/film/ General Thread

I actually saw this yesterday, I strongly felt that I would too good to be true.

>>2894161
Sometimes it is and you get burned.
Sometimesmit isn't and you luck out.

>>2894152
>tfw scammed
>tfw can't open case after 30 days
feels bad mango

>>2894168
Are you mexibro?
Damn I was the one who was thinking and asked you if it wasn't a scam or not but yeah it was only 5 dorra so I went for it.

>>2894152
DAMN IT!
I already filled a claim. Fucking chink ass motherfucker scammed me.
I should have known. I want my money back. Fuck you fuck you fuck you chinks

If any of you who bought this are actually mad it turned out to be a scam you're hopeless.

>>2894169
>tfw both batches of tri-x are a scam
Time to add that shit to my calendar.

File: lostworld-web.jpg (2MB, 1500x1018px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x1018px

A snapshit from a recent trip to the countryside

Some shitty compact with 1.5 stops overexposed Fujicolor C200

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

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

>>2894171
>>2894164
fucking idiots, this isn't some chance shit. it was 100% known what would happen, people even said it exactly

ONLY 5 BUX AMIRITE, IM GONNA HIT PAY DIRT IF IT'S REAL. the probability was 0. D U M B M O N E Y

dumb bitches crying sour grapes get fucked

File: 1363127566476.jpg (199KB, 554x603px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 554x603px

>>2894172
this

mfw thinking about all the dumbass excuses they made in the last thread when I pointed out how obvious of a scam it was

[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	554
Image Height	603

File: aidan-web.jpg (1MB, 1007x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1007x1500px

>>2894174
another, liked how soft the colours came out in this

shout out to my shitty lab for scratching the fuck out of my negatives

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

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

File: moneyback.jpg (75KB, 959x582px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 959x582px

I'm going to get my money back.
Fucking chinks we need to nuke them already so that we are not anymore being scammed and they are flooding the market with ching chang wing wang products that have no use and shit.

>>2894179
>>>/pol/
nobody cares about your dumbass mistake retard

>>2894179
>being stupid enough to buy film from a scammer
fucking kek, you're an absolute dumbass who deserves to get cooked

File: portra.png (35KB, 714x269px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 714x269px

kekest of keks
Good thing I bought the portra instead.

File: 17082128668_81c0b89c12_b.jpg (123KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x800px

Okay, as someone who has found countless deals on film over the past 10 years...here are some tips

>Don't look for BIN stuff
>Ignore posts that use a stock image
>Use keywords like "bulk" or "lot"
>Slightly misspell what you're looking for (trix, porta, velva)
>Don't buy if the film is international (if you live in the US)
>Look at the seller's other active listings, usually they'll have other film and/or cameras of the same format they are selling too

Pretty straightforward shit.

>>2894187
Why didn't you inform us beforehand?
Damn it fucks like you are ruining it for us.

>buy obvious scam eBay item
>get mad when it's a scam

you guys are something else

>>2894191
All you folks will get told if ever this didn't turn out to be a scam.
Tri-X for $5 :)))

>>2894196
I got 20 rolls of 36exp tri-x for $35 last year.

The ad was obviously legit, unlike >>2894152

Ya'll need to learn how 2 ebay

>>2894197
Post link

>>2894198
>last year.

I've just started scanning my favourite shots with my DSLR, I've previously been using lab scans.

At the moment I'm just using Adobe Camera RAW to edit them. And then maybe some lens correction/dust removal in Photoshop.

I've been looking at a few tutorials and Colourperfect seems to be the best option. The presets it gives you for each film type looks like it saves you heaps of time fucking around in ACR. Also I should probably Lightroom to organise my shit.

Is this the best workflow?

Open RAW file in Photoshop/ColourPerfect > Tweak curves, WB, sharpening in Lighroom > Back into photoshop for any masking/lens correction/dust removal.

>>2894190
kys retard

>>2894283
https://www.iamthejeff.com/post/32/the-best-way-to-color-correct-c-41-negative-film-scans

This action will simplify your workflow like crazy.

Yo welcome

>>2894169
Hi dude, yes I'm mexibro
Its quite sad but it will be a lesson to all of us who got chinked
I would like such a cheap alternative for film even if it sucked dick, but a beaner can only dream

>>2894179
Can I file a claim before the delivery date?

>>2894152
I'm in the market for a 35mm Point and Shoot, I want to shoot portraits. any recommendations or even just good sites I can browse, I've bought 2 online and they've both been broken :( im in Australia btw

File: R1-00973-0010.jpg (1MB, 2433x3625px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2433x3625px

I've shot a couple of rolls through an Olympus XA recently. Amazing little camera.

This is on Tri-X

C&C?

[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	2016:07:11 21:05:55

>>2894323
I like the reflections on the glasses a lot but the giant patch of white is a little distracting

I like the comfy camping feel

>>2894175
Why would I cry when I'm going to get my money back?
>>2894309
Fujifilm Klasse.

>>2894309
>Point and Shoo6
>portraits

>>2894453
??

>>2894455
you're going to shoot portraits with a point and shoot? why? do you want shitty pictures that you have no control over?

>>2894309
Olympus Stylus Epic/Mju II

File: lars and the non-existent girl.jpg (430KB, 1000x766px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1000x766px

>>2894469
Shooting portraits on a compact works just fine depending on the intended use.
Of course something like a Klasse would give you more control, but I like having my Mju with me at all times without noticing it's even in my coat pocket. I'm perfectly happy with the IQ and it's ease of use.
For snapshots like pic related and >>2893805 my Mju is perfect, and without the guy who asked the question giving more information there is no way to tell if a compact wouldn't suit his needs.

[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	2016:08:02 21:11:09

>>2894567
but thats not a portrait you dense retard

>>2894570
How is it not a portrait?

File: pit.jpg (383KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1000x667px

>>2894570
Where do you draw the line? The texbook definition of a portrait seems to exclude what most people would call portraits. Even if you went by the literal definition a compact could still be used to great effect.
A quick google image search will show you many good examples.

[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	2016:08:02 21:26:55

>>2894567
hey did you use portra for this?

I like the colors

>>2894574
"Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots."

