2576x2604px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 2576x2604px

Hasselblad 500C/M, Zeiss Planar 80 C, Rollei CN200 film developed in E6 (positive). I'll never use this film as a positive again.

Ponte rotto (fallen bridge), Rome.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:06:05 21:20:22

File: im4.jpg (666KB, 900x902px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 900x902px

Hasselblad 500C/M, Zeiss Distagon 50 C, Ilford Delta 400 film.

Tiber and Ponte Sisto, Rome.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:23 02:48:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	900
Image Height	902

>>2891019

What's the point of stand dev?

File: DSC_5572-1200.jpg (334KB, 1200x1535px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1200x1535px

>>2891048

>Wasting sheet film to take some test shots of dices.

You must be a pretty rich guy.

File: manor.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Processing my first roll in Lightroom. Somehow this happened. Can't tell if it's terrible or brilliant, thoughts?

>>2891161

No bw-film is made in 220 anymore?

>>2891155

XP2 is better anyway. It looks like a proper bw-film. Bw400 look like color converted to bw.

>>2891161
Shit you can put 120 film in the 220 backs? How does it work? I'd love to buy 220 backs for like $20 instead of 120 backs for $100.

>>2891051
That's a lot of noise there.

>>2891186
Generally you have to trim the edges of 120 film with a common nailcutter and after that you put the roll inside the 220 back. You just have to be careful to remember that you only have 12 exposures instead of 24 (in 6x6 format).

File: 7.jpg (599KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1000x655px

check my long exposure

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:28 01:37:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	655

>>2891196
Kodak ColorPlus?

>>2891197
afga vista plus 200 actually, not too bad for £1

>>2891196
was 20sec, f8 if i remember correcty, afga 200

>>2891128
>Is the SQ the new memecamera?
It's a new-old meme camera. I'm glad I started the Bronica shilling back up.

>>2891167
My flatbed scans of photos from my Bronica with a beat up 50mm lens look better than that. Are you scanning with a potato? Where is muh Zeiss T* magic?

Aside from that, this last photo is the weakest one you posted but overall I like them. I especially like the gloomy atmosphere in the color one.

File: img001.jpg (223KB, 1285x1292px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1285x1292px

>>2891211
As you can see that's a low resolution picture, the full resolution one show the true potential of T* coating.
Here you go with some other gloomy atmosphere.

>>2891213
It's not the image size, the scans just aren't in focus. You can tell that even the grain isn't in focus, so it's from the scanning rather than from the negative itself.

>>2891218
Oh, yes, i noticed that, i don't know why, btw i use a epson v600 perfection

>>2891175
Not that I'm aware of. I've never shot black and white in 120 ever.

>>2891186
Just remember that the roll finishes on frame 12. Otherwise you'll keep shooting and when the roll ends ~frame 16 you'll realize the last 4 exposures were nothing but paper.

>>2891191
No idea what you're talking about. You don't have to modify anything with the Bronica at least.

>>2891225
Erggg, meant I've never shot black and white in 220****

>>2891225
I thought it wasn't supposed to work right because 120 has the paper backing and 220 doesn't? That seems to be what other people on the internet say about it, but I guess if you've actually tried it and it does work then maybe I should buy a 220 back and give it a shot.

>>2891225
The diameter of the 120's sprocket is larger than the 220's one. Some cameras such as old medium format foldings and general others need the sprocket to be trimmed.

>>2891227
Just buy it.

>>2891227
I haven't noticed any focus issues. We're talking what, .2mm here? I've made pretty big prints from 120 rolls shot through 220 backs.

>>2891231
Ah, that makes sense. I have no experience using that style camera.

File: 3-mushrooms-small.jpg (253KB, 900x614px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 900x614px

First time shooting film. I just bought a Pentax Super Program from a weird French guy off of Craigslist.

File: 8-flowers-w.jpg (210KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 900x601px

>>2891249
2/2

I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI and the focus ring is super stiff. Will it get better over time? If not, what do I use to lubricate the focus helicoid?

>>2891257
One of my lenses just slides with gravity, it's pretty old. It's better to have one that's stiff imo, it'll get loose on it's own.

>>2891025
damnnn what scanner?

>>2891257
If you turn it back and forth repeatedly it doesn't loosen up any even for a little bit? If so then maybe it'll loosen up a bit eventually, but probably not much. If there's big dents on the lens then there might be a little bit of damage to the helicoids making them stick a bit and in that case regreasing wouldn't help.

