This is the Film General Thread, aka FGT. This is the thread

Canoscan 9000F Mk2 or Epson V550 for scanning 120? Or just whichever is cheaper?

File: IMG_20161026_185515 (1).jpg (451KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1024x576px

bought my first roll of slides, what to expect?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 19:05:14

>>2953617
I'm aure you'll have a positive experience.

File: 17473109900_06d1c1c0b4_b.jpg (289KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1000x1000px

>>2953596
I'd you own a decent dslr you'll get better results with a macro lens and/or extension tubes.

>>2953617
Awesome colors, make sure you nail the exposure. Never shot that film in particular but I'm sure you'll love the results. Always enjoy seeing posts from you. I'll be back visiting Hanoi this time next year!

>>2953621
No decent SLR, only a MFT snapshitter with a shitty lens and nothing to build a film holder and backlights out of.

Can you still aquire astia in tokyo?

File: 16658826103_0599c6fdfc_b.jpg (156KB, 800x506px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 800x506px

>>2953624
In that case get whichever is cheaper. Both will work fine for web images and small prints. Things will get iffy if you wanna print bigger than ~10" on the longest side.

File: 28157396152_f8f7914a04_b.jpg (511KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1000x1000px

>>2953626
I haven't seen it in any shops here in Japan. Just Provia 100F and Velvia 50, 100, and 100F.

>>2953627
I don't make prints of my shits so that will be fine, I'll be happy if I can get decent quality for 1280p JPGs out of them. Anyway thanks, I'll go for the Epson since it's slightly cheaper.

What's the best snapshit camera? I'm look at the mju xa2.

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-006-1024x686.jpg (127KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x686px

Fuji 400 om-1

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-022-1024x686.jpg (152KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x686px

>>2953636
What are y'alls scanning method? I might buy a macro lens for my Sony but I don't have a way to edit my photos

>>2953635
Whats your budget?

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-013-1024x686.jpg (220KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1024x686px

>>2953638
I'm also searching for a lightweight hiking camera.

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-005-1024x686.jpg (196KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1024x686px

>>2953640
$100 USD.

>>2953643
Yeah probably mju II or xa

File: 481130010013-1024x579.jpg (155KB, 1024x579px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1024x579px

>>2953643
I have a Nikon Speedlite, so do I need to buy a light board? I also don't have any way to hold the film flat, so any suggestions would be nice

File: 17082262090_f84dbcb3a6_b.jpg (170KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 800x533px

>>2953635
Stylus Epic.

>>2953638
Sony A7, Canon 50mm FD Macro, iPad covered by a piece of white acrylic for backlighting. Works well for me.

What format/lens do you want for a hiking camera? I'll recommend the stylus epic again since it is so tiny and weatherproofed.

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-010-1024x686~2.jpg (184KB, 686x1024px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 686x1024px

>>2953645
The last time I posted these photos I didn't get any response before the thread 404'd so any crit would be great!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:10:21 19:44:15
Image Height	1024
Image Width	686

>>2953619
>positive

;)););)))

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-016-1024x686.jpg (266KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1024x686px

>>2953647
I don't have a7 money. Would the Canon macro still work the same on a a6k? I'm just kinda looking for a lightweight slr, with a mount that I already own. I have lenses for Nikon F, Canon FL, Fd and the om mount. I might be able to sell the rz67 but I still wouldn't be able to afford an a7

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-009-1024x686~2.jpg (191KB, 686x1024px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 686x1024px

>>2953651
I'm sorry if I've flooded the general with my photos

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016:10:21 19:48:42
Image Height	1024
Image Width	686

File: 17279052055_ef05dfc508_b.jpg (110KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 700x467px

>>2953651
Should work fine. Its a cheap lens (<$100). If you're wanting to scan 35mm try to get it with the FD 25 extension tube, though that will be a little less important since you'll have the crop factor working in your favor.

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-015-1024x686.jpg (139KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x686px

>>2953655
Would it be wise if I sold of a Nikon 50mm f1.4D? I might be upgrading to a full frame Nikon but I also have a ton of ais lenses

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-017-1024x686.jpg (287KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1024x686px

>>2953656
Can you post a photo of your setup?

File: 28183069441_3253c0f73d_b.jpg (512KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1000x1000px

>>2953655 #
I like when people attach photos to their posts, it's nice. Also none of these were scanned with my A7 as they are super old photos from years ago...
>>2953656 (You) #
>>2953647 (You) #
>>2953627 (You) #
>>2953621 (You) #

Here's an A7 scan (at web size).

File: 50584MHhir101411-R1-027-1024x686.jpg (145KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1024x686px

>>2953659
Here's the last recent photo I had scanned. I'd love to hear a critique from you! Would the 50 macro also work for medium format scans?

>>2953660

post all your questions in a single post and stop uploading that garbage. if no one comments your pics its because they are lame. move on.