File: not_a_protrait.jpg (465KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

465KB, 667x1000px

>>2894575
Nope, Superia 400. Love the colors myself, have shot it all summer and don't think I'll go back to Portra anytime soon.

>>2894577
Here's a few you can save for when you need them. Don't use them up all at once!
(You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (You) (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	2016:08:02 21:36:49

>>2894574
>he thinks pictures of people are automatically portraits
I bet you call portrait orientation portraits too

File: (you).jpg (379KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1000x667px

>>2894586
I actually do think that yeah, don't bother coming up with a dictionary definition.

[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	2016:08:02 21:47:03

>>2894590
How about you bother coming up with a decent photo?

File: hors__environmental portrait?.jpg (562KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 667x1000px

>>2894594
I feel I am, and have a feeling you're not.
I shoot what I like, so of course I like what I shoot even if I'm trying to get better.

[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	2016:08:02 21:56:15

>>2894603
dude nice horsetrait

>>2894603
>I shoot what I like, so of course I like what I shoot
I thought they taught logic in philosophy school but I guess not.

You're right, though, I'm not posting photos in this filmfag circlejerk of a thread. That doesn't make your uninspired shit any better.

File: doge.jpg (495KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1000x667px

>>2894605
Shame it was shot on a compact and not a real camera.

>>2894606
The tautological logic is sound given my motivations for shooting. I'll give you the second point though.

Maybe others want to join in with recommendations for a compact for shooting portraits. My only compact experiences are using using a T2 and a Mju so I don't have any strong opinions on it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 22:05:20

>>2894619
howd you like the t2

File: kat.jpg (364KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1000x667px

>>2894620
I absolutely loved it. Unfortunately it is ded now. It was given to me for free by cc_ito, since it was already a bit busted, and it only lasted a few more rolls before it started swallowing film instead of winding it on. The Mju gives me more reliable results tho for some reason.

[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	2016:08:02 22:08:29

>>2894623
Is she pissing?

File: another t2 shot.jpg (399KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1000x667px

>>2894625
Nah, just hiding from the rain, it was… …pissing down that night.

[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	2016:08:02 22:25:11

>>2894629
Did you take any good photos?

>>2894634
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

File: CNV00004.jpg (244KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 960x640px

>>2894619
hey, I took a picture of the same doge

>>2894650
>>2894629
>>2894623
>>2894619
are these all with superia 400 and mju?

>>2894638
There's something we could discuss at length.
But we won't.

>>2894293
That action is fucking shite m8

Makes all of my scans looks really weird, throws all the colours off. Think I'll just stick with a torrent of Colorperfect.

>pictures with people in them automatically portraits
kys retard

there's no reason to use a point-and-shoot for portraits instead of an SLR. you're just limiting yourself and also making it harder to work since the camera makes all the decisions for you, which probably won't be the decisions you want

>>2894677
Pretty sure there aren't any torrents of ColorPerfect mate. It requires a key and it's niche enough that no one's been bothered to crack it

>>2894469
portraits are fine with point and shoots

as long as you can tell what you're focusing on, can achieve a bit of subject separation and have some control over exposure then it's fine

I took this >>2894177 on a really bad point and shoot and it came out just fine

>>2894567
>>2894574
>>2894583
>>2894590
>>2894603
>>2894619
>>2894623
>>2894629
shoutout to catsby for actually posting some photos

>>2894810

go and shoutout everyone at the recent snapshit thread for "actually posting photos" too.

>>2894283
What lens/setup do you use?

File: Compact portraits.jpg (111KB, 991x350px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 991x350px

>>2894735
>>2894586
>>2894570
>>2894469
>>2894453
It seems you're all fucking morons who think a "portrait" needs to be taken with a wide open 85mm.
You are wrong.
A portrait is a picture of a person, and a good portrait is a picture that says something about that person.
Your camera does not matter.
These PORTRAITS were all taken on 35mm point and shoots with no exposure controls.
2xOlympus, 1x Pentacks, 1xFuji, in order.

>>>posting pictures of people on 4channel

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	991
Image Height	350

>>2894820
holy shit, how long are you going to keep entirely missing the point?
"look I got this good portrait on a point and shoot!" doesn't prove shit

>hmm trying to take a portrait of a girl in the woods, take 30 shots, quick and easy

>look at the photos after development
>point and shoot has underexposed several because the sun was shining back in the tree
>point and shoot has missed focus because of odd framing on some shots
>point and shoot has closed down the aperture due to bright light, where you would have preferred a smaller depth of field to seperate the girl subject from the noisy trees behind her
and the problems just get worse and worse with the cheaper and shittier point and shoots that you buy

>all of this could have been easily avoided if you weren't a lazy fuck and bought an SLR / rangefinder

>>2894810
desu I prefer isi's threads greatly

>>2894822
owning a SLR and a compact aren't mutually exclusive. If you're going out to take a series and have the room, pack the SLR, obviously. If you're just out and about and might want to take some photos but don't have the room to take a full size camera, pack the compact, obviously.

I've found the trick with compacts is to set them one stop faster than your film. That way the exposure will always be reasonably correct and it'll use wider apertures.

>>2894825
>I've found the trick with compacts is to set them one stop faster than your film. That way the exposure will always be reasonably correct and it'll use wider apertures.