I have a pretty banged up 50mm f/1.4 AI and it's pretty stiff too, I guess it just happens eventually.

File: santamarch-crop.jpg (670KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 1000x663px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3583
Image Height	2376
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	2016:07:27 22:31:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663

File: partysnaps2-crop.jpg (622KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 1000x663px

>>2891271
2/2 snapshits.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3583
Image Height	2376
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	2016:07:27 22:31:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663

>>2891271
Could be a bit more in focus but the colours are nice. Also there's a Santa riding a bike.

>>2891249
>that green

THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING

>>2891273
That was actually the only reason I really like the photo.

File: partysnaps3-crop.jpg (491KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1000x663px

>>2891271

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3583
Image Height	2376
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	2016:07:27 22:52:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663

>>2891190
>>2891051
it gives it that artsy way senpai

aye senpai

File: image.jpg (598KB, 942x1600px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 942x1600px

>>2891121
And another one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	942
Image Height	1600
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 000024 - Copy.jpg (876KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 1000x669px

I had two rolls developed and scanned I noticed when I got home that the photos from one roll has a line. Pic related.

I looked at my negatives and there were no lines. I called up the developer and they told me they were because of the film.

Should I have them rescanned?

My other roll that was developed and scanned doesn't have this "line".

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3637
Image Height	2433
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	2016:07:28 11:06:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	669

>>2891294
That's from something (probably dust) being in the calibration area of the scanner. It's 100% due to scanning. I'd ask for a free rescan.

>>2891257
If it's super stiff, then it's damaged or ungreased. Like >>2891267 says, if the helicoids are out of round, they'll bind. You might be able to find a guide for repairing them (dont look for Nikon in particular, any will do), and you'll want to regrease while you're there.

For reference, my 35/2 AIS doesn't have any damping at all, it feels like it's got a very light grease on it. My 50/1.8 SerE has a very damped feel to it.

>>2891296
Ok thanks.
Anyhow, its an expired film. At ISO 100 I feel it has too much grain. Is this because it is expired?

>>2891303
Looks more like incorrect exposure/development.

>>2891261
>>2891267
>>2891298
Yeah, but this one's unusually stiff: It rotates about 2 degrees without any force. Anything more than that requires a little force, and the behavior is the same around the entire focus range. Very weird.

I think it was stiffer, but I might just be getting used to it.

File: 000012 - Copy.jpg (674KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1000x669px

>>2891305
What about in this case? I think I got the exposure pretty correct in this one. (I used a meter on my phone)
Do you think it's the developer?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3637
Image Height	2433
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	2016:07:28 12:12:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	669

>>2891326

I think the grain in the first photo is just from how low-light it was.

File: frog.jpg (1MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x800px

I need to rescan this. I didn't clean the scanner first so they're really dirty.

>>2891330
Thanks for the clarification.

I never thought that low light could produce much grain even if the film is only iso 100.

Do you think they developed it well for an expired film? (expiration was 2011)

>>2891356
The only reason for the grain is because the shot was underexposed due to the low light. C41 film gets very grainy if underexposed.

What are some light meters y'all would suggest to buy? I'm looking at the lunasix 3, but I don't know if there is any other good light meter that would be cheaper. I was going to send off my rz67 to get it fixed, but I figured out how to fix it using a shutter relase to unlock the shutter so that's a $200 bullet dodged. Is there any place that does 120 c41 for cheap in the us?

File: logbokeh (1 of 1).jpg (1MB, 1002x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1002x1500px

Finally got a scanner for home

Having some bokeh

Ektar 100, 35mm film, 50mm 1.7 lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2891368
0/10 apply yourself waste of a roll

If you're going to go for max bokeh, at least pick something where the bokeh makes the picture. This is just an out of focus mess.

File: 60090001.jpg (903KB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

903KB, 1545x1024px

snapshit from my minolta srt 101

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 10.00.020 2009.12.21
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1545
Image Height	1024

>>2891371
yeah you're not wrong. it's the 00 shot just after I loaded the film so it was a throwaway anyway, the rest of the shots have my family members in so didn't really want to post them here

>>2891361
Grainy and green. Always overexpose color negative, especially cheap film.