File: 17761034140_2b15b98b2e_b.jpg (420KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1000x1000px

>>2953660
Will do tomorrow, I'm already laying in bed nekkid.

>>2953665
I haven't seen you post any of your photos :D

File: CameraVanGas.jpg (62KB, 479x480px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 479x480px

>>2953663
Ill give your shots some crit when I post a photo of my setup tomorrow. As you can see (>>2953662)
the 50mm works great for MF too (sorry for deleting and resubmitting).

Off to bed I go.

>>2953667
:D

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

1MB, 1200x1894px

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

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

How is Provia?

I've only tried Velvia 50 (which has purple tones) and Velvia 100 (which has weird red-ish tones).

How does Provia compare to that?

>>2953680
It should be pretty nice. Provia is a portrait film

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

666KB, 900x902px

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

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

File: DSCF0379.jpg (546KB, 671x1000px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 671x1000px

>>2953617
Precisa's great. Excellent detail, natural colors. I think I read somewhere it's actually rebranded Fuji (Provia 100F?).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Capture One 8 Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:19 02:09:46
Image Created	2016:02:19 02:09:46
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	671
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2953617
A demonstration of why metering for the highlights, and knowing what the highlights are (i.e. emission sources, transmitted light, reflected light, polarization, etc.), is essential for slide film.

Also, fucking glorious developed film strips. Slides are a joy just to look at on a light pad. I should get a projector, for as long as Fuji keeps making that stuff.

My Bronica SQ-a's Metered prism started reading overexposed, as in the red arrow on the left warning of overexposure is always indicated no matter what is in front of the lens, or what the ISO of the film is. Anyone have an idea of what can be causing this?

What's a less grainy alternative to Fuji superia for $5 or less a roll?

>>2953717
Those prisms don't last forever for some reason. I've had 2 go bad, so I just don't rely on them anymore.

I'd get a legit light meter, or use the iphone/android light meter app (which is surprisingly accurate.) The only reason I switched from the app to a real meter is that my phone doesn't work below freezing.

>>2953745
Superia is actually a pretty darn good cheap film.

I'm usually getting disgusting green shifts in my lab scans but that's labs for you I guess.

File: DSC_7326_1.jpg (386KB, 1000x734px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1000x734px

>>2953789
I'm doing my own dev and using a dslr to 'scan,' shit comes out grainy.
I fucked the colors (this is off only my second roll of film, might do another tonight).
Off a Minolta AF-DL.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	688
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:23 13:48:27
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 63700005.jpg (944KB, 1544x1024px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 1544x1024px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 7.02.006 2006.12.27
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1544
Image Height	1024

File: 63720002.jpg (444KB, 1544x1024px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1544x1024px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 7.02.006 2006.12.27
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1544
Image Height	1024

File: ST701 27.jpg (1MB, 1436x962px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1436x962px

>>2953745
Nothing.
>>2953789
I usually get magenta shift when scanning it, but it's easy to correct in Silverfast.
>>2953793
Might want to double check your camera is exposing it correctly, though that may be difficult since you're using an automatic old point and shit. Underexposing it kicks up the grain like you wouldn't believe, I'd say always overexpose it half a stop or so. Superia/C200 should give you more grain that pic related.

>>2953804
*shouldn't give you more grain that pic related. Fuck me.

>>2953804
It might be because it says its better suited for 100/400, and that was a 200 roll.
I think I had a 400 I put through it, so I'll try that next.
Example off a Nikon FM. Off the first roll I did, so the colors are fucked.

Also take it the discolorations are from wrong temps on the C41.

File: DSC_7285_1.jpg (315KB, 1000x676px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 1000x676px

>>2953808
forgot the picture cause I'm a shit eating retard.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	760
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:22 13:54:55
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: FLORIDA.jpg (3MB, 3327x2039px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3327x2039px

Florida/Georgia border with Olympus XA

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:02 16:29:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3327
Image Height	2039

>>2953815
shit sorry i didnt resize

File: not sorry.jpg (37KB, 401x349px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 401x349px

>>2953816
Sorry for what?

>>2953638
>What are y'alls scanning method?
a6000, Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5, Huion A4S light pad.

>don't have a way to edit my photos
Capture One 9 Pro for Sony is $50 and works very very well for inverting negatives (manually), WAY better than lightroom for this purpose, in my opinion.

>>2953818
>>What are y'alls scanning method?
>a6000, Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5, Huion A4S light pad.

>>don't have a way to edit my photos
>Capture One 9 Pro for Sony is $50 and works very very well for inverting negatives (manually), WAY better than lightroom for this purpose, in my opinion.
My problem is I have a computer from like '08 and Adobe runs like shit. I think I'll just use Rawtherapee because it's free. How do you keep your negatives flat?

