/film/

File: 1426888577218.jpg (96KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1280x720px

>mfw getting slide film back for the first time from the lab

Holy shit, I've seen the light. Honestly, I almost cried, that's how fucking beautiful it was. It was only 6x6 even, I can't even imagine what that feeling must be if I ever shot LF. I would probably achieve transcendence

File: img122j.jpg (266KB, 417x417px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 417x417px

Going to repost in the new thread

Slides came out rather light and washed out after developing. The film was Provia 100 that expired in '98 and I shot it at 100, would pushing development 1-2 stops help any? I have one more roll I was thinking about trying it with. I know next time I should expose it as a lower speed film due to it's age but is this even worth trying or should I just fix them in lightroom? Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9967
Image Height	9423
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2000 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 12:38:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	417
Image Height	417

>>2914146
It mainly just looks like your film is fucked bro.
Maybe try pulling your first developer and pushing your colour developer?

File: worldstar.jpg (124KB, 634x632px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 634x632px

World Star pentax via the KameraCraft instagram account. Gave me a giggle, quite like those funky redressings.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	634
Image Height	632

>>2914152
My kit says too light of slides might mean your first development was too long, seems counterintuitive, any idea why pulling would improve it? I understand pushing color development but maybe I just don't fully understand what's happening during the first development

File: 1472578095510.jpg (388KB, 417x417px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 417x417px

>>2914146

too fucked to fix in photoshop, try under exposing a good bit, might get better results

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9967
Image Height	9423
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2000 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 19:06:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	417
Image Height	417

File: iig122.jpg (570KB, 551x551px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 551x551px

>>2914167
I got somewhat useable results in lightroom (before downsizing)

I think I'm going to push both developers a bit and see what happens. All the rest of my exposed film is in date so this is more just a lesson learned I guess.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9967
Image Height	9423
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 14:12:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	551
Image Height	551

>>2914168
yea well thats alright

just the exposure is way too high, however you can fix that

>>2914146

Increase exposure 1 stop per decade expired.

EI should probably be 25, though I would test a roll with shots at 12, 25, and 50 to be sure before shooting more from the same batch.

>>2914142
What kind of slide film are you shooting?

>>2914210
doesn't work like that with slide

>>2914213
was my first roll of Velvia 50

File: img312.jpg (633KB, 950x1150px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 950x1150px

Shot and dev'd two rolls over the weekend, still playing with this wide lens a bit.

>inb4 borders

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10502
Image Height	13041
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:29 19:21:01
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	950
Image Height	1150

File: adox.jpg (3MB, 3000x1956px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1956px

>>2914142

>Do you even ADOX mate?

File: img314.jpg (562KB, 1150x950px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1150x950px

It's rush week, the campus was clogged with this shit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10576
Image Height	13189
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2527 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2527 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:30 14:44:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1150
Image Height	950

File: img313.jpg (684KB, 1150x950px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 1150x950px

This is one of the few times I wish I was carrying some color.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10576
Image Height	13189
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2594 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2594 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:30 14:56:39
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1150
Image Height	950

File: img315.jpg (487KB, 950x1150px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 950x1150px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10502
Image Height	13115
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2596 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2596 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:08:30 15:02:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	950
Image Height	1150

File: img001.jpg (513KB, 1150x950px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1150x950px

Had to wait ages for people to clear out to get a clean shot.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	13065
Image Height	10714
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2593 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2593 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 15:41:39
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1150
Image Height	950

This one is Pan F, despite the rest of this roll being shitty I really like the the tones of this film. That's all for now, will be shooting more later this week probably.

File: img309.jpg (551KB, 950x1150px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 950x1150px

>>2914231
Fug, forgot image.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	5000
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:29 19:27:49
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	950
Image Height	1150

>>2914232

Call me a pleb, but whenever I see rusty things I want colour.

>>2914168
Well, pushing first developer and color developer was certainly not the answer... got results even worse than before unfortunately. Might have another go at it tonight, pretty discouraged though this being my first attempt at color development.

>>2914269
Have you considered the problem might be using 18 year expired film?

>>2914271
No it definitely was, my issue was just how can I salvage them through development rather than exposing another roll differently–something I'm not able to do

How overrated is Lomography on a scale of 0 to Apple?

What cheap piece of shit camera could I buy instead if I wanted to take pretentious retro-aesthetic hipstery shots?

>>2914158
Because it's a reversal process.
There are 2 stages of development.
Think of it like carving a block of wood. The first developer determines how thick a slab you're going to cut out of the block, the second developer forms the image you see with what's left after the first cut.

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

32KB, 460x347px

Just bought an Olympus XA from KEH in "As-Is" condition for $15. It might not work but I'm crossing my fingers.

>>2914294
Xa2

>>2914343
They probably sold it as 'as is' because they had no batteries to test the camera. Don't worry, anon. The XA is a fine camera that'll make you love it.
Got mine for 12€ and its great.

>>2914349
I've bought BGN before with good results so I'm not too worried.

>>2914154
I saw that. I have no idea what would incline someone to even think about doing something like that.