>>2891371
its just a test shot breh xD

File: weee.png (1MB, 997x664px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 997x664px

>>2891363
What do you intend to use the light meter for? Unless you're wanting to meter flashes or want a precise spot meter your typical app will work fine.

Pocket Light Meter is great.

File: image.jpg (627KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1500x1000px

>>2891168
Saves chemicals, saves the amount of attention you have to pay, can do different films/speeds in the same batch.

>>2891170
If i couldnt afford 2$ of sheets and some milliliters of dev to try and improve my process I wouldn't be shooting film.

[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	1500
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2891262
Fuji SP-1500, part of the frontier minilab that we have. Its recently been fitted with a new CCD unit so I took advantage and scanned a load of negs that I like.

The only problem with giant scans is that I'm now painfully aware of how soft my photos are :(

File: tumblr_ob0k24zDNF1vte48po1_1280.jpg (301KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 960x640px

Few test roll snapshits from my recently acquired Nikon L35AF. Think I'm going to sell it, it's a bit clunky and misses focus a lot of the time.

1/4

File: tumblr_ob0k3dMLTY1vte48po1_1280.jpg (280KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 960x640px

Has quite a bit of distortion as well had to do quite a bit of lens correction for this to appear level. Dark/soft in the corners.

File: tumblr_ob0k2vvZIZ1vte48po1_1280.jpg (383KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 960x640px

Paid £35 for it but I reckon I could flip it for £40+

3/4

File: tumblr_ob0k3tlrcF1vte48po1_1280.jpg (449KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 960x640px

Here's some lovely urban decay.

4/4

File: img027-Edit.jpg (535KB, 1200x782px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1200x782px

Tried my hand at some whimsical colorization from a BW shot.

>>2891411
you mean a wall
4/4 shit

Anyone know how acquiring ColorPerfect free of charge? I enjoy the product but do not feel it's worth $20 for the amount of value it provides.

>>2891413
nice, the fan still looks annoyingly BW

>>2891388
>he says posting a severely underexposed snapshit
k

File: scan078sm.jpg (472KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 667x1000px

>>2891449
>shot on a fully automatic p&s

It's a snapshit thread brah

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2847
Image Height	4426
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	2014:10:09 21:04:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

>>2891449
check your monitor pal. that shot looks pretty bang on for the scene from where I'm sitting

>>2891048
This is a very beautiful photo

>>2891435

It costs 67 $

>>2891473
Yes I realise. I was saying I would not even pay $20 for it

File: 17 (1).jpg (681KB, 1000x655px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1000x655px

Long exposure at night overlooking some bonfires

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3296
Image Height	2160
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:28 14:05:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	655

File: 11.jpg (2MB, 1000x1526px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1526px

>>2891482
and another snapshit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SEIKO EPSON CORP.
Camera Model	Stylus Photo RX640
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2160
Image Height	3296
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:28 14:07:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1526

File: life is a beach.jpg (299KB, 652x1000px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 652x1000px

>>2891458
Not sure if you're sarcastic or not, but thanks anyway.
I prefer the exposure I made on color film of the scene.

[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	2016:07:28 15:32:06

File: IMG_3092 - Copy.jpg (480KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 2448x2448px

>>2891294
>>2891326
Turns out the negatives has them as well. Pic related. I went back to the developer and noticed this.
I have no idea how is this caused. The camera (OM-1) seems to be shooting fine and without these lines. I already shot two rolls with it two times already and the photos came out fine.

Is this due to the film or developing?

[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	2448
Image Height	2448

File: 000011 - Copy.jpg (302KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1000x668px

>>2891494
I encircled it to be easily seen in that negative.

Here's the actual photo when developed and scanned by a developer.

[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-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:24 19:40:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3637
Image Height	2433

>>2891361
>The only reason for the grain is because the shot was underexposed due to the low light. C41 film gets very grainy if underexposed.

So that's it. Thanks for the info. I will try to shoot it using ISO 50 next time.

>>2891381
>Grainy and green. Always overexpose color negative, especially cheap film.

Yeah it's a cheap and expired film. Kodak ultima 100.

>>2891490
Hey how come the blacks on your photo isn't grainy and green? Is it taken with a high quality film?
For the record it is a beautiful photo indeed.