>>2953793
>>2953810
Can you upload a RAW or a TIFF of one of your unmodified scans somewhere? I can better troubleshoot this way.

>>2953820
35mm:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/907200-REG/pacific_image_649899001691_film_holder_for_pf7200u_pf7200_pf120.html

120:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747857-REG/Lomography_399_DigitaLIZA_120_Scanning_Mask.html

Just got the 120 digitaliza last week. It is fucking GOD TIER film holder for 120. Should have bought it a long time ago. It even held arista edu 200 flat.

i own an old praktica bca electronic, its automatic and i need a fully manual 35mm camera. what should i get?? also i am interested in this kind of look / aesthetic http://www.lorenalohr.com

>>2953828
So how does it work? Do you just put the film in the holder and place that on the lightpad?

>>2953826
https://mega.nz/#F!tNoEVYCJ!Ujg5k20NW0UcCdrvZWuOQw
For some reason I didn't have the Nikon FM raw on here.

File: scan.jpg (129KB, 598x800px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 598x800px

>>2953831
Thats the idea.

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

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

>>2953842
Would using a Kindle fire as a replacement have the same effect as the drawpad?

>>2953855
any source of light.
Not that guy, but I use my cellphone.

File: Capture1.jpg (95KB, 1516x720px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1516x720px

>>2953855
>>2953857
A Kindle will be usable, and I have used my phone before. But the drawpad is much better due to there not being any pixels. I could never go back.

>>2953840
After looking at your neg scans here is what I see. Your negative seems fine exposure and development wise. Problem #1 - Your scan is badly underexposed. Like 4 stops underexposed. What you are seeing is not grain, but rather digital noise. Yes superia has grain, but you can't even see it through the noise cloud from the scan. Pic related is your shot untouched except for crop. Your exposure needs to be based upon the cropped image. The highlights through the sprocket holes shouldn't be part of the exposure calculation. Note the histogram.

Cont.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jane
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2953864
Think those were taken with the old Nikon macro I have, so increase exposure time? (I really appreciate )

File: Capture2.jpg (98KB, 1524x728px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1524x728px

>>2953864
This is what the histogram should look like with proper exposure.

Problem #2 - The light is uneven across the frame. Any amount of unevenness will cause color shifts. I can't tell for sure but you might have some flare. Try masking off the negative from the backlight and turn off room lights when scanning. I haven't run into any flaring problems with the Nikkor.

>>2953842 is my setup, and give me a few minutes and I'll find a Fuji c200 scanned with it to post

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jane
Image-Specific Properties:

File: c200 01.jpg (304KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1000x667px

>>2953878
Here's c200 grain (dye clouds). I normally add a little noise reduction, but here it is raw without NR or sharpening.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

I posted in the last thread, but no one responded. What methods do you guys use to dslr scan your negatives? I've seen videos but mine always seem to come out shitty

>>2953900
can you not read the few posts above your question? Jesus fucking christ people these days...

>>2953903
Calm your titties man. I was in a rush and didn't have time to read the whole damn thread

>>2953890
Thanks, anon. Once I get home I'll try and redo a few pictures and upload them here.
Again, I really appreciate it.

I went to a local camera shop today and was talking to the owner about color film and needing to ship it out of state to get it developed since I don't have my own c41 process.

He directed me to a group of people in the back cleaning some 8x10 camera, who own a local place that now develops all sorts of film.

While talking to them I mentioned I've devloped color (superia) in B&W. Which came out well; but the film is too thick to run through a enlarger so you need to scan it and make transparencies and do contact prints with the enlarger.

He told me that the only color film he knows of that would work through the enlarger is Kodachrome. I happened to have two rolls of Kodachrome 120 from 1969.

He again told me to use a moist sponge to wipe off this "thick black goop" that comes off the film before the first wash after the fix has been used. This thins the film out, and can be used in the enlarger.

Has anyone on /p/ heard of this?

>>2953830
>also i am interested in this kind of look / aesthetic
hot tip, kill yourself
Your camera doesn't matter, especially when it's your aspiration to take worthless snapshits. Literally buy the first one you see.

>>2953939
>>2953939
>the film is too thick to run through a enlarger
Not it's not you moron.
It runs through your camera just fine, doesn't it?
What kind of fucking enlarger do you have that doesn't open to position the film before snapping down to clamp it in place?
If its film gate is so narrow that you can't fit colour neg film into it, how do you use it with normal film without scraping the living shit out of it?

File: DSC03127.jpg (586KB, 1502x1000px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 1502x1000px

>>2953745
Nothing.
If you want less grainy then shoot Superia 200 (pic related), or shoot Superia 400 at 200, or if you can find it, shoot Superia 100. Superia is based god film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:27 07:48:45
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1502
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC_7331_1.jpg (171KB, 1000x658px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1000x658px

>>2953878
Alright, dropped the ISO to 200 and bumped up the exposure time a lot.
Still not perfect, but far less noise.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	688
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 18:03:00
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_7330_1.jpg (301KB, 1000x704px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1000x704px

>>2953957
and the flowers as well.
The tape got in the shot, but whatever, can retake it later.
Personally think they look better than the original ones, so thank you! (any more feedback would definitely be appreciated)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	688
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 18:07:53
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2953939
9/10

File: 19.jpg (390KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1500x1000px

Gonna post some pictures of my first two rolls.