File: 1457697816281.gif (508KB, 500x383px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 500x383px

>>2914134
Does the "pad of death" on the Yashica Electro 35 affect the actual film? I bought one for $30 off ebay, and its not making the distinct "thunk" sound its supposed to make.

It looks like a bitch to repair (it took me a while to just nigger-rig the batteries up) and money is a bit tight to get it repaired here.

>>2914343
KEH isn't retarded, they're not going to accidentally send you a perfectly good camera. If they say it's broken then it's going to be broken.

>>2914356
Yes, as I understand it, it needs to be fixed.

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/repair_pad_of_death.htm

I used this guide to repair mine. It's not very difficult, just fiddly.

>>2914360

Well I will report back when I get the camera.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (150KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1440x900px

>>2914343
I promise it will not work

Has anybody had any experience of pushing color film? I'm thinking of pushing ektar 100 to 400 to see what'll happen

>>2914375
pushed portra is godly

>>2914377
I haven't shot a roll of portra medium format. I've shot portra 400 in 35mm and was less then amazed

>>2914379
Like most every other film, it works best if you shoot with a certain palette in mind. Portra kills with more pastel palettes...which if you're not into, fair enough.

>>2914379
>I've shot portra 400 in 35mm and was less then amazed

thats because ur a helpless shitsnapper.

>>2914375
>pushing Ektar
>pushing a film that's notorious for having a cast
>pushing a film that's best when overexposed
well, it's your money.

I start my film class tomorrow. I have absolutely no experiance with film cameras and don't know what I need. I was thinking an easy to ise camera to use cheap film in for practice and a more higher ended camera for when I get better. any recommendations? I was thinking a kodak retina because they looknow cool and I'm trash but what would you recommend in the 500 usd range?

>>2914403
If you have a digital ILC, get a film body that works with the same lenses. Like I shoot Canon and got an Elan 7ne (EOS 3 is also another great EF mount film body) for around $50.

You can also get more modern SLRs for a lot cheaper than the older, fully mechanical ones because hipster tax runs up the older more "classic" looking bodies prices.

Minolta has a shitton of great options that you can find for cheap...again, the more modern bodies will be the cheapest of the options (and the ones with the most features). The only downside is that often these bodies use strange batteries that might be hard to find, but in an SLR, the battery will last for at least a year in the vast majority of cases.

>>2914403
I myself would go for;
a nikon fm for 35mm
or
a rolleiflex standard II if you want 120
or
any of the folders you can afford without light leaks for LF

do you know what film your school can process?

File: 8mg128.jpg (435KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 555x555px

>>2914310
That makes much more sense put that way, thank you. I finally managed to get a proper roll developed today after all.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9967
Image Height	9967
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 23:37:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	555
Image Height	555

File: LVStrip1_F100_032.jpg (374KB, 643x1000px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 643x1000px

I recently got an F100 and blew thru two rolls of HP5 while walking around for shits and giggles but now I'm pissed. I fucked up hard somewhere. My developed film has these terrible spots on them and I don't know why. I developed 2 rolls of film and they both came out like this.

>Rodinal 1:100 for 1hr
>Ilford fixer - only maybe 6 rolls into current solution

Never had this issue before but with this batch of chemicals, I've been storing them in water bottles this time. These spots only appear within the frame if the images, not in the unexposed areas.

1 of 3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	9999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	9999 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 20:53:24
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: LVStrip1_F100_003.jpg (497KB, 654x1000px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 654x1000px

>>2914410

2 of 3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	9999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	9999 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 20:52:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: LVStrip1_F100_035.jpg (298KB, 1000x647px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1000x647px

>>2914410
>>2914411

3 of 3

Fucked around with multiple exposures on this one but I noticed that the spots didnt seem to increase, so I know its from my developing procedure :/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	9999 dpi
Vertical Resolution	9999 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 20:53:14
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: fuck.jpg (340KB, 1000x571px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1000x571px

help me /p/. Is it my scans that are shitty? or am I doing something wrong in photoshop. This is ilford hp5 400

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:30 23:08:48
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	571
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2914413
look at the film itself carefully, are there water spots? they can look a lot like that in scans/prints.

Look what Lomography just announced as a Kickstarter project:

https://www.lomography.com

>Still no manual controls
>Still no fast aperture lens
>Still uses those cheesy conversion lenses and flash gels
>You were actually excited for this announcement, only to be unsurprisingly let down

If somebody could just put out a Instax camera that takes m39 mount lenses that would be super fucking de duper

Thoughts on post-processing in lightroom/photoshop with film?
I've always been of the belief that you shouldn't edit the colours because that's that particular films character, and with too much post processing you may as well use digital.
Sometimes the highlights/shadows need to be evened out but even then I feel reluctant, it's usually not the films fault you didn't expose correctly.

>>2914511
I used to think like that, but I've realized that just because it was shot in an analog medium, it doesn't mean I shouldn't mess with it once digitized. For me I've embraced digital post processing as part of my film workflow.

I shoot it analog, then digitize it, process the digital file, then spit it back out as analog (the print).