File: brukhodet.jpg (331KB, 652x1000px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 652x1000px

>>2891497
Thanks. It's taken on Ektar, but just not underexposed like this off the same roll. Here's some grainy green blacks for you.

[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	2016:07:28 15:54:28

>>2891499
Oh so with cheap expired film I suppose I should shoot it at least one stop over.

Anyhow any idea why my film turns out to be like this>>2891494
>>2891496

File: stripes.jpg (639KB, 1000x766px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1000x766px

>>2891500
I'd always expose C-41 by 1/3 to 1 stop, depending on the film. For yours a stop should be fine I guess.

When I've had issues with stripes it's been scanner related like >>2891296
guessed. These two images came off the same roll, and the negs look fine.

[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	2016:07:28 16:15:14

File: stripes-2.jpg (517KB, 766x1000px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 766x1000px

>>2891505

[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	2016:07:28 16:16:26

>>2891494
>>2891496
Could it have been a red light hitting the film during processing? Does anyone know if this is possible for lab processing (I have no idea how labs process film)?

>>2891505
>I'd always expose C-41 by 1/3 to 1 stop, depending on the film. For yours a stop should be fine I guess.

I will try it. I always shoot them at box speed.

>When I've had issues with stripes it's been scanner related like >>2891296
guessed. These two images came off the same roll, and the negs look fine.

Oh well. Mine looks like the negs aren't fine as well. I'm thinking if this is caused by the developing because the camera seems fine when I shoot other rolls with it.

>>2891508
>Could it have been a red light hitting the film during processing? Does anyone know if this is possible for lab processing (I have no idea how labs process film)?

What is the red light? Do you mean that the developer fucked up my films?
Actually the manager got mad at me because I insisted that my negatives didn't have any problem and their scanner was. I only gave in when they showed that the negatives also had the "line".

>>2891497
Not him, but they are not grainy and green because they have been perfectly exposed. Grainy and green/blueish shadows happen when your overall exposure is too dark and the lab tries to recover detail from the blacks.

>>2891500
Color negative film is VERY forgiving with overexposure. You can overexpose Portra 400 by 6 stops and get usable results with a good scanner.

So yeah, always lean on the overexposure side. But don't get too anal about it: if there's not enough light to overexpose without blurring everything due to the slow shutter speed, underexpose. A grainy shot with a color cast is better than a blurry shot.

Expired film is tricky, because you don't know how bad it is expired, so just hope for the best. If you bought a large batch of expired film, then of course shoot some tests in the first roll and you'll likely get consistent results through the whole batch.

Your stripe thing could be something that scratched the emulsion away. A dust or sand particle could do that. Can't tell if it happened before or during development though.

>>2891490
I prefer the BW, just because I had no idea what I was looking at. The colour made me realise it was just some rocks on a beach.

>>2891511
>Color negative film is VERY forgiving with overexposure. You can overexpose Portra 400 by 6 stops and get usable results with a good scanner.

>So yeah, always lean on the overexposure side. But don't get too anal about it: if there's not enough light to overexpose without blurring everything due to the slow shutter speed, underexpose. A grainy shot with a color cast is better than a blurry shot.

>Expired film is tricky, because you don't know how bad it is expired, so just hope for the best. If you bought a large batch of expired film, then of course shoot some tests in the first roll and you'll likely get consistent results through the whole batch.

Thanks for these. I'm learning a lot.

>Your stripe thing could be something that scratched the emulsion away. A dust or sand particle could do that. Can't tell if it happened before or during development though.

So is it possible that it is during development? If it is then I can't do a thing anymore since the manager is a middle aged man who probably is tired from working in retail his whole life and would do anything not to take the blame.

My only concern is that is there a possibility that it is with the camera? Or the film itself?

>>2891518
Yes, it could be a sand particle that got in the film cartridge or in the camera and scratched the emulsion away when you advanced the film. If it's really this kind of physical damage there's no way of knowing if it happened in camera or in the lab.

It could even be poor quality control from Kodak. If it happens again you can narrow it down further.

>>2891518
>>2891523
Oh, and some non technical advice: be cooler about it with the old man. I know it sucks to lose a shot, but it sucks even more to lose the lab's good will.

>>2891523
>Yes, it could be a sand particle that got in the film cartridge or in the camera and scratched the emulsion away when you advanced the film. If it's really this kind of physical damage there's no way of knowing if it happened in camera or in the lab.