1/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:07:04

File: 20.jpg (453KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953978
Sent them to a photolab and the scans came out rubbish. I feel robbed.

2/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:07:06

File: 21.jpg (348KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953980
3/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:07:07

File: 1.jpg (237KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953982

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:06:40

File: 33.jpg (578KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953984
5/?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:07:24

File: 18A.jpg (340KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953985
6/?

File: 19A.jpg (361KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953986

File: 32A.jpg (257KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953987
8/?

File: 23A.jpg (290KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953988
9/?

File: 15A.jpg (360KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1500x1000px

>>2953990

File: Lomo400CN 03.jpg (469KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1000x1000px

>>2953957
>>2953960
Much better the grain (noise). Still a ways to go otherwise. Get the film holder I linked here >2953828 for starters. If you have 40 bucks laying around, get this:
https://www.amazon.com/Huion-L4S-Portable-Interface-Active/dp/B00J3NRAV2/

A cheap macro rail is helpful.

Again, don't let the camera set exposure, and pay no attention to the meter. Take a shot with NO sprocket holes or film holder included and check the histogram. Set exposure so you are up against the right-hand fence. Oops, I forgot to mention, do a custom white balance on a blank negative first (the orange mask only). The reason being, the histogram in-camera will show a color channel blown if it's too far off, and you want to maximize the exposure to minimize the noise.

Which macro do you have?

Postin' some Lomo film for no reason at all.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

>>2954014
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55f35ai.htm one of these (friend gave it to me with the camera Im borrowing).
I was looking at those holders, wasn't going to order right away, but saw they had free shipping. So I'm pressing them between two panes of glass, using a tripod, and a remote at this point.
I was manually setting exposure and what not except the bias I believe.

File: DSC_7340_1.jpg (231KB, 670x1000px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 670x1000px

>>2954034
>>2954014
Not sure if the yellowing is from an issue in developing or from light exposure in the camera.

For this I tried to get a pretty decent exposure on the auto WB, then I used that picture to set the WB for this one (I didn't really have a blank exposure laying around, had tossed them like the idiot I am). Also forgot I had an extension tube laying around, used that as well.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	688
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 20:48:49
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2953952
I've tried and tried to run color film (Fuji Superia) through the enlarger and it's always blurry, out of focus looking. Although the scans are perfect. From what I've been told we only have B/W Enlargers where I do my developing.

>>2953974
1/10

File: img456.jpg (327KB, 1000x730px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1000x730px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 20:08:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	730

File: Lomo400CN 04.jpg (341KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1000x1000px

>>2954034
ahhh glass....there's the problem. I tried that early on and it caused all kinds of problems with reflections. You gotta ditch the glass. I found absolutely no way to use glass without reflections ruining the scan. Try just laying the negative on your light source for now, until you can get a holder. Yes, you might get distortion, but you won't get reflections...which are worse.

Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5. Excellent lens. Same lens I am using. It should yield you excellent scans. I use an a6000 with magnified live view to focus. Not sure how that works on your d700. Also I tether through Capture One, and it works very well.

>>2954050
The yellowing is due to uneven backlighting, most likely the glass problem I mentioned above. Try one without glass, ignoring distortions from the curved negative.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

File: img221s.jpg (215KB, 1000x729px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1000x729px

Ektar 100

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 20:22:00
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	729

>>2954059
I originally had tried it without glass and got some ok results, but for the most part you'd get really bad pixel bleed through (even though my phone is effing 1440p).

>>2953842
>he bought the same chink LED tablet that I did
It's pretty nice isn't it?

File: Lomo400CN 05.jpg (399KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1000x1000px

>>2954062
Try to suspend the neg above the light source....without glass.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

>>2953978
gib. now.

>>2954074
I'll figger out a way, ordered that holder though.

>>2954073
What's not to like? Even light. Cheap. Perfect size. Could be a little brighter. FFS I am spending a half second for each scan. I'd like to speed things up a bit.

File: Precisa.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>2953617
Great film, comparable to Provia 100. As others have mentioned, watch your highlights.

File: 18.jpg (320KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1500x1000px

>>2954076
Here's an alternate shot. I think I like the focal length here better but this one came out with a bunch of artefacts, and I don't like like that you can see the rear of a different car on the bottom left.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:10:20 13:07:02

>>2953985
I like this. Though it might just be an attraction to the hula hoop girl. Your color shots have that raised black level look I'm not fond of. You did say say a lab did this. Tell them to fuck off and develop/scan at home.