When it comes to color negatives, the "purity" of film's character makes even less sense to me, since there's no way around fucking with the negative to get a positive image (inverting+color correction). So you're definitely adding your touch to it in some way and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We have the tools people back then didn't have, it's cool to combine digital and analog.

>>2914511
I scan in flat and adjust levels as necessary, and add a bit of sharpening. Generally I find with film you don't need to post process too much. With black and white in lightroom too for whatever reason I've found the files very inflexible compared to digital. What might need +30 from a digital RAW will only tolerate +5 on a film scan.

So how big is the fuji 690 actually? I want to get myself a medium format camera. I've had a Mamiya RB67 before. It was a bit on the heavy side.

>>2914511
Film needs to be modified. Even doing 100% analog prints you have to add your own touches to get rid of the orange cast and dial in the colors to your liking.

Not editing your film shots due to the "inherent qualities of the film" is baseless way of thinking.

>>2914505
That's not bad desu, still I don't think I'd buy it. More Instax cameras is still good tho, maybe we'll be seeing Instax Wide backs and other stuff since it seems to only be growing in popularity.

>>2914505
You realise the image circle on 35mm lenses won't be enough for even instax mini right?

File: IMG_20160813_101750.jpg (353KB, 1672x1188px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1672x1188px

shot some old velvia, some of it turned out nice (Minolta x700)

How do I get my film shots into lightroom while maintaining quality and detail? Am I doomed to spend big bucks on a good scanner and just scan the prints into LR?

>>2914456
>f1.8
May want to at least stop down your lens desu

Which of these two would be the best option for landscape photo? Fuji GS645S or a Fuji GW690?

>>2914294
lomography deserves credit for being the only company trying to keep film cool and relevant. that being said all of their cameras are over priced. go to the thrift store and you'll find a dozen working cameras under 5 bucks. or you can get a holga online for 30ish. they'll all take great pictures. a 110 camera or a polaroid will get you the most hipsterish results

>>2914505
>being excited for a lomo announcement
kys tbqh

>>2914586
Surplkus hubble telescope lens on a macro extension tube.

Nah, just DSLR scan if you're a poorfag.

>>2914360
if its broken it will say so in the notes. "as is" could mean beat up but functional.

>>2914601
I think I have a couple hubbles at my dads house.

Cheers nigga, ill study up on it

>>2914599
>the only company trying to keep film cool and relevant.

LOL

>>2914511

No man. Post processing and manipulation has been a thing from the start. Every iconic photograph has been graded - it is an important part of photography.

>>2914590
oh fuck I forgot about that. Ill try that

>>2914134
Yo dog... that Brownie is fucked up. All peeled n shit...

I got like 10 of those in pristine condish, nigga. Dem shits are historical artifacts, gotta keep dat shit nice.

>>2914505
>>2914571
this. instax mini is roughly 6x4.5. I've always thought about converting a fuji ga645zi to have an instax back, but it seems too expensive and risky to do.

>>2914570
It just feels like there isn't much of a significant difference across existing models that would appeal to more serious photographers. The TL-70 is nice and all but I think I'll pass on beautiful bokeh stars.

>>2914600
:*[

>>2914571
>>2914694
Yeah, would look like shit now that it gets pointed out. One could imagine how nice that would be though.

And I'd say do it if you knew for a fact you could. Not worth rip'ing a $350 camera unless it can be done successfully or you by chance has extra parts. Still a cool idea.

So I just bought a Fuji GW690II. What am I in for?

>>2914807
medium format

>>2914809
Wow, you're edgy like a katana aren't you, son.

>>2914142

You transcende to nirvana if you ever ger too se 6x6 velvia projected

>>2914829
What happens if you see 8x10 velvia projected?

>>2914814
Just as edgy as you asking stupid questions. So, you bought a new camera, maybe you should have asked before buying it or you did your research and just want some attention by mentioning you bought it. Either way you're a stupid faggot.

File: 36230031-01.jpg (625KB, 995x1502px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 995x1502px

So I finally decided to get a camera and dive into photography, film to specific. Anyways, posting the few pics that I felt were decent enough and would like some feedback

The B&W ones are Ilford hp5 400

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:08:31 02:00:43
Metering Mode	Unknown
Light Source	Unknown
Image Width	995
Image Height	1502

File: IMG_20160831_020546.jpg (451KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1024x678px

>>2914852

File: IMG_20160831_141339.jpg (867KB, 800x1207px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 800x1207px

>>2914854

File: IMG_20160831_142305.jpg (674KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1024x678px

>>2914855
Last B&W, moving on to Portra 400

This one would have been better in color

File: IMG_20160831_020653.jpg (659KB, 800x1207px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 800x1207px

>>2914856

File: IMG_20160831_020432-01.jpg (330KB, 796x1200px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 796x1200px

>>2914858

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:08:31 12:57:43
Image Width	796
Image Height	1200

File: IMG_20160831_141311.jpg (657KB, 800x1206px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 800x1206px

>>2914860

I feel like I was able to frame a lot of the pics pretty well, but was just missing an interesting subject. Anyways, I think I'll end here, don't want to clutter up the thread.