Yeah I understand. I guess what I can do now is to clean my camera and go shoot a roll with it again. Same kodak ultima 100.

>>2891526
>Oh, and some non technical advice: be cooler about it with the old man. I know it sucks to lose a shot, but it sucks even more to lose the lab's good will.

Yes that was also what I am thinking earlier. I need to be in good terms with them especially since I'm getting some of my films from them (Fujifilm) and I'm getting a discount since I'm buying in bulk.

>>2891449
kill urself

File: jch.jpg (32KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x540px

Thoughts /fgt/?

I feel it is overpriced at $8.75/roll excluding shipping

>>2891554
>3 times the cost of Kodak
>3 times the contrast

yeah, it is (was) manufactured for surveillance purposes but you can just throw some filters over and achieve the same thing. not worth it

>>2891036
>getting this upset

>>2891554
most likely made by agfa geveart (only film manufacturer that has factories in belgium), I'm guessing it's rebranded surveillance film, which is exactly what retro 400s is, so they're probably the same emulsion. only difference is that retro 400s is much cheaper and more easily available.

>>2891554
>>2891570
just checked the development times for jchpan posted on his store and they're identical to the massivedevchart ones for retro 400s, they also have the same extended spectral sensitivity, so it's safe to say that they're the same film. look at results on flickr if you want to know what it looks like

how can i make sure the light is evenly distributed when i shoot through the negative with a flash.
using a softbox right now, but it seems like im getting some vigneting because of this does not quite cut it.

>>2891025
cool

File: 000029.jpg (3MB, 4535x3035px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4535x3035px

Does anyone have any idea what the fingerprint looking bar that runs across the neg could be?

Photo was shot on Ektar 100 and processed through a minilab. Could it be the processing or just poor Kodak QC.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-1500
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-6.6-0E-818
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:26 12:44:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4535
Image Height	3035

So I was speaking to someone today about how street labs process your film really quick at higher temperatures. Whereas better labs process it more slowly at lower temperatures.

Does it make that much difference to image quality? Will the quick develop just have harsher grain/contrast?

Is it bad that I get all my stuff developed at Max Spielmann/Boots/Jessops/Asda etc.? Should I pay more for a professional lab?

>>2891677
I've never heard of that before. You almost always develop at 38ish degrees.

>>2891648
You clearly double-exposed with a close-up of a tree m80

>>2891677
yes, it makes a difference. higher temperature, generally means higher contrast and higher grain. depends on the developer though

>>2891685
not if he's talking about b&w

>>2891695
Wait, what. So they develop it at an even higher temperature than 38? Or lower?

Is it worth seeking labs which develop at lower temps or is the difference minor?

>>2891677
>>2891695
Developing at low temps is a meme. No labs do this. It's only people who develop at home. It actually washes all your colours out.

See here: http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/benefits-of-c41-at-lower-temp.86298/

>>2891700
>>2891702
hey retards you need to specify what process you're talking about. it makes a ALL the difference whether you're talking about b&w, c41, reversal processes, etc

File: scan814.jpg (564KB, 969x627px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 969x627px

ricoh r1 with provia forgot to cover the little plastic window on the back of it, mind you, this isn't actually what the color should be supposed to look like but my scanner did a good job on it I think

File: scan816.jpg (592KB, 983x627px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 983x627px

>>2891710

File: scan826.jpg (489KB, 920x633px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 920x633px

>>2891712

File: scan827.jpg (595KB, 986x633px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 986x633px

>>2891713

>>2891704
I'm just talking about C41. How much difference does it actually make getting my negatives developed at a 'street lab' versus a professional lab?

File: scan832.jpg (609KB, 981x629px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 981x629px

>>2891716

File: scan835.jpg (545KB, 969x633px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 969x633px

>>2891719

File: scan842.jpg (547KB, 969x631px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 969x631px

>>2891720

File: Jordan spine ollie.jpg (82KB, 425x637px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 425x637px

>>2891716
>>2891719
>>2891720
>>2891721
These look nothing like slide. I'd assume some cheap c41 film. Guess that's your scanner giving those vibes though?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70s
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	930
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	463
Image Height	685
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	106 dpi
Vertical Resolution	106 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:07 09:22:54
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	425
Image Height	637
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2891718
C-41 has all the temperatures and times and chemicals carefully defined because it's designed to be done fully automatically. Any lab you go to should just drop your film in the machine and it'll spit out exactly the same result unless the machine is set up wrong or not maintained properly (which is pretty likely at a pharmacy or something).