File: DSC_7355_1.jpg (194KB, 664x1000px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 664x1000px

>>2954077
>>2954074
Alright, got an old plastic container and used some tape, main issue is getting it perfectly flat now (can't wait until that slide holder comes in).
Thanks a ton, anon (couldnt be fucked to get it 100000% in focus right now).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	688
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:26 22:56:04
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2953682
>Provia is a portrait film

Astia was the portrait film.

Provia is also more of a landscape film, but with blues that you could eat like candy.

>>2954121
Keep it up anon. When you see shitposters talking smack about digicamscanning, they either didn't try it or didn't spend enough time working out the bugs. In the end you will get results that rival a flatbed by a long shot.

>>2954135
Thanks again for all the help, shit looks a lot better than it did earlier.
When that film-holder-thing gets here I'll reupload some of the same frames.

>>2954060
What do you think of Ektar 100? I'm shooting a roll of it through some shitty 90's P&S atm.

>>2954254
Undependable. It's a film that's trying to be the slide film's replacement as a C-41 negative, but winds up neither as sharp and vivid as slide film, nor as dependable as most negative film. It's not bad per se and sometimes can deliver really awesome colors, but this seems weirdly situational. Sometimes you get cold, dead colors for no apparent reason. Has a tendency to produce a very strong blue cast that's a bitch to get rid of if your exposure is off, and this happens in situations that wouldn't even bother stuff like Portra. Overall to get acceptable results from Ektar it needs its own special snowflake color profile. I simply can't think of any situation where I'd use Ektar over either Portra or Provia.

>>2954260
Totally agree. It's a film that falls in no-man's land for me. Id rather shoot Portra/400H for c41 flexibility or Provia for dem colors.

File: IMG_20161024_090412.jpg (193KB, 1024x686px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1024x686px

Bump

i bought the natura 1600 ordered from Japan the other day.. I haven tried it out but im scared to shits that my film is ruined because of the x-ray scanning that has to pass through customs. anyone had problems with this before?

>>2954254
Ektar is a pretty good niche film, it really excels in point and shoots and can get some great colors, slide film is still better but you should just try ektar to see if you like it

>>2954377
I've had a roll of Natura 1600 run through the airport scan before and it was no problem.

But even if, not much you can do about it other than smuggling it over in some Chinese sex slave's asshole

File: portand scan 1.jpg (238KB, 1000x660px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1000x660px

I finally scanned my negative successfully. What do you guys do to get the colors just right? All I did was change the curves level to color negative on photoshop and it did it for me.

>>2954515
>successfully

File: film scan 1.jpg (896KB, 779x1028px) Image search: [Google]

896KB, 779x1028px

>>2954516
Considering I went from pic related to that, I think it came out way better.

[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	2016:09:07 22:46:59
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	779
Image Height	1028
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2954518
i disagree

>>2954521
I mean, come on. There's a noticeable fucking difference in quality. I'm still working on it though. I'll post more results later.

>>2954522
>There's a noticeable fucking difference in quality.
Yes.

>>2953952
>>the film is too thick to run through a enlarger
>Not it's not you moron.
>It runs through your camera just fine, doesn't it?


stupid fucks on /p/ think they know photo

My Canon 50mm macro with Fd 25 extension just came in the mail, it looks sharp however my sensor is dirty. What's the best way to clean it so the spots don't show up in the scan

>>2954254

I concur with the others on this, its really finicky to use but sometimes you get some amazing results. Its hard to recommend it over Portra for C-41 but I still use it on occasion if I want a slower speed color film.

File: tumblr_nozix6aglD1teqokwo1_1280.jpg (316KB, 1002x668px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1002x668px

>>2953682
>>2954127
I think provia is a good all around film desu. I'll post one without people and one with people, so that you can be the judge.

1/2 provia

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2300
Image Height	1533
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:05:26 20:25:23
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1002
Image Height	668

File: tumblr_nozjb5GNYY1teqokwo1_1280.jpg (347KB, 1002x668px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 1002x668px

>>2954643
And 2/2, this time with people.

I think it looks great for almost any use.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2300
Image Height	1533
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:05:26 20:22:47
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1002
Image Height	668

File: 35360001.jpg (4MB, 3024x2005px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3024x2005px

>No money for high ISO film because film is expensive as fuck in my country
>No money to buy a flash for my Nikon F2AS
>No money to buy a fast lens
I'm mad af because this limits me so much, i can't go out at night and take shots of things i want to shoot because the F2 is loaded with ISO 200 film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.01.001 2008.01.13
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3024
Image Height	2005

File: 35360022.jpg (988KB, 1000x1508px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 1000x1508px

>>2954697
This is Portra 160 on my Nikon F2 with 28mm 3.5 glass btw
Only took snapshits on this roll but well...
I'm a snapshitter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.01.001 2008.01.13
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1508

>>2954697
>>2954698
What the fuck is wrong with you, assclown?
You can buy real Nikon flashes for $20.

anyone bulk load film? worth doing?