>THIS ONE EASY TRICK TO TURN THE SHITTIEST POINT AND SHOOT INTO PRO CAMERA, THE SECRET LEICA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

nah, all point and shoots are different. you can't make a big statement like that. in most cases you'd just get a bunch of underexposed film with that "trick"

>>2894826
shit I meant slower, long day. I always get the terms confused

Like if it's 200 speed film I put the camera at 100

>>2894829
oh, then yes, that's true for film in general

its still not a universal trick, because you may be sacrificing shots that your camera already overexposed, which would then be two stops over... either way its ridiculous, point and shoots are good for travel, for fun, and for quick action when you don't have time to fiddle with manual controls, like street photography. its absolutely stupid to use them for portraits, when you have all the time you need and are generally taking time setting up your shots yourself, and you want to get good exposure and image quality

>>2894839
>>2894822
The reasons FOR using a p&s for portaits are all the same reasons for using a compact ever though.
They're small, they're automatic, you have them with you.
But at the same time, most of your frustrations can be overcome by having a thorough understanding of how your camera works, and the basics of exposure and focus in the first place.
>most p&s's lock focus and exposure on the half press
>if you can set the ISO you control the metering
>if you can't set the ISO, you can usually tape some ND material over the light meter/shade it with a finger

>>2894846
>They're small, they're automatic, you have them with you.
did you even read my post?
those qualities are
>good for travel, for fun, and for quick action when you don't have time to fiddle with manual controls, like street photography.
but detrimental when
>you have all the time you need and are generally taking time setting up your shots yourself, and you want to get good exposure and image quality (portraits)

>if you can set the ISO you control the metering
you are either trolling me, or are retarded and have no idea how camera meters work, my friend. my SLR's recommended exposure is not the exposure I want about 50-60% of the time, and its a pretty good matrix meter. with point and shoots, unless you're getting the highest of quality ones, your meter is going to just be worse and worse the more automatic you get

File: OlyMiniTriX03.jpg (225KB, 569x800px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 569x800px

>>2894852
>you are either trolling me, or are retarded and have no idea how camera meters work, my friend
reactionfaceappropriateforwhenyouhaveconfirmedyourearguingwithsomeonewellbeneathyourpowerlevel.tiff

Mate, that's because matrix meters are for retards.
Their entire job is to try and second-guess what you're trying to achieve with the photo.
Simple cameras have simple meters.
They read the luminance of the approximate FOV of the camera and expose appropriately for it with regards to the set ISO and exposure program selected (flash/noflash/fillflash if you're lucky; more than/less than 1/30@wide open if you're not). A reasonable quality compact may even show you what the programs are in the manual. If you want to expose for the shadows, point your camera at the damned shadows and lock the meter with a half press, focusing on something the same distance away as your subject.
>but it chose f/4 when I wanted f/2.8 wahhhh
Tough titties bitch, if you think that's the difference between a good photo and a bad one, you've got a long way to go.
The portraits I posted were:
>out for dinner with
>grabbed camera out of centre console when I saw the light and the pose
>at a gig
>having coffee
I wasn't carrying my 85L at those times, and even if I was, I wouldn't have got the same shots with it, because of its size, minimum focus distance, and the added layers of complexity involved in taking a picture with it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	569
Image Height	800

File: 17830073519_b8077e78ac_b.jpg (242KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1000x667px

>>2894852
I can't think of one shot I missed out on because my Stylus Epic exposed incorrectly. It misses focus sometimes (rarely), but it nails exposure. Learn to use your tools.

>>2894863
>Simple cameras have simple meters.
>They read the luminance of the approximate FOV of the camera and expose appropriately for it with regards to the set ISO and exposure program selected

>They read the luminance of the approximate FOV of the camera and expose appropriately
that's what all meters try to do, including matrix meters, moron. matrix metering refers to how it reaches the conclusion on what exposure to make

if you're honestly going to sit here and try to tell me that point and shoot cameras don't have less control than SLRs and always make the right exposure, you're hopeless

>>2894865
>Learn to use your tools.
>by letting them make all the important decisions for you
the irony

>>2894871
>the irony
Just because something is automated doesn't mean there is no right/wrong way to use it.

If you had shot my example photo without pointing the camera down to lock the exposure without the sun in the frame it would have been underexposed.

Sure you have more control with an SLR, but if you know your equipment you can cheat an automatic camera into doing what you want a large majority if the time.

You're also assuming 0% chance of human error when shooting with a fully manual camera...and we both know that's not true. Saying an automatic camera is bound to mess up and a fully manual camera won't ever is a lie.

>>2894875
if you're doing a portrait session its ridiculous to have to "cheat" your camera to get it to work. what a pain in the ass. if you're a good portrait photographer you need control over shutter speed, ISO, depth of field, focus... yeah you can "cheat" point and shoots in some ways but that doesn't change the fact there are going to be things you will miss out on with the lack of control

good shot, btw

Where is the blast place to ship to for c41 120 in us?

>>2894905
You sure there isn't a lab local? Where do you live?

>>2894307
Hey mexibro!
Did you file a case already?
Any past experience with it?

>>2894807
There's someone here who was able to get a crack for ColorPerfect.

>>2895046
if you find it let me know

File: Portra30V20.jpg (421KB, 1222x800px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1222x800px

>>2895046
Or you know, you could just be less of a mongoloid and learn to correct colour yourself...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: moo-web.jpg (1MB, 987x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 987x1500px

bumping thread with cow pic

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

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

File: junglestream-web.jpg (2MB, 1014x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1014x1500px

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

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

I recently got all the chemistry and shit sorted, so I'm ready to develop. My only problem is that I don't have a changing bag yet (ordered one on ebay, but estimated delivery is like 30 days). I already want to start developing the pile of film I have shot though.

I just don't have a completely dark space available. Bathroom is the darkest, but light leaks in from around the door even at night (plus it doesn't get very dark at night in the summer, I'm quite up north). I googled a bit about doing it under a blanket or something and people were saying you'll probably get static ruining your film. How likely is this? How do you yourself get your film into the tank if you don't have a light tight room available?

>>2895206
I use big pieces of black card I got from a craft store over my bathroom windows, and trash bags over my door. You have to make sure it's completely pitch black. That poster is right though, it's pretty possible you'll get static which will fuck with things

Changing bags are easier since you're sure of total darkness, I'd probably just wait for yours.

>>2895206
Make your room light tight. Tinfoil is super cheap and easily available. A piece of card larger than your window taped will also solve that issue.
Place a towel at the bottom of your doors and seal the edges with PVC tape.

Otherwise sit in a closet if available or do it underneath a nice jacket. Changing bags really aren't anything that special. 9 times out of 10 I'll stay awake to process film at night just to avoid using one.