Hey /film/ I was wondering if you could give me some help. I got done shooting my third roll about 15 minutes ago (arista edu 400 x 36). Camera is an Olympus OM-1 that my dad had in storage. In my excitement after my last shot I started winding up the film, forgetting to hit the release button. I realized something was wrong when there was no resistance as I wound. Not wanting to fuck up the film, I waited until I got home to check what was going on. I popped open the back in a pitch-black closet and felt the edges to see the film hadn't been wound. I'll spare you the play by play, but basically now I have what seems to be half of my roll returned to the canister, and the other half is on the reel with a torn frame in the middle. How do I salvage this? Just pull it off and throw it in a canister (in the dark), then develop each part of the roll on a different reel in my tank? Thanks for the help as I'm a noob to film and photography

>>2914901
easiest way to do it is put each half on a seperate reel and develop them. if you have the two reels in the tank at once make sure you put enough chemistry in the tank so that both are covered.

Found a fucking great deal on an a Pentax 6x7 MU with the wood handle and a wide & portrait lens. Gonna go pick it up Saturday.

Cant wait to get the 105mm lens as well. Cant express how exited I am to finally get one at a good price. and a perfect condition one at that.

Im trying to sell a hassy 500cm with the standard lens and accessories right now for $800 and having trouble.

>>2915178
Hassy prices have been slowly falling since 2012ish from what I've seen. Back then similar setups were running $1100. Be patient, $800 is a reasonable price. How long have you had it on the market?

>>2915178
Damn, jelly. Still looking for one myself, hope I can find a beater for a good price. Now that I dev myself the extra price per frame of MF is pretty negligible.

>>2915178
How much do the go for? I had one local with the wooden grip, 3 lenses, and some extension tubes(?) and/or teleconverters for $650. Passed on it though cause I don't need more gear.

>>2914596
>Fuji GS645S
If you want to take portrait orientation landscapes with less than half the resolution and need a meter like a little bitch, then go with that, sure.

File: BrownieOrtho-08.jpg (886KB, 1500x2137px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1500x2137px

>>2914688
In my country they shoot people for using ebonics.
The peeling Brownie works fine, quit your bitching.

>>2914837
Well you don't see shit, unless you're projecting it inst an entirely darkened room using a dying sun as your light source

>>2915208
>Passed on it though cause I don't need more gear
This is a classic cuck move.
Buy everything you that want and can secure the credit required to purchase.
Do you even know how capitalist societies function??!!!?

>>2915237
I got the GW690 II as it seemed to be a better option. Gonna stock up on some Velvia 50, Ektar and Portra 160.

>>2915247
Didn't really want it, was kinda just an "oh cool, seems like a decent price" and moved on. Money wasnt an issue at all.

>>2914411
I kinda like the way the spots look on this one lmao.

>>2915237
>less than half the resolution
yeah okay m8 nice b8

>>2915258
what? it's exactly half the resolution

>>2915258
>using resolution as a determining factor between 6x4.5 and 6x9 when you know damn well no prints larger than 16" will probably ever be made

>>2915265
They are pretty much the same cost and you could always crop to 6x4.5 if you want to. 6x9 is arguably better in that regard.

>>2915254
>"oh cool, seems like a decent price" and moved on

the mindset of a cuck.

you dont "oh cool, its cheap. cya" a Pentax 67. you just grab that japanese goddess.

What film is better: Kodak ColorPlus 200, or Kodak UltraMax 400?

>>2915277

both succ cock.

ummm... i think i dun fucked up guys
so i read online that if you're not developing right away you should store your negatives in a cooler, so i did for about a month and i've just got them developed and all of the scans have this orange/brown tint to them, negs have a purple on them too so it's not the scaner...

>>2914901
I agree with >>2915054
in a changing bag get both bits of film and put them on separate reels, making sure to double your chemistry so both bits get covered. Good luck with it.

>>2915270
>They are pretty much the same cost
not when you factor in film, 6x9 takes half the amount of shots as 6x4.5, so you're paying twice as much for the same amount

>>2915332
Quality>Quantity

>>2914252

All those photos would be better in color.

>>2914410
>>2914411
>>2914413

That's just dust. Wash the negatives.

>>2915287
is Vista Plus 200 any better?
Am poorfag

People who have worked with Velvia, do you find that Velvia scans are typically less sharp than black and white scans? Is this a thing or have i just fucked up

>>2915397

vista is kinda alright.

>poorfag

man up. faggot.

>>2915409

maybe the b&w scans are coarser looking and then, apparently, sharper? velvia being virtually grainless and low iso slide is as sharp as your best lens stopped down aka. pretty fucking sharp.

File: fomatest1.jpg (101KB, 1320x813px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1320x813px

Here is a snap I made ages ago. Recenty got around to scan it.

Made with Fomapan stock.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	17749
Image Height	10922
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
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	2015:04:14 01:23:55
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4000
Image Height	2461

>>2915414
I'm 18 in a 2nd world country.
You man up, your life is on easy mode.