>>2891718
see
>>2891702

c41 is a completely standardized process. for optimal results, there are established times and temperatures. if you stray from the standard, results will be suboptimal. chemistry is also standardized, and the current manufacturers have no quality control issues. the only possible variations comes from the individual labs. they might have badly calibrated machines, which yields inaccurate times and temperatures. then there's human error, the negatives can be badly cut, exposed to dust, scratched by the lab operator. scanning is a whole different story.

easiest and cheapest is to do it yourself but if you don't want to, make sure you trust who you give your negatives to if you want good results.

>>2891710
>>2891712
>>2891713
>>2891716
>>2891719
>>2891720
>>2891721
man, that scanner REKT what was left of your photos after being ruined by light leaks

My local lab is closing at the end of August and the next nearest place charges almost twice as much per roll.

Need to find someplace in europe with cheap shipping.

>>2891736
No not really just checked the negatives again, but I guess it's the scanner setting or something. I also had a whole roll of fujichrome sensia turn out red with not much saturation (it was from 1998 though lol) but the effect was quiet nice.

>>2891753
Actually, I do like the effect. If I want every picture to come out good, without dust, without light leaks, I might as well stop doing film photography, but I can imagine that not everybody likes that idea.

>Actually, I do like the effect. If I want every picture to come out good, without dust, without light leaks, I might as well stop doing film photography, but I can imagine that not everybody likes that idea.

>Le film inherently has to look like shit because that makes it ART and I'm too lazy to be careful and do a good job meme

>>2891758
Where do you live bro?
I know that Scandinavian countries all charge about 8€ to 10€, here in Germany the quality of small labs is absolute shit from my experience, even big labs give you more quality for a much much smaller price (3€ plus c-prints from all your pictures, development is just 1 or 2 € but it depends on the film)

>>2891760
So film photography has inherently to look "good"?

>>2891759
fair enough, but you're still wasting money shooting provia then. might as well get some shitty agfa vista or something if you don't mind the grain and unsharpness you're already getting

>>2891758
i send mine out to a place in the uk, they develop for £4 per roll and send them back for free, i just need an envelope and a stamp to get them there

i assume there will be similar companies in your country

>>2891762
Ireland, everything is stupidly expensive here. Local lab charges 4.50 for each roll, development only.

At the second nearest lab it's €12 for development and prints with no discount for just development.

1 or 2 € sounds like heaven.

>>2891759
there no real excuse for light leaks and dust though unless you are going for that effect

its not very hard to get all of your photos to come out without light streaks, unless your camera is fucked

and as for dust just clean them properly and spot remove the bits you miss

>>2891768
Damn Paddy, €12 is a lot of potatoes. Just shoot black and white and develop yourself.

>>2891768
4.50 euros isnt very expensive, its pretty standard

i went to kodak one day and they tried to charge me £10 which is almost 15 euros

i get them done for £4 which is the cheapest ive found, and thats at least 5 euros

>>2891765
Old film is very cheap here in Germany and I paid 10€ for a dozen Funji Sensia 100 rolls, even Kodak 200 is more expensive. Haven't actually shot with fresh film for a while. I don't mind the grain at all, agfa vista looks nice and it's like € here so I might consider buying a roll to test it.

>>2891768
With these prices I would consider to develop it on your own, I stopped doing that since I like to get prints of my pictures as well. I'd consider what this anon said >>2891770 and try to shoot black and white, it's way easier to develop it and you can even do it with caffeine with the right tutorial.

>>2891767
What's your UK place called?

File: snapshit (1 of 3).jpg (1MB, 1500x999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x999px

some snapshits to get the thread going

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: snapshit (2 of 3).jpg (2MB, 1500x1022px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1022px

>>2891950

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: snapshit (3 of 3).jpg (1MB, 1009x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1009x1500px

>>2891951

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

File: IMG_5321.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Nikon FE bought off ebay from a reputable seller.
the film advance felt stuck so i opened it up, thinking it was double exposure prevention.
is this this missing a fucking film advance lever??