>>2894677
Same here, didn't work at all

File: dsc028372[1].jpg (245KB, 800x668px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x668px

I'm thinking of buying a Pentax 67. I'm already familiar with medium format, and I already have an RZ67, but I really love the rendering of the Pentax lenses and the form factor seems more advantageous than the slrs with wlfs. What's your opinion on the cam? I don't need the metering prism or anything, but is there a specific model I should be looking out for? Best lenses?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSLR-A700
Camera Software	ACD Systems Digital Imaging
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	127 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:11:15 10:18:47
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Brightness	1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	668
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2895234

go for it dude. the 105 2.4, which is the default lens, is outstanding.

>>2895209
>>2895216
Maybe I'm overthinking it. No closet available, but bathroom is windowless, the door just leaks light from all sides. Maybe I'll try to jam some trash bags and/or foil to them so it's really dark.

The films I most want to try with are Shanghai Gp3, so iso 100. I suppose they should be fine if it isn't 100% mega pitch black.

The changing bag will definitely simplify things, I'm just growing a bit impatient and want to try with a couple of rolls already.

>>2895251
It has to be pitch black, no exceptions. Any, and I mean any light leaking through the door will fog your film. I speak from experience.

Light seal your room, and then just sit in the dark for about 10 minutes. If you find you can actually see things, it's not light sealed.

>>2895253
>>2895251
Alternatively, towel/tape/blanket over the leaks. Sit on the ground facing away from the light leak and cover yourself in a blanket or two.

It's not that hard to lightseal a room. Some people go a bit overboard sometimes.

>>2895253
He's just loading a roll of film. Even if it takes him longer than it should because it's his first time, the film should only be outside the canister for maybe like two minutes before he gets it loaded on the spool and safely in the developing tank.

Just stick a towel under the door or something, it'll be fine.

If it was an actual darkroom then that's when you would have to be this anal about blocking every single light leak.

>>2895206
>>2895254
>>2895251
oh my god are you guys stupid

just layer 3 or 4 thick black trash bags and load the film inside of there

simple

File: mju_superia.jpg (506KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 667x1000px

>>2894654

>>2894650 is not mine
>>2894629 and >>2894623 are T2 with Portra 400, that I think was read as 100, as the whole roll came back pretty overexposed.
>>2894619 is Mju with Superia 400, same roll as pic related.

>>2895206
Just lie a towel at the base of the door, and stick a thick blanket, that I assume you have, living up north as you say, over the door with thumbtacks or tape. Works fine for me for blocking my kitchen windows well enough to make prints and load film. Changing bags are a pain in the ass t b h.

[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	2016:08:03 19:34:28

File: sad.jpg (92KB, 479x393px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 479x393px

this just in. i bought this shady as fuck 3 pack one week ago for like $6, issued a refund case two days ago and today got the refund.

but im not happy, fuck the money, i just wanted the rolls, i wanted to believe ;__;

Anyone have a review of http://www.richardphotolab.com/ ?

I need someone who's easy and cheap to send film to. Their scanning costs too much, however.
Is there a cheaper way to get film developed and scanned in the US via mail?

File: R1-00973-0003.jpg (3MB, 2433x3625px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2433x3625px

>>2895362
I like all the pics you've posted in this thread, but the skintones in this one is exactly why I don't prefer Superia for portrait-ish stuff

[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	2016:07:20 22:29:01

File: mju_superia-2.jpg (511KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 667x1000px

>>2895444
That's fair enough.
I played a little with the WB, is this better?
Previously I have used a lot of Portra, but Superia just has such warm and comfy colors, altho I get your point. Haven't tried Portra in the Mju yet, so that will be the next I try after I finish the roll of Superia that's in it atm.

[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	2016:08:03 21:24:30

>>2895476
forgot my tripcode after posting on /tg/

>>2895312
I dunno buddy. I'd say I'm less stupid than a person who can't use punctuation. Definitely less stupid than a person who has your reading comprehension.
I don't like to have my hands covered. Clearly the trash bag method doesn't work for me and I don't enjoy feeling trash bags against my skin.

Go back to your dark cave filled with trashbags.

File: Ultramax.jpg (520KB, 608x900px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 608x900px

>>2895476
>but Superia just has such warm and comfy colors

I agree, but check out Kodak Ultramax 400 for a consumer film with warm saturated colors and good skin tones to boot (imo). Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:03 21:45:08

File: mju_superia-3.jpg (405KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1000x667px

>>2895516
That looks very nice. My photo guy doesn't stock it, since he dislikes Kodak he only stocks Portra and Ektar, but if I come across some rolls I'll give it a try.

[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	2016:08:03 21:58:01

File: Ultramax2.jpg (2MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1818x1228px

My local shop doesn't either. Multiple vendors sells it cheap with free international shipping on ebay.

>>2895483
autism

>>2895370
Use thedarkroom.com, its $11 for everything.

>>2895368
Yeah that's like, the price for 1 roll her in Japan. That 3 pack is 2300yen.

Shoulda known

>>2895542
Normies have no place in this general.

>>2895044
I'm waiting for the delivery date to get past
Not sure if I can file it before, what would be my evidence?

>>2895579

as stated: I WANTED TO BELIEVE, you fucking cuck.

>>2895624
do it already.

File: Nikon s2.jpg (170KB, 576x1024px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 576x1024px

Should I accept this? It's a Nikon s2 and I'm getting it for free

>>2895657
No, Nikon rangefinders are cancer.
>seriously what is wrong with you, moron?

>>2895657
no, honestly there's just nothing good about it

>>2895657
not worth the price

>>2895657
>getting it for free
>should I accept this?

Literally what do you have to lose

Question here, i found old Kodak Gold plus 100
its like 15 years old, and i dont know it has been exposed, the tongue is still out though.

>>2895657
Yes retard cop that shit, did you not check ebay for the price?

>>2895706

develop it.

>>2895689
I've been trying to not collect all these cameras, yet more seem to keep falling in my lap. I've also gotten a rz67 in mint condition for free with the 110mm

>>2895710
What the fuck, introduce me to your friends who give away great cameras if you hate getting free stuff so much.

File: IMG_20160803_215444.jpg (4MB, 2992x4000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2992x4000px

>>2895713
Like 90 percent of all my shit is given to me for free. I've already cut down from my 13 cameras to 2 and it seems I'm picking them back up again

>>2895713
Fuck you, I don't even have friends. Only canon-kun

>>2895708
I don't know anything about selling cameras, I just use them. I also got a Nikon f1 that I got for free. The only camera I paid for was my a6k. The rest people give me

>>2895720
I wouldn't sell them either, I'm saying they are nice and I would rather keep, use, and cherish them instead of not taking it.