>>2915054
>>2915327
Thanks, that's what I'll do. I was a bit nervous when I made the post because this is the first roll I'll be developing.

5 rolls of 120 fuji neo pan acros for 30 USD a good deal or should i keep looking?

>>2915595

keep looking. its store price, no way a "deal".

>>2915271
Is that price cheap? I figured it was a fair price but not a deal or anything.

>>2915341
But the quality difference doesn't matter because you won't ever make prints big enough to render 6x4.5 insufficient. If you only outputs are 1200px web snapshits and the occasional 8x10 printed off your inkjet your a dumbass for thinking he higher resolution from a larger negative will ever come into play.

Paying 2x per frame is a hefty increase in overall cost...especially if you aren't developing yourself.

>>2915605
Projecting strongly here

>>2915605

youre some special sort of retarded.

>>2915606
Never seen anyone other than a select few talk about printing bigger than A4 on here. And those people know enough about their needs to not need to ask whether they should go for one format or the other.

>>2915608
I never print smaller than 16x20, but thanks for you projection my friend :)

>>2915437
>yuropoor detected
Just emigrate to Britain!
>oh, wait...

File: Adolf-Hitler.jpg (43KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 550x366px

>>2915239
>In my country they shoot people for using ebonics.

Good luck with that...

>>2915609
Are you the one asking about 6x4.5 vs 6x9? If so, and you know you never print smaller than 16x20, you're quite daft.

>>2915643

Germans are good at making lenses but shit at focusing.. Hitler is so soft it makes fags look like the ubermensch,

>>2915658
I wasn't even asking about the format to begin with. I was asking about camera specifics. I honestly don't care. I have access to a darkroom where I can do RA4 prints if I want to. So going with 6x9 makes more sense, but the fuji gs645s looked nice. Too bad it has portait orientation.

>>2915662
Ah, in the daft one then. Apologies.

I don't really understand the portrait orientation either. Would make sense if it was intended to be a studio camera...but I don't think it was. There's a Bronica RF that has portrait orientation too.

File: img-1.jpg (298KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 667x1000px

Recently developed this Tri-x in D-76. Turned out pretty nice.

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

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

File: img-2.jpg (301KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1000x667px

>>2915791
Another one. I'm not satisfied with this one, the frame feels cluttered and has a lot of negative space. A friend said he liked it though.

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

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

I use 200 ISO film, but it is kind of difficult to shoot at low light. Is it a good idea to buy 400 or even faster 35mm film?

>>2915810
Depends on the light you're working with. A 400 film only gives you one stop more. If this is enough, then yes, go get some 400 film. Otherwise you might want to consider using a flash.

File: pitkospuut.jpg (239KB, 717x1000px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 717x1000px

Zuiko 50/1.8 + Ilford Pan 400 in Rodinal.

>>2915949
Rodinal on 400 speed film, _and_ sharpness slider maxed out? It's doing bad things to both the walkin' logs and the vegetation around it. Also, get a yellow or yellow-green filter to brighten the latter up a bit; I can hardly tell there's a fir in the frame.

Nice light, too bad about the processing. Try a slower film, or a T-grain film, the next time; 400 speed cubic usually doesn't do well on grass, firs and wood.

>>2915951
Too much stuff in one frame. Rear root is out of focus; use a tripod and a smaller aperture for stationary subjects like this. I'd refine this down to just one of those roots (the lower gaggle most likely) and try out all sorts of different angles and comps.

>>2915956
Too much empty space around the roots. Trees are cut off. Left tree is out of focus. I had no idea Zuiko 50mm f/1.8s had a bit of a swirl in their bork; mine doesn't.

>>2915960
Again, too much empty space on the upper left.

>>2915963
Good subject, poorly executed.

At least the scans are good: I can see loads of grain even at 1000px.

>>2915969

Using HP Photosmart S20 from '99.

Surprisingly sharp scanner for the time.

And yes Pan 400 is very grainy with Rodinal.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Dunno if this is the place fuck it.

Someone gave me an old F90x camera the other day. Thing's a tank on its own, then factor in the MB-10 it's massive.(he can't find the original battery holder so stuck on)

Anyways, camera is fully functional- metering, af, drive. However it was stored in a garage for god knows how long, and there appears to have been little ventilation. So it has a harsh musty smell that transfers to my clothes, hands, and the air a foot around. Likely mold, but when I see a few screws outside rusting, makes me wonder the condition inside.

Know any good camera cleaning services? None in my area, and I have no experience with those online "send us your camera" ones. Good camera, and I don't care if I have to spend $$$ on it.

[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	3264
Image Height	2448

File: Portra-001.jpg (236KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 667x1000px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3402
Image Height	4826
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	2016:09:03 12:31:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

File: Portra-002.jpg (268KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1000x667px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4745
Image Height	3524
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	2016:09:03 12:41:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

>>2916323
Probably not worth it. You can buy that exact camera with motordrive for $69BIN on ebay.

>>2914408
NIce looking shot!

>>2915983
Rad!