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s
Camera Software	9.2.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:29 19:18:26
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2891956
It looks like it's missing the double exposure prevention part. Message the seller and ask what's up

>>2891961
already did, waiting for a response now.
if it's missing the double exposure prevention, shouldnt the film be able to advance though?

Who here develops and prints himself? I recently started doing black and white and I'm thinking about doing colour too. I already have much of the equipment for it, I'd only need to buy the colour paper, chemicals and perhaps a rotating drum developing cylinder. Any advice would be welcome.

File: DSC07134editsmall.jpg (979KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 1000x1000px

This Portra after being left in a film back for 6 years and going through a variety of temperature fluctuations.

[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	2016:07:29 19:51:32
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.9 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

>>2891019
Its called black and white, not grey and gray

File: image.png (238KB, 543x417px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 543x417px

Are these prices reasonable? Not really happy with the quality I get from cheap street labs like Max Spielmann and Boots. I just rang up the nearest 'professional lab'.

For a 36 roll developed/scanned at 300dpi it costs:

£8.50 @ 1800x1200px
£15 @ 3600x2400px
£25 @ 5400x3600px

£3 extra per stop if you want to push/pull. Includes free return postage.

Is this reasonable or a fucking ripoff? I'm used to get a roll done for £6-7 at 1800x1200px same day service.

>>2891936
Photo hippo film processing. Did a good job of my first few rolls and got them back in about a week

>>2891999
>a fucking ripoff?
Yes, you can basically buy a scanner on your own. Either a dedicated one or a flatbed scanner with an extra light on the top for film scanning.
Should be around 50 to 60£ in a good used condition. Or you can try to scan it with your dslr. You just need the right setup.

>>2891999
Invest in a scanner yourself and then just pay to get them developed

I have a pretty old epson and it scans at 1200 dpi standard and does a pretty good job. Can up it to 3600 dpi i think

>>2891964
for developing colour film? easy
printing colour film? much more difficult. it depends on whether or not you can stand to wait 30 minutes to see a simple test strip, go back and make tiny adjustments, wait 30 minutes again.... takes hours and hours to make a single good print.

if you are a patient person, no problem. otherwise it isn't worth it, imho.

File: 00bmtC-541087284.jpg (126KB, 700x503px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 700x503px

any views on the pentax me super? i fucked my p30 and am thinking of picking one of these up cheap

also can i use KA mount lens with K mount or are they seperate fitments?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 30D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Erik G Magnuson
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:06:30 10:39:12
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: scamorwhat.png (474KB, 1360x591px) Image search: [Google]

474KB, 1360x591px

I see a some too good to be true offers of film on ebay by chinese guys, the have too little reviews for me to trust them, what do you guys think?
>pic related

I live in the US. What are the cheapest, best film development labs that do mail order here? Everyone seems to be 15-25 fucking dollars for developing a single roll of 35mm.

>>2892038
It's just 5 dollars, anon. You'll probably get fucked and it's some cheapass ancient police documentation film in a tri-x case, but if it is, you're only out 5 dollars and at least you'll get some interesting film to play with.

>>2892075
your argument is all I need, I'll develop the fuck out of that film at home, D76 should do any kind of ancient film right?
can I get cancer with some wacky old emulsion?

Can you process Tmax as C41? Probably a stupid question.

I don't think any of my local labs do B+W.

>>2892084

No, they can't.

Do it yourself. It's stupid easy and ridiculously cheap.

>>2892084
like >>2892085
said its a lot easier than it seems, there are some apps for timers that have adjustments for temperature, I did it ok my first time, I was actually surprised I didn't fuck up the first time.

>>2892029
Thanks. I'm very patient if need be, but I guess I'll only know of it's worth it when I try it. I'll only need a couple of things, so I can try for a limited amount of resources wasted when I decide it's not for me. Half an hour does seem long for developing test strips, b/w developing takes just a couple of minutes. Are developing/stop/fixing times that much longer with colour?

>>2892084
you can't process bw film in c41 chemistry.
bw negative image is formed by very small particles of metallic silver.
one of the steps of the c41 process is called bleaching and involves dissolving all the metallic silver from the negative (to leave behind the colour dyes in exposed areas)
You can see how that might be a problem.

>>2892085
>>2892087
It's my first ever roll of B+W. Just want to test it out. Don't really want to buy all the gear for one roll.

>>2892095

ship it out, then.

in the future, Ilford XP2 is a c41 black and white.