>>2895706
I found some Ilford Delta expired 1998. Is there any fun effect to gain from expired b/w film or will it just be shit?

>>2894152

i have a feeling scamming chink will deliver.

>>2895516
Using this stuff rn, haven't developed it yet.

>>2895718
Extremely jelly. I paid $400 oz bux for my RB67 and here you are picking up cameras for nothing

>>2895734
Scamming chink dispatched my item with a tracking number.
Scamming chink #2 had his account closed before dispatch but is in my diary.
>>2895730
just a bit shit.
>>2895710
>>2895718
gib

File: IMG_20160804_073127.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

>>2895798
Tfw my aunt told me for weeks she'd give me her old film camera because she didn't use it anymore and it turned out to be a run-of-the-mill Fuji point and shit. I did pick up a mint condition OM-1 complete witj multiple lenses from the Dutch Cragslist equivalent for €20, so I suppose I can't complain. The p&s does have a very trendy sachet though.

>>2895816
Hm, pity. Luckily it was free.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-G900F
Camera Software	f5d247e7b8
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:04 07:31:27
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	40
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	NULL NULL_

>>2895816
my scamming chink sent the item too. im very curious. are you going to issue a refund even if the rolls come up? i am.

>>2895822
If I get 'em I'll leave it as is. I have a tracking no to match it to after all. I'll refund the 2nd one if it doesn't show up within 28 days tho.

>>2895820
Point and shoots are fun though.Set it one stop slower than your film and you'll be golden

>>2895825
Yes I have a Trip 35 that's very fun to use, I've made some nice photos with it that I wouldn't have been able to make otherwise, because my other cameras can't be carried in a jacket pocket and I wouldn't have taken them. It's pure shit when shooting in situations with large contrast between light and dark, though. It can be countered by pointing the camera down and half-pressing the shutter, but you never have certainty. Oh and deciding if something is at "small group of stick figures" or "large stick figure" distance from you is somewhat arbitrary too.

so how does everyone like medium format cameras?

>>2895843

what did he mean by this?

Why is Fuji Natura 1600 so hard to come by in Europa ffs? Should have stocked up when I went to Japan...

>>2895873
Like there's nothing or just really expensive?

>>2895843
I like my rz67.

>>2895873
What's the problem? I just order it for around $10 a roll free international shipping

Why do some films advise to develop as soon as possible? Does film degrade quickly after shooting?

>>2894171
Go back to /pol/

>>2894810
They're pictures, not photos.
"Photos" have some effort or talent behind them.

Why don't you go give shoutouts to all the 15-year-old girls posting pics of their Chuck Taylor's on IG too?

>>2895885
Not quickly, but it does degrade both before and after exposure.
Don't worry too much about it, man.

>>2895885
It'll degrade if you leave it a few years between shooting and development, but any film left to sit will degrade. If you were to shoot it and then throw it in a freezer for 15 years, it would most likely develop just as it would the day you put it in the freezer

File: zones-web.jpg (1016KB, 1087x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 1087x1500px

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

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

>>2895956
Try using a more effective contrast filter for stuff like this, I'd want to see a slightly darker sky and some more detail in those clouds. If you're using yellow, go to orange.

That's just my taste tho.

>>2895959
I didn't use one at all. I'd love to but the filter ring on my lens has a big ding in it meaning filters don't screw into it. Most of the contrast in the sky was pulled out in post, which you can probably see by the artifacts

>>2895963
Buy one that's bigger than your thread and just hold it over, if you care that much. Honestly, you'd be surprised how much of a difference even just a yellow filter can make.

>>2895966
Yeah I was gonna look for a cheap eBay one. I rarely shoot landscape and I even more rarely shoot B&W so I doubt I'll get much use out of it

>>2895963
B&W without filters is suffering. Having just a yellow would give you much better results, you don't need a full set of colors. You can't just bend the filter ring back into shape a little with some pliers or something? Maybe get a filter with a brass ring rather than aluminum, that should help it screw in a bit more easily and make it less likely to get jammed.

>>2895972
When I said big ding, I meant _big_ ding. The filter ring is bent so far that it comes about 1mm from touching the front element of the lens. It's not a particularly rare lens (SMC-A Pentax 50mm 1.7) I just can't be bothered shelling out the cash for a new one when this one functions just fine for 95% of my shooting. If I start developing my own film I'll probably invest in a filter set, most likely the sort you can use square filters in which usually aren't attached to the filter ring

File: lomo635small.jpg (1MB, 3000x3047px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x3047px

Thoughts? Been a little insecure about my work, wondering why I was wasting film on snapshits, but I found this shot on a year-old undeveloped roll and it had to be the first time in a long time I was happy to see what turned out. 120 film, Lomography 400 Color Negative, Lomo LC-A 120.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5207
Image Height	5288
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:04 08:32:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	3047

>>2895975
Maybe buy yourself a real camera and get some actually "good" results and you could really have something. Don't let these angry shit posters beat you down for the obvious hipster/tumblr shit, it sells. Do more stuff like this and learn to use flashes, if you don't already.

>>2895975
I like it. You did what you aimed to do. Model's pose is good, love the lighting, scene seems set up well. Won't be everybody's cup of tea but so be it. The vignette is pretty distracting though, but I'd imagine you like it. A proper medium format camera would blow your socks off. Something like a RB67 or Mamiya Press can be had for pennies and will produce great results.

Don't worry about wasting film. If you enjoy it and feel like it makes you happy then I wouldn't worry. There's certainly more expensive hobbies. And besides, no one takes whole rolls full of keepers. Out of a roll of 36 I have maybe 5-7 images I think are good

>>2895973
square filters are attached to a holder that does screw in to the filter thread though. Also honestly, you're better off just using screw in for the yellow/orange/red stuff, imo. ND and grad ND are where you want to have the square/rectangular filters. You can also get linear polarizers that way too, if you don't use autofocus ever.