>>2916323
You sound dumb.
USING the fucking thing is the best way to get rid of a "musty smell" you moron.
Paying some chink $100 to go over your perfectly functional black plastic camera with a toothbrush for 10 minutes is pants-on-head retarded.

File: Portra-007.jpg (123KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 667x1000px

>>2916324
>>2916325
I seriously fucked up scanning the negatives. Scanning the prints is easier and looks a lot better.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1048
Image Height	1526
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:09:03 13:42:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

>>2916323
If you just need rid of the smell put it in a bag with a bowl with f vinegar and leave it for a day or two

File: scantest.jpg (161KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 667x1000px

This is definitely going to be a stupid question but:

I have a printer-scanner with a resolution of 1200DPI.
Would investing into a standalone flatbed (ie v700) scanner be any different than the results I would get?
Pic is the scan I tried and it quite looks liek shit

>>2916433
Yes they will be much better. Film scanners backlight the film while scanning. That said their are better 35mm dedicated scanners than the v700 for similar prices.

>>2916433
>v700

yes, go for it.

>>2916436
Is the only reason backlighting? Also which would you recommend?
I saw a used v600 for 60€ and started to wonder

>>2916433
Use a dedicated film scanner like a plustek for 35mm. Flatbeds are a compromise with inferior quality, you can get away with using one for medium or large format because the film has enough resolution to make up for the shit scanner but with 35mm you want a good scanner so that you can get out as much as you can from the film.

>>2916448
how much DPI should I get to look for correct results?

>>2916344
And you don't?
Moisture, fungus, and lint if the mount cover isn't on will fuck up the ribbon connections and some electronics over time if the camera was poorly stored. That as well as the lube for the shutter and mirror.
If he wants to keep it, rather than buy a better one cheaper, he'll need to cla that thing. Overall, it's cheaper to just find a newer camera on ebay.

>>2914408
nice shot anon

what film did you use? i'd say ektar but i have some doubts...

>>2914505
>https://www.lomography.com
can they just release a RZ67 knockoff already? wanna grab something like but new and cheaper ofc.

>RRRREEEEEEEEEE

>>2916516
>but new and cheaper
>lomography
>cheaper

Do you know anything about this company anon? Yeah, they may eventually make one, but it'll be 4x the cost of a certified never used, mint condition RZ67

>>2916518
RZ67 go on Ebay rn for around 700 bucks afaik.

I dont think Lomo is that retarded.

>>2916520
>retarded
They'd still sell them...what's that one tlr they do a knockoff of that's worse build quality and far more expensive than the original?

And they charge how much for their all plastic pos bodies?

>>2916523
hmmm, youre not wrong

I just find the RZ67 kinda expensive man, especially when they were so popular and got used so much.

I want to get into photography to see what kind of pictures I can take and then alter them (I.E. burning them, microwaving, etc.) to see what kind of """art""" I can make, is this a good start?
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/impossible-bundle

>>2916527
Yeah, basically all of their products are priced to be premium products.

>find the rz67 kinda expensive
It's an excellent camera with great glass. You can also use it to beat to death muggers. As far as figuring in its popularity goes, recall that medium format digital hasn't been around as long as 35mm (including crops here) and isn't as fully matured ( kind of like there still isn't a "full frame" medium format sensor), so there hasn't been a giant pressure relief valve to drop the value of medium format film bodies like how happened to 35mm SLRs.

>>2916531
yea, I mean, i find it pricey, but I would gladly drop the cash if I had for a nice mamiya kit.

we just gotta be patient till xmas

>>2916530
what do you mean microwaving?

>>2916534
>take a picture on the Polaroid
>take film fresh out of Polaroid
>put in microwave to alter color scheme, or whatever would happen
>???
>profit???

>>2916541
oh, i have no idea about polaroids.

GL man

>>2916543
Fuqqqq : DDD

>>2916515
read the thread genius, it's expired provia

I have a bunch of film shit I've collected during the 2 years I've been shooting. So I've been thinking about it for a while, and decided I'll just sell the stuff I don't use much, with the intention of getting something nicer with the money. Only camera I'm on the fence about is the XA, even though I shoot my Mju I and II way more.

I like compacts and rangefinders, what would you personally get if you had around €300? I know it's not enough for a Leica, but a Contax T2 or a Bessa should fit.

File: tumblr_ocy6f5Hz701vte48po1_1280.jpg (246KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 960x640px

Some recent snapshits with the wonderful 'Poundland special' Agfa Vista 200.

1/4

File: tumblr_ocy6meb4yk1vte48po1_r1_1280.jpg (546KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 960x640px

How do I get rid of the weird hazing from the top of the photo?

2/4

File: tumblr_ocy67rkqXK1vte48po1_1280.jpg (394KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 960x640px

Southbank scallies

3/4

File: tumblr_ocy6rkdgQp1vte48po1_1280.jpg (377KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 960x640px

Pleasing tones for £1

4/4

>>2916675
Mate this is great

>>2916675
Is that doge wearing a fucking hat?

>>2916710

No, it's playing an accordion.

>>2916724
Oh look, here's Ambush never picking a fight, starting an argument, or otherwise being anything but a great, polite, and informative user!