>>2954716
not here
also the F2 has a fucking ass proprietary shoe that goes around the film rewind thing

>>2954725
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-SB-20-TTL-Flash-Unit-/322308262659?hash=item4b0b11cb03:g:WH0AAOSwx2dYEj~F
Sorry, $12.
Get a sync cable, moron.
>ooh, another $5
Or better yet, a hotshoe coupler
>$7
Yes Paco, you might need to lay off the beans for a whole week to afford all this fancy gear...
>not to mention 200iso film is more than fast enough to shoot at night anyway

>>2954730
>not to mention 200iso film is more than fast enough to shoot at night anyway
not really, 400+ is way better but still somewhat off.
I know i can get a normal flash and a PC cable but then i'll have to hold it along with the brick the F2 already is, and an adapter is expensive too.
If i get on eBay i'll have to import and wait at least 2 months plus taxes.

>>2953931
Ctrl + f

>>2954262
I keep developing provia with c-41....
Should i spend more money and get the proper developing ?

>>2954751
>I keep developing provia with c-41

can you post a pic of that?

File: IMG_20160913_000823.jpg (2MB, 2271x2271px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2271x2271px

>>2954753
Iam on my phone so here a few
1/3

File: img1477628341764.png (2MB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x960px

>>2954758
2/3

File: img1477628473241.png (2MB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 960x960px

>>2954760
3/3
Provia 400x

>>2954758
>>2954760
>>2954761

all of this is xpro? doesnt even look that bad, kinda grainy, but its not a bad look.

File: IMG_8611mini.jpg (190KB, 568x800px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 568x800px

>>2954766
If you'd ever shot 400X as E-6 though, you'd know this is total fucking garbage and a massive waste.
Pic related is expired 35mm 400X processed correctly, and it's less grainy and more staurated than those 120 shots.

[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	568
Image Height	800

>>2954766
Yes but actually idk how much i messed up the colors...i usually click on the automatic tool on my epson scanners software...or else the images became really flat + i change channels slightly too sometimes
>>2954775
Will definetely try an e-6 next time

Another question
Should i sell my rollei sl66 with a shift lens 80mm 2,8 and buy a rf fuji 6x45 since i really dont shoot buildings or whatever and the rollei sl66 is big as fuck

>>2954749
Ctrl + rekt

>>2954779
>shift
I think its called tilt
Whatever i dont use it

>>2954697
>what is any cheapo flash
>what is a tripod

If you're wanting to walk around at night shooting handheld, film is not the answer.

>Coming from a veteran filmfriend

File: IngaBday28.jpg (836KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 1080x1350px

>>2953956
Does anybody here besides me and my meme-tier 30/1.4 crop lense shoot Sigma Arts on film?

[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	2016:09:26 12:44:07
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	1080
Image Height	1350
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

>>2954779
I'd really appreciate your opinions on this one...
Sell rollei brick buy fuji 6x45 instead ?
Or buy lots of films and flash / 28mm lens for my contax g2 lol

File: IMG_9295 - IMG_9298mini.jpg (142KB, 607x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 607x800px

>>2954852
Absolutely yes? Holy shit.
Fuji 645's are dominant, they come in 28mm equivalent, with AF and built in flash.
What more could you want?

File: JapanBW069.jpg (222KB, 1184x800px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1184x800px

>>2954808
If you can see your hand in front of your face you can take photos with HP5 and a decent f/1.2 lense.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:23 12:54:41
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	1184
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: DSC_7358.jpg (89KB, 1639x1639px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1639x1639px

Moon. Nikon FM with a 500mm Mirror lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	676
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:28 12:01:46
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

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

2MB, 3264x2448px

What's going on with this instant film I'm using? It's got some sorry of odd haze on it. The shot that looks most over exposed was shot at f22 1/25
Not sure what's going on.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2955080
Also forgot to mention. Shooting with an RZ67 Pro II. Polaroid back.

>>2955080
Are you letting it develop long enough? If it's colder than about 20 degrees you have to remember to increase dev times. To be safe I'd wait quite a while before pulling them, the dev should be self terminating.

File: VTM400 04.jpg (640KB, 1440x957px) Image search: [Google]

640KB, 1440x957px

A few shots from my disgusting neighborhood.

File: VTM400 06.jpg (532KB, 876x1280px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 876x1280px

It's funny how the 60's city planners had such lofty visions of commieblocks that turned into dystopian nightmares of cracking asphalt, peeling paint, and tagged concrete.

File: VTM400 13.jpg (540KB, 834x1280px) Image search: [Google]

540KB, 834x1280px

Better take your studies seriously or you'll be living in a concrete box in this hell on earth for the rest of your days.