>>2895979
I get the feeling there are multiple types of square filter holders. I used a set on loan from my university on a Nikon DSLR and it clipped onto the lens like their lens hoods do. But you're right, I'll have to sort out my lens ding at some point. There's a lovely old chap who lives me who's been repairing cameras all his life so I'll see if he can sort me out

i want to get into medium format but what's a noob friendly camera?

>>2895985
depends on your definition of noob. There are multiple formats, and multiple styles of cameras. Medium format is where things start to get a bit more complicated than your average 35mm SLR. How are you scanning the negs? are you printing? Can you do without a meter? If not, do you know how to use a handheld one? What sort of stuff will you be shooting? Is size/portability important to you? What's your budget? Really try doing some of your own research and decide what your needs are before you just start asking "what camera"

>>2895985
You don't want a noob friendly camera. Besides, medium format is a professionals format, there weren't really many noob cameras made for it. Do you understand the exposure triangle? Can you use a light meter? congrats, you're qualified to use pretty much any medium format camera.

The RB67 is a cheap choice. The operating procedure is slightly more involved than your standard SLR but it's really not complicated. Wind film on, cock shutter, take meter reading, set shutter speed, set aperture, shoot, wind film on, cock shutter, repeat. It's a fucking huge camera though, tripod only unless you're a man's man.

If you think TLR's are neat, the Mamiya C330 and the Yashicamat 124G are pretty cheap and excellent cameras.

There are a number of medium format rangefinders including the Mamiya 6 and 7 and the Fuji GW680. They are almost always very expensive.

>>2895985
Probably none of them, they all tend to be pretty basic and a bit clunky to use compared to the very slick user friendly automated 35mm SLRs of the autofocus era. But they really don't require any special knowledge, if you can handle manually metering and focusing and exposing then that's all you need, there's nothing particularly difficult about using an MF camera over a 35mm one.

Do you want your camera sort of large, very large, or fucking enormous? SLR or rangefinder or TLR? What film format do you want? Do you want to live on a tripod or do you want to shoot handheld too? Do you want bellows focusing with movements? If you want an SLR then do you want a waistlevel finder or a prism or both? If it's an SLR then do you want a scaled up 35mm-style camera like a Pentax 67 or a modular brick camera like a Hasselblad or Bronica SQ or something like the Pentax 645?

File: CNV00058.jpg (1MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1818x1228px

Shot with a Minolta X-300 with Kodak TMax 400

[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	2016:08:03 15:12:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

File: CNV00057.jpg (1MB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1818x1228px

>>2896082

[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	2016:08:03 15:12:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

File: CNV00041.jpg (711KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

711KB, 1818x1228px

>>2896083

[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	2016:08:03 15:11:53
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

File: CNV00020.jpg (791KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1818x1228px

>>2896088

[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	2016:08:03 15:09:24
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

Just shot my first roll of Tri-X on a Nikon FE. It kept shooting past 36 frames, it must've done another 5-6 photos before I noticed and rewound the film.

I've sent them off to get developed but I've got the feeling that something's gone wrong and the entire roll is fucked.

It felt suspiciously easy to rewind as well. What could've gone wrong?

>>2896114
You didn't load it right mate. More than likely, not a single photo is exposed, the leader didn't catch on the take up spool.

Nice job mate.

>>2896115
I've loaded film loads of times though, dunno how it didn't catch on. Can it sometimes uncatch itself?

>>2896116
Did the film stop eventually or could you just keep shooting forever?

>>2896116
>Just shot my first roll

>I've loaded film loads of times

u wot

>>2896116
Was the rewind knob turning when you advanced the film? Not checking that is like rookie mistake #1. If it's not moving, the film isn't advancing.

>>2895989
>>2895988
>>2895987
I'm getting the Fuji GA645. it's easy-mode in a handheld camera for medium format.

>>2896082
>>2896083
>>2896088
>>2896090
did you edit the jpegs or is that atrocious sharpening from the original scan? either way, re-scan that shit, that shit is horrible

>>2896114

This: >>2896115

Don't worry, we've all done it. I did it on my Olympus OM40 a couple of times, it's the only camera I've had it happen with - for some reason it just slips very easily.

Next time if it doesn't stop winding, just open the back and load the film again. Getting an empty film back sucks, especially when you're developing yourself.

You might get like 37 or 38 shots on a roll, but over that is extremely unlikely.

>>2896116
Oh and yeah, it's possible, with the OM40 either the leader slips out or doesn't catch on properly. I don't know if the teeth that go into the sprocket holes are worn or what, but I have to be extra careful when using that camera and check that the rewind knob spins when I'm advancing the film.

File: Adoring Fan.jpg (12KB, 166x248px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 166x248px

>>2896119
not him, but I just realized my first roll of b&w film I shot in kraków has nothing on it. fudge

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Oskar
Image-Specific Properties:

File: image.jpg (273KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 960x640px

Found a shitty old Minolta compact with an expired roll of Truprint 400 in. Think this is the only I like from the whole roll.

What a piece of shit camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	640
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: OM20HP532.jpg (196KB, 559x800px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 559x800px

>>2896138
>>2896138
>>2896132
Does the OM40 have the same little dial that you turn 90 degrees to allow rewind as the OM20?
Fuck me, every time I change rolls in that thing, I fuck about for 5 minutes trying to work out why the film isn't winding on before I remember to reset it.
>gud came tho

[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	2016:08:05 08:25:29
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	559
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

File: 3418780346_f590eba624.jpg (78KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x333px

>>2895985
HOLY DAMN ignore these guys bls.
Get a Fuji GA645.
They are fucking primo cameras, and dead simple to shoot.

>>2895985
Medium format cameras are just as dumb simple as 35mm manual cameras. If you know how to shoot in manual mode you can learn to use any medium format camera (pretty much) in a few minutes. Only thing you may need to YouTube is how to load the film, which is different depending on which specific camera we're talking about.

If anyone tried telling you medium format is difficult to shoot, they're retarded.

I can really only comment on square cameras, but if you're trying to spend the least amount as possible and don't mind fixes lenses look into a TLR. If you want interchangeable lenses and film backs the Bronica SQ-A is best the bang for your buck.