>>2916677
keep it, it's cool

>>2916730

>overreacting to stupid joke

Why so mad?

>>2916749
Pot, kettle, black.

>>2916750

Pot, kettle, black.

>>2916751
I'm not the one who shits up threads because someone jokingly corrects you with the word "forest", but sure, there are definitely people here who get your great sense of humor and are so happy to have you here.

>>2916755

>somebody
>jokingly

[backpedaling intensifies]

>>2916757
Yes, everything everyone else says is always serious.

>>2916760

>is mad over a wikipedia link


>forever

>>2916762
>thinks I'm mad
>thinks I don't just find pleasure in calling out his hypocrisy

You lie to yourself a lot Ambush. It might be best for you to start facing down all of those demons that cause you to be such an incompetent human.

>>2916773

>internet psychoanalysis

True butthurt's final form.

>>2916776
D E L U S I O N
E
L
U
S
I
O
N

>>2916779

So incompetent I'm debt free, own my own house on my own land, and just bought another $14,000 lens last month.

I'm laughing at you, Anon.

>inb4 bragging

>>2916783
The incompetence comes from the fact that you seem to think you're the only one who has managed those things.

>>2916785

1) Never said it (you pulled it out of your ass)
2) That's not incompetence anyway

I'll just leave this discussion now that you've reached the end of your rope, as you invariably do.

>>2916786
which lens brother

>>2916786
if you weren't as stupid and butthurt as he was you wouldn't have kept replying. take the L you fat faggot

>>2916786
>1) Never said it (you pulled it out of your ass)
You're definitely a failure at reading comprehension.

>2) That's not incompetence anyway
You can (and, in your specific case, are) be a horribly incompetent human being while managing to be financially successful. A staggeringly large number of investment bankers are flat out psychopaths, and they can buy and sell your little piece of worthless land hundreds of thousands of times over with just the interest they earn on their money. That doesn't make them competent at anything other than acquiring stuff. The fact that you equate material possessions with competently being human is further proof of how bad you are at being a human.

>I'll just leave this discussion now that you've reached the end of your rope, as you invariably do.
It's funny how when you start getting really upset, you start claiming victory.

>>2916724
Fucking hell? You're shitting on the film threads now?

Don't you realize you're fucking cancer and kill whatever fucking threads you show up and be retarded in? It'd be something if you even somewhat funny or helpful, but you're not. Goddamn fuck off you faggot.

>>2916806

Not quite sure what you are taking issue with, to be honest.

>>2916710
>>2916724

Friendly banter

>>2916730

Hate

>>2916811
Fucking retard bush, showing up with his trip on to make some retarded joke, knowing that someone would come in and respond to him creating an autism critical mass that blows up. He knows it'll happen, but he still insists on bringing that bullshit into other threads.

>>2914558
It's a comically big rangefinder but I walk around with it much, much easier than my RB. As far as size of camera vs size of exposure, it's small for making a 6x9 negative. The light curtains in them are pains in the ass, and you're looking at 8 exposures off of a 120 roll. All that being said, I do love mine.

>>2916677

Your lens is shit in backlight.

File: 8mg2meO.jpg (605KB, 561x564px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 561x564px

>>2916515
Actually this one was an in-date Velvia 50 roll I developed the night after ruining my roll of Provia, This shot was off a 2008 roll of Astia, my personal favorite film

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9967
Image Height	10031
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	270 dpi
Vertical Resolution	270 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:04 08:19:49
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	561
Image Height	564

>>2916633
Bump

File: Photo-7.jpg (906KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1000x1250px

Has anyone pulled off an emulsion lift with regular photo paper? I can find plenty of info for a polaroid lift, but it seems nobody has tried it on regular paper.
Probably for good reason?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Daniel J. Grenier
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2014:04:19 14:38:36
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 0190222f200c0482b3dbbd9a08785dd8ff93c8ca36 (Small).jpg (28KB, 642x480px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 642x480px

What do you think /p/, is this scratched off properly to IS0 1600? I threw it into a DX encoded camera today (Oly Mju1) without looking thinking it was a regular 400 roll, but I guess I scratched it off at some point and never shot it. It's definitely not been shot before, but is it a good enough scratch job to develop at 1600? Kinda worried about it since the reason I never shot it in the first place was that I'd never messed with DX encoding before.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPad mini
Camera Software	9.3.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:04 15:49:38
Exposure Time	1/24 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	2.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash Function
Focal Length	3.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2056
Image Height	1535
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2914158
Think of it like that:

Your slide starts as "black", and getting lighter during the process.
The first developer is what lightens the image, the second developer is what turns it into colour.

Essentially, the silver developed in the first developer is removed later (bleached and fixed out), so the more you develop in the first developer, the less silver is left, upon which the colour image is formed.

>>2917063

just do it, fagtron.

File: 148318-6017-2a9Yge8-lovmedia.jpg (445KB, 580x792px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 580x792px

Why is overexposing Portra all the rage these days?

Looks like washed out shit.

>>2917111

its luminous. hides blemishes. bitches love their blemishes hidden.

>>2917111
The compressed highlights can look very good, and the washed out pastel tones you get fit some stuff amazingly.

Apparently Fuji 400H is even better but I've never shot it, only 160NS (at least I think it was NS) exposed at 100 in MF and it looked amazing.

File: tri-x-push.jpg (84KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 700x467px

>>2917063
> Pic related. Learn to image search and use a camera with manual override. Otherwise, it's fine.

>>2916955
Any filters I can use to help? It's a Nikon L35AF so I can get 46mm filters I think.

>>2917183
do you not know what backlighting is? just don't take pictures of strong light sources if you don't want your lens to flare

>>2917183
>>2917191
That's not flare. It's haze.

Use a UV/Haze filter.

Anyone using a Plustek 7200? Could get one cheap, but reviews are mixed and I'm wondering if the IR dust/scratch removal is good enough to justify paying half the price more. Also wondering if getting a later model like the 8200 or 8200i might be better.

>>2917049
this is unbelievably cool, could you explain how to do it??

>>2917207
what's so hard about using google?

File: Slobruthers176.jpg (608KB, 1530x1000px) Image search: [Google]

608KB, 1530x1000px

>>2917198
Just lrn 2 dslr scan already plebtron.

[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	2016:09:05 07:19:38
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	1530
Image Height	1000
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

>>2917235
implying dslr scanning isn't the most pleb way. What's the point of using a dslr to take a photo of a negative when you could use your dslr in the first place?

File: 28724942542_aebfb6ecce_h.jpg (636KB, 1600x1095px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1600x1095px

>>2917198
I use a 7400, it works pretty well. I only shoot B&W so I couldn't use IR dust removal anyway. Also the newer 8100/8200 models are the exact same hardware as the 7400/7600 just bundled with newer software, but the software is shit and you should ditch it for vuescan anyway.

I think the image quality from the 7200 should be about the same, but it doesn't have an LED lamp like the newer models so it has to warm up when you turn it on. Try to find a 7400 or something newer instead, I got mine used and dirt cheap.

>>2917243
many thanks for this advice. Going to look into these. Thought silverfast was ok, any source for vuescan? Tried the test version and think it's overpriced for what it is.

>>2917235
dslr scanning is a pain in the ass

>>2917245
Just pirate it, it's also a piece of shit but just a bit less shitty than silverfast. No scanner software is good enough to be worth paying money for.

>>2917257
true, I'm using an epson perfection 3200 right now and epson scan is really bad, especially for color. Scanner seems to be dying and has some dead pixels giving me lines through all scans.

>>2917257
any reliable source for vuescan? I just downloaded a version + serial and all, activated it - was marked as professional, made a new firewall rule and it still wasn't professional anymore when I started it again.

>>2917270
Buy it you faggot.

File: 2016-08-24-0010-2.jpg (224KB, 1010x452px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1010x452px

>>2917198
I have a Plustek 7200

The scanner is not detected by windows 8 or 10. No drivers. So you'd better have a machine with an older operating system, or else you're fucked.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any IR dust/scratch removal option on this shit.

The software it came with is pretty outdated and awful, so I'm using VueScan instead. The difference made by change in software alone is night and day. Totally worth it (pirate if you're really looking to maximize your savings).

The only other scanner I've tried was an Epson v550. I can safely say that it resolves better, but can you even tell when resized for the web or a print? The only real practical advantage of the Plustek over the Epson flatbed is that it's waaay smaller and mine came with its own carrying case, everything fits inside it, very convenient and easy to deploy.

If I were to upgrade, it'd probably be cheaper to just buy a DSLR and macro lens than a new, better scanner.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 7200
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10152
Image Height	6672
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
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	2016:09:04 15:10:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1010
Image Height	452

>>2917275
or just dump windows and switch to osx

File: Slobruthers185.jpg (753KB, 1495x1000px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 1495x1000px

>>2917247
>>2917240
Dudes, the argument is *completely* settled, we've done this so many times it's not even up for debate any more.
DSLR scanning takes 2 or 3 seconds per frame, and absolutely dominates every other practical method as far as IQ goes.
The only reason not to do it is if you're a moron who can't into macro photography.
>>2917243
oh wow it's garbage!
>>2917245
oh wow, you only wanted your pre-formed opinions validated by a random on the internet?
>>2917275
reason speaks

[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	2016:09:05 08:05:43
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	1495
Image Height	1000
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

>>2917281
stfu melon

>>2917273
see >>2917257

>>2917281
Not a good photo to begin with and I'd rather use a DSLR than waste a single frame of film on something like this. The DSLR "scan" result however looks ok for the resolution.

If you read above posts you'd notice that these anons recommended me getting another scanner, not the plustek 7200 I asked about.

>>2917275
Same for my current scanner, had to change some lines in another driver and got it working.

Hey I have an old yashica fx-d.
The film advance lever is stuck, like it won't advance film. Any tips?

>>2917291
>just take every picture without advancing the film
>you'll get a white overexposed square
>send it to the moma
>describe the process
>blah blah
>?????
>profit
hipsters and art hoes will love it