File: VTM400 18.jpg (620KB, 846x1280px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 846x1280px

"It's not the buildings, it's the people that make the neighborhood."
Well your neighbors are convicts on a rehab from the local prison. Go ahead and say hi.

File: VTM400 21.jpg (442KB, 843x1280px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 843x1280px

The lovely feeling of cozy community as I walk between these concrete walls and hope there isn't a drunk slav mob from the unit down the street looking for a punching bag.

File: VTM400 22.jpg (675KB, 1440x954px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1440x954px

Last one features the first floor residents' privilege, a personal landfill spot, at least judging from how they use it. A great place stash stolen bikes too.

>>2955086
I think I found my faults. I was pulling the print out without the darkslide in. These bw ones have a 15 second develop time so o don't think ink I fucked up there. I think it's was just the way I was pulling them out. Without the card aswell

>>2955105
It shouldn't have anything to say whether the darkslide is in or not, as long as the shutter is closed. 15 seconds is at 25 degrees, the dev time increases as temperature goes down, and Fuji doesn't even list dev times at under 15 degrees.

>>2955112
That's odd. It's about 50 out and I've let them develop for roughly 30-45 second and. Even minutes.

>>2955113
By 50 I assume you mean hamburger grades?
That's roughly 10 degrees, lower than Fuji guarantees function for afaik.
Try to let the camera and film acclimatise inside at room temperature for some hours, and then making a test shot, letting it dev for a few minutes, just to rule it out completely.

>>2955117
Fifty frugelenheight

>>2955122
Which is 10C.

What if I heated the the film up during exposure time?

>>2955124
It would probably work, keeping the film holder warm and toasty inside your jacket, making the exposure quickly and then letting the film dev inside your jacket after.

I guess it should work to make an exposure, and then waiting to pull it through the rollers to start development until after the film is brought inside and let acclimatise for a good while as well.

Polaroid used to make Cold-Clips, packs you kept inside your clothes to keep warm, and then put the film in to heat it up to proper developing temperatures.
Though I think those were only intended for color film, not B/W. Of course, Fuji's films may work differently.

>>2955132
I was thinking using of the hand warmer packets that you break and they get warmer

>>2955135
This will be a costly learning experience for you, so please report back in a /fgt/ when you find a working solution, so I can waste as little of my FP-3000 stash as possible this winter.

>>2955137
Yeah. Guess we'll see. I'll let you know of the outcomes.

>>2954857
Aren't they fragile as fuck? As in, not a camera you'd really want to travel with?

>>2955164
No?
Do you often go smashing your camera on things?
Don't be a retard.
If anything a fixed lense RF/AF cam is more rugged than an sr with a big fragile mirror box on top and lense hanging off the front.

>>2955096
>>2955098
>>2955099
>>2955101
>>2955102
>>2955103
I like this, I very much appreciate the commentary. Your shots are a tad dark for my taste, but your story makes up for that. Keep posting.

File: IMG_5189.png (1MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1334px

>>2955137
Currently using a cars heater to hear the dark slide in order to make the filmwarmer before distributing the developer. Temp on pic is outside temp.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2955265
Looks like it's a success boys

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2955223
Thanks, I have a thing for local history so I end up digging old concept drawings and stuff of places like this. Often the contrast with reality is really mind-blowing, because the commie blocks here weren't originally built to be awful and grim like this. There's a reason why they are now considered a failed concept and haven't been built since the early 90's.

They ended up somewhat underexposed because I still can't nail the sweet spot of my Vitomatic's meter, and I suppose the selenium window gets thrown off by sky more than TTLs I'm used to. I think I went too stingy on the developer too. Oh well, these are easy to replicate as this concrete hellhole stands before me as soon as I step out of the stairwell. There's still a lot to take photos of: overflowing garbage dumpsters, dismantled and broken into cars on parking lots, random junk tossed into the river that runs past the place, an abandoned railway control tower, bums passed out in the park surrounded by mountains of beer cans, etc. Such a lovely place to call home.

File: i slid some sliders.jpg (492KB, 876x1129px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 876x1129px

>>2955098
it would help if you didn't edit them to look so dark and drab.

>>2955300
The idea was to document the grim and hopeless mood of this shithole, and though they ended up somewhat more underexposed than I intended, I much prefer them this way than your edit. There's a few I didn't post which were too dark so the detail was lost, but ramping up the sliders only made them look more shit.

File: i slid some sliders.jpg (534KB, 834x1197px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 834x1197px

>>2955099
I mean come on, I know it was a rainy overcast dull gray day, but at least let is see what's in the photo.

https://issuu.com/thefix-analogue-magazine/docs/issue_8

Did we all see catsby whoring himself out in this mag?

>>2955099
I actually really like this shot. What film did you have loaded that day?