>>2896231
>If anyone tried telling you medium format is difficult to shoot, they're retarded.
desu, it's difficult for people to shoot because muh slow lenses, muh depth of field, muh (almost) lack of autofocus, muh lack of (almost) metering. etc etc etc.

Basically, think of a crutch, kick it away and see how they do. Medium Format cameras just tend to have less crutches for people to rely on.

>>2896350
All of which really dont matter if you use a tripod and shoot hyperfocal

>>2896411
>remains calm; focuses on breathing
get the fuck out

>>2896434
wat

>>2896350
>muh depth of field

what is meant by this?

>>2896578
Medium format gives you significantly less depth of field at the same apertures. I'll use 6x7 as an example cus the math is easiest, just cut everything in half, basically.

If you have a 100/4 lens on 6x7, then in terms of field of view and depth of field, you have a 50/2 as on 35mm cameras.

In order to get the same dof as f/8 on 35mm, you would have to stop down to f/16 on 6x7. This makes it harder to get more things in focus when shooting handheld. On the other hand, if you are shooting portraits and want a thin DOF, you don't need absurdly fast lenses, or slow film/high shutter speeds to compensate for all the light comnig in through a very wide aperture.

Please note: In terms of gathering light, that 100/4 is exactly as it is. The equivalency only applies to the relative fov and dof in the terms of 35mm. Also this is a simplified explanation, there's more at play here than just what has been said, but this is enough to explain how to understand shooting on mf, more or less.

>>2895975
I like it, though I think it would have benefited from some sharpness and quality you're not likely to get out of the Lomo cam. As a earlier poster said, buy a "real" camera.

Interesting to see how good it did on reddit

File: img259edited.jpg (1MB, 3000x2943px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2943px

>>2896625
Of course it did well on reddit...It has a girl in it. r/analog is a sucker for that ;)

Thanks for the kind words.

I sold my Lomo and got a Zeiss Ikonta. Honestly though I don't really care about the "real" camera shit, was real enough of a camera for me. It took idiosyncratic photos, which I liked. The lack of sharpness also comes from the fact that it's slightly out of focus, as well as slightly blurry because it's a longer exposure. I didn't judge my distances well. You'll notice the legs are sharper than the face. I've gotten plenty sharp images out of the Lomo, pic related (although IMO the bokeh and distortion are kind of ugly). But it is a very unreliable camera. Not worth the $400

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6773
Image Height	6645
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:05 09:38:15
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2943

>>2895977
>Maybe buy yourself a real camera and get some actually "good" results and you could really have something.

It's as real of a camera as any other to me. I like the results from the LC-A. I did sell it though because I couldn't deal with the unreliability. I had to perform a hack to get it to expose a full 12 frames, which is ridiculous IMO. I liked the vignetting and the quickness of the camera. I have an Ikonta now that I like very much, hoping to get a TLR soon. I love 6x6.

>>2896128
That's how it comes in "Low res" from my developer. It's shocking I know bt I don't have a film scanner.

>>2895975

i think its a cool shot. the vignette clearly adds to the mood of the photo. good color contrasts and palette. it has its own thing, without looking cliche or generic, the not-that-hot-but-still-would-fuck girl helps to it.

i wouldnt change a damn thing,

now
>Lomo LC-A 120
>$430

thats a travesty considering there are thousands of pro as fuck TLRs, yashicas, mamiyas that need love and good use and they go sometimes for $150 or even less. support photo guys like us buying the cameras they dont use anymore, not the lomojews.

>>2896218
It actually doesn't, it has a button for the release. I also have an OM10 and OM1 and they've got the little dial. The OM1 has a little dial next to it for mirror lockup too, which I've used maybe twice.

>>2896647
>now
>>Lomo LC-A 120
>>$430
>thats a travesty considering there are thousands of pro as fuck TLRs, yashicas, mamiyas that need love and good use and they go sometimes for $150 or even less. support photo guys like us buying the cameras they dont use anymore, not the lomojews.


I liked the results from the camera and it helped that I sold a bunch of old 35mm cameras I inherited to get it (only shelled out $100 of my own cash to get it) but yea would never have paid full price for it if I could go back in time.

>>2896411
kek

Feel free to upload your bridge snapshits for me to look at.

My father doesn't lend me his film camera because he thinks I could break it

>>2896621
I see, didn't know that thanks. Does Diffraction come in play at f/16 then or are the pictures generally at max sharpness there?

>>2896744
>Does Diffraction come in play at f/16
Not really. In general, the bigger the format, the more you can stop down without dealing with diffraction. f/64 ma nigga.
Here, have a fun read:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

>>2896755
oh sweet, thanks for the link m8

>>2896728

your father thinks your a cuck.

>>2896728
lel, that's what you get for being a clumsy fedoralord and a disappointment to your father

File: KonicaPro160002-1mini.jpg (268KB, 1207x800px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1207x800px

>>2896755
>>2896744
And before a diffraction based shitfight breaks out, diffraction still happens in the same amounts at f/16 on any format.
It just becomes less obvious in the context of the whole image, because the jump in scale between formats is usually bigger than the increase in blur from going down one or two more stops.
This is why f/16 on a crop digi sensor is clearly starting to show diffraction softening, but f/45 on a 4x5 looks sharp enough to make your eyes bleed. Lets say that the 3 stops increases diffraction by 8 times, the 4x5 sheet is still about 33 times larger.
Pic related, it's f/32 on 6x9.

>>2896945
really nice colors man. Slides?

>>2896945
>And before a diffraction based shitfight breaks out, diffraction still happens in the same amounts at f/16 on any format.
Kinda.

It's slightly more complicated in digital than it is in film because film's photosensitive molecules are all basically the same size but you have different photosensitive cell sizes in digital, but at this point we're so far down the rabbit hole of shit that doesn't really matter in the real word that it's not really worth discussing outside of "hey this bit of optics is kinda neat".

Hey guys! I just shot my first roll of film and all of my pictures like this since I didn't use flash. Is there any way I can edit these so they wont look like shit?

File: 000524180011.jpg (684KB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1545x1024px

>>2896960
1/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.11.003 (140225)
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

File: 000524180007.jpg (726KB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 1545x1024px

>>2896960

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.11.003 (140225)
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

File: 000524160014.jpg (829KB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 1545x1024px

>>2896960

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.11.003 (140225)
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

>>2896967
>>2896965
>>2896963
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-metering.htm

Forget about these pictures and read the above.

File: 280.jpg (46KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x640px

>>2896220
>They are fucking primo cameras, and dead simple to shoot.
easy peasy mayne

>>2896949
>filename
It's -very- expired Konica Pro 160 negative film.
>>2896953
The light coming out of the lense and going on to strike your recording medium is going to be equally diffracted at any given f/16 then.

>>2896988
>The light coming out of the lense and going on to strike your recording medium is going to be equally diffracted at any given f/16 then.
There you go. If you're going to be autistically anal about being technically correct, by fucking god be autistically anal about being technically correct.

File: image.jpg (240KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1000x667px

Recently purchased a Nikon FT2. Shot this on Fuji superia 400. Criticism and comments are encouraged

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 00:44:04
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

File: image.jpg (234KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1000x667px

>>2896997

Here's another

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:05 00:44:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

>>2896889
>>2896918
Oh fuck me

File: FujiForest_20.jpg (612KB, 533x799px) Image search: [Google]

612KB, 533x799px

>>2896997
>>2896998
Get better scans.
Get better at neutralising the orange mask before inverting your negative scans.
Lrn 2 focus.
Don't take wide open flower shots in hard sun.
Feel free to overexpose your Superia 400 by at least a stop when you've got plenty of light to work with.

[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	2014:11:04 13:57:15
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	533
Image Height	799
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_4332.jpg (420KB, 1081x800px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1081x800px

>>2894152
RELEVANT TO OP

Should I go through with an off-ebay transaction with some old leatherback pentacks-shooting Italian for 100 rolls of expired 220 Astia for 630 euros?
I really want this film.
*salivates*
>pic not related, but just some of my current stash

[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	2015:12:09 13:50:35
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1081
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Custom
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2897024

there are some really sweet slide flm deals sometimes but then i remember its expensive as fuck to develop, so every saving you do in the purchase you end paying triple in developing. if this is not your case, buy right now.

>>2897053
>20anything A.D.
>not revealing your own diapositives
Perhaps I could send some to based Alex and give him the fever as well?
I'm not sure if I've seen any Astia he's shot?

>>2897059
>>not revealing your own diapositives

fuckers wont send the chemicals to my country. fuck this shit.

>>2897024
Absolutely not. You can get new film for that price.

Bargain him down to $200 or walk away, trust me.

>>2897163
>new 220 slides for $10 AUD a roll
Nope.
You can get Rollei CR200 in 120 for *close* to that, but it's trash.
>>2897155
Where there are effectively 200 rolls of film, there's a way.
I'll sneak into the local pro-lab at night and siphon off their colour developer if I have to.

>>2897024
If you have the fridge space, do it. In the span of 6 months I bought ~250 rolls of various c41 and e6 emulsions at killer prices ($2-$4usd/roll) and went 4 years without buying anymore film.

>>2896220
>Recommending automatic plasticky cameras for film
>Muh ease of use

Listen, if you shoot film you shouldn't be getting a camera that gives you as close an experience to digital as possible, digital cameras make you lazy and not truly think about the composition of the shot. You get a film camera to slow you down and make you think about your settings and question whether you're really getting a good shot or not, especially on medium format where you have such a limited amount of frames. It's like if someone wants to get into 35mm and they get recommended a crappy plasticky point and shoot with no control whatsoever for the same reason.

So what if a camera isn't easy to use, photography isn't easy. If you want ease of use then shoot with your phone and apply a gimmicky filter

>>2897226
Speaking from.pwrsonal experience, I don't slow down when shooting film because of camera operations. I slow down because each shot costs me money and I only have so many frames I can shoot until I run out of film.

That said:
>shooting medium format with a prism and not experiencing dat glorious WLF ground glass.

>>2897226
I shoot film for the image quality m8.
Dat dere EBC Fujinon glass in front of some lush Fujichrome is a recipe for comfy pix.
If I can get a computer to focus where I want and expose how I want in a fraction of the time it would take to do it myself, why not?

Also, there's nothing 'convenient' about using a phone when it doesn't give the results you want.

And finally, I think the Number 1 regret of people who own a traditional MF camera is that they don't use it enough.
The Fuji folder/compact 645 cams will definitely fix that problem.
>holy shit, they have meters and vibration free shutters and are small enough to carry around without looking like a giant sperglord I CAN USE THEM JUST LIKE A NORMAL CAMERA

>>2896646
Despite the artifacts I can se a good picture behind them but:
>lrn2 dslr scan
and
>resize please
keep it up mate!

>>2896204
Hey Vsauce, Michael here!

>>2897289
>assuming everyone has a dslr

>>2897295
GUYS should I buy a Yashica 44? It's so cute and it's $79.

>>2895624
>I'm waiting for the delivery date to get past

Ok can I get your email mexibro?

File: colorperfect.png (6KB, 394x313px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 394x313px

Found a patcher for ColorPerfect but it doesn't work with latest 2.21 version and I can't find an older version of the plugin.

>>2897226
Nah fuck that. I use digital if I want to be meticulous. Film is for experimentation, fun and "emotional" photos. What I agree with though is putting more thought on when or whether to press the shutter.

But still, point & shoots and semi automatic cameras are my favorite way to shoot film. YMMV.

How do you guys agitate your film in developing? I have a patterson tank, shoot tri-x mostly, and use Xtol 1+1. I use a swirling motion to agitate for 10 seconds out of every 60, swirl one way, then switch, and repeat for the 10 seconds.

I feel like my negs are low contrast compared to what I had come to expect from tri-x and other films back when I used a steel tank and did inversion. I'd do inversion now, but in the patterson tanks there's not enough solution to cover the film when inverted. I also sometimes get air bubble spots on my negs, even though I always rap the tank on the counter after every agitation.

I also think that maybe the Mamiya lenses I use just have a coating that creates low contrast for BW. Any experience with that?