File: whatisperspectivedistortionthisismyfirstphoto.jpg (454KB, 1200x778px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1200x778px

[not_pripyat]

File: nice bush baby.jpg (359KB, 1000x783px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x783px

0 trick pony

>>2955266
Congratulations!

>>2955328
>Having your pictures published in one of your favorite online photo mags, alongside lots of great photographers
>whoring yourself out

>>2955307
is this a joke?

>>2955328
Congrats to him, some great stuff in there. I may give submitting a try.

>>2955350
>engaging with the photographic community
>not just hiking innawoods, alone, wasting lf film on pictures of trees that you will never publish anywhere
Are you even trying, cunt?

>>2954053
Have you tried putting a color filter in front of the enlarger lens? The different colors are at different levels in color film, so that could cause some colors to be misfocussed. Variable contrast paper also responds differently to different colors so it could kill your contrast. The focus adjustment on the enlarger should compensate for any difference in film thickness so that shouldn't be a problem.

>>2955328
For a second I thought he had managed to produce something good but no, it's the same utter shit he posts here.

File: not tripdropping in case that wasnt clear.jpg (201KB, 559x800px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 559x800px

>>2955353
anon, I'm afraid the only joke here is !kurwaRB7YU

>>2955331
Thanks. Film was Delta 400, stand developed in Rodinal.

>>2955328
that cyrille duart one is really good

Catsby's are just the same usual snapshits

just found 100 pieces of Fuji Superia 100/ 24 exposures for 20 €
exp. date 2001 though
how lucky am i ?

File: rock.jpg (530KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 996x1000px

>>2955374
Thanks m8, I’m chuffed to be in such good company. Give it a go.

>>2955383
Sorry to bring dishonor to the 4chan family.

>>2955389
>>2955425
Of course they're the same, I don't shoot some pictures for 4chin and others for other things. I shoot for myself first and foremost, and I share them freely for anyone else who wants to to look at them.
Some do, some don't, and that's fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

I'm traveling to Japan next month, and I'm looking for a good film that could be good for general travel photography. I've never used anything better than fujicolor 400H or kodak gold 200, but I'm curious about kodak portra films, specifically portra 800.

I've read that portra 800 is basically a 400 speed film...I'm pretty much looking for the best, most versatile c-41 color film I can buy, mainly for use in an olympus xa2.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I just want to field some opinions before I drop like $50 on a box of film I've never used before. I want to go beyond the "superias" and "ultramaxes" this time.

>>2955522
>I'm looking for a good film that could be good for general travel photography

Could you make some sense please.

>>2955522
I don't know how good porta 800 is, but porta 400 is fan-fucking-tastic. 800 speed is really versatile. Works fine outside, works good inside. I'd go with that, or for bw I'd recommend tri-x 400 and push it to 800. Hope that helps

This is probably a retard question but here goes. I use my Minolta X-300 with Tri-X film and love it. Why do people spend hundreds of dollars on expensive film cameras and just end up putting the same film in as me. Surely if my lens is sharp and clean, the camera body makes no difference??

>>2955544
i asked this myself once too but obviously the
camera body makes a difference too !

>>2955544
aside from potential ease of use stuff like more shutter speeds, precise ttl metering or nice big bright viewfinder, no, same lens/film combo looks identical regardless of body, assuming the way the shutter works is irrelevant to the scene recorded.

>>2955544
You're totally right, it doesn't. Assuming you use high quality lenses and everything else is constant, the body makes no difference. However some people want certain features that make photography easier to them. Some bodies have meters, some don't, some have winding motors, some have double exposure ability. Most importantly, we know the lens quality is not always equal, and some people will pay mre for a camera with a mount that has access to good lenses. etc etc etc, you can go on and on. But in the end, it makes mostly no difference between bodies.

File: image.jpg (597KB, 2048x1870px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 2048x1870px

Is it wrong to use film leader to help time fixing?

[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	2048
Image Height	1870

>>2955564
Should work fine but it's not really necessary. You can look at the actual film after a few minutes and fixing too long doesn't hurt anyway.

I know everybody raves about the Mju ii but what about the mju i? I can get a mint one for $25, is it worth it

>>2955571
They're fine. I know people like the mju i. Maybe a little less accurate auto focus, but it should be fine

>>2955564
No, that's fine.
You fix for twice as long as it takes the film to go clear.

File: DSC_0109.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

Brought this home from Japan.

Said, right, let's give this thing ago. Light meter app on the phone. Overcast day with no shadows . Set it to F8 and 125, take a walk down the road and see what happens, I guess....

Mechanically it looks like it's working. All the bts snap and cack. Don't know about the light meter since someone elses solution to a seized hatch was to take the entire compartment off.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	D6603
Camera Software	23.5.A.1.291_6_f1000010
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:30 00:57:37
Exposure Time	1/16 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown