/film/

>>2963777
If you shoot Nikon and don't own a Micro-Nikkor already, you're a dip. It will be the sharpest lense you own, buy it.
If, after attempting to scan your film, you find yourself too retarded to get sharp results, evenly illuminate the negatives, or correct colours, you will still have a very versatile lense of extraordinary quality.
Once confirmed for retarded, THEN you can pay for some beige tupperware and try running a windows '95 emulator on your laptop so you can use it, and THEN you can also try pirating 90's translated-from-german colour-correction software to give you their version of "correct" colours on your soft 2000px scans, and in a fortnights time you can pay them for it too. Which, coincidentally, if you work 2 hours a day every day, should be enough time for you to have scanned your 30 rolls.
On the other hand, if you buy all that first, and then later realise you're not too retarded to DSLR scan, you'll be stuck with what you now realise is worthless trash.

>see pic
>tfw astia will never be back

day ruined.

>>2963807
good riddance

>>2963813
Enter Mr. O'Sullivan the insecure digicuck.

So googling around has failed to reveal a place that develops (35mm E-6) film within about an hours drive of me. Recommendations for a place that does mail-order development? I don't care about scans or prints, I'd just like my film developed and returned to me. I'm in Flyover Country, USA.

Also since I'm sure someone will say it, I don't want to develop E-6 myself. I'd never shoot enough slide film to use up a batch of chemicals before they go bad on the shelf.

>>2963846
Here in Australia, a 2.5L E6 kit, good for 40 or so rolls, is $122.
Develop only for one roll of E6 is $30.You would need to be heavily retarded to go with the lab option.

Any suggestions for cheap-ish medium format cameras with tele lenses for nice bokeh? I have a gw690 and ga645 I'm fond of but they both have wide angle lenses. I know there is a g690 with 180mm lens but I have a hard time justifying the cost.

File: 1471977610342.gif (2MB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x370px

>change to a new system and get a bunch of 5/5 lenses
>try subject separation with DOF
>scan and realize focus is horribly off consistently
>remember there were some odd shots in the previous few rolls but you thought it was just your own failure at focusing
>tfw otherwise great camera has a misaligned pressure plate and you might as well toss it in the trash now

>>2963944

how about getting it repaired you dramatic cuck

>>2963948
If I can find a single technician in this country who can still do that, he'll probably charge me three times what the thing is worth.

>>2963950
>still cant say the damn cameras name

you deserve all of this desu.

>>2963951
Konica Autoreflex T. What does it matter? The service shops for these things died off years ago. Looks like the back plate on this thing can't even be removed without physically destroying it.

>>2963954
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Konica-Auto-Reflex-T-35mm-Film-SLR-Camera-Body-Chrome-/152290716863?hash=item23753becbf:g:EewAAOSwLF1X4wOq

Oh no 15 dollars for one, the horror

What ever will you do

File: IMG_20161113_165853.jpg (2MB, 2240x2240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2240x2240px

My dad just gifted me his old camera, he taught me how to use it and it still works perfectly. Now i only need advice from you guys. What film do you get and where do you get it? Do you guys go to a shop to develop them or do you have your own lab set up?

File: rip.jpg (618KB, 884x1280px)

618KB, 884x1280px

>>2963955
At least refrain from buying a beat up camera with a broken light meter and hazy finder no matter how cheap it is. Decent looking ones aren't going for under 100 eurodollars from reputable sellers. The later T-series are cheaper but are all auto-winder garbage.

Pic related, consistent throughout the roll.

>>2963941
My Bronica s2a w/ 200/4 was $400.
There seem to be a shitload of lenses for this system on eboi for peanuts.
>can't tell you how good it is cos it ate the first roll I put through it and I've been using other cams since

>>2963804
On the one hand, I'm finding I'm learning a lot shooting film.

For one thing, next time I'm shooting indoors, I need to spend the time to find iso800 film. 400 just didn't cut it. Especially for stuff that was moving.

With the lens wide open I was still on 1/30 second shutterspeed and barely keeping the meter centered.

Or, to use the Minolta point and shoot (Just focus and trigger), rather than the older Spotmatic which just took too long to get set rght every time. But which won't work with anything above ASA400.

At least I have a selection of gear now so I can try make the right choices that help rather than having to work around .
Minolta Hi-Matic E,
Asahai-Pentax Spotmatic with a 55mm F1.8 lens
Nikon F55 with some Nikkor 35-80mm yoke on it.

Neither of them in any way spectacular gifts to photography. But all three cost me thirty quid and they all, more or less, work well enough to get by.

>>2963960
You serious? I bought an a-1 for 5 dollars cleaned it up, oiled it to get rid of the canon cough and cleaned out the viewfinder and it works like new

There's plenty of incredibly cheap and functional t3 or tc autoreflex bodies up on ebay

Enjoy burning a hole in your pocket being a retard

>>2963960
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Konica-Autoreflex-T-35mm-Film-SLR-Camera-Body-Chrome-/152283613388?hash=item2374cf88cc:g:jjYAAOSwNRdX2F2p

Oh no ten dollars more and you can get a fully functional one what has this world come to

>>2963960
What a wonderful shot!

>>2963974
Plus 35€ for postal, together with customs charge will bring it above 70€.

>>2963980
>Decent looking ones aren't going for under 100 eurodollars from reputable sellers

merica just saved you 30 euro-shekels

you're welcome

>>2963980
>just slavic problems
Oh well best to stick with your broken camera then, I guess.
You fucking mongoloid.
If you're not prepared to spend 3hrs wages to fix a problem that makes your entire camera system basically unusable, why do you even care enough to make a fucking post about it?

>>2963956
I think the best place to get film is freestylephoto. Like if I was american that's where I would buy it.

As developing at home. Black and white is more forgiving than color; it's a fun process but if you don't care about someone else (a machine) developing for you you should go commercial.

>>2963956
I personally go to a shop to develop the film both colour and b&w, I know people do it at their own home, but I personally dont use that much film, and the chemicals have a limited shelf life as well. For film you have plenty of options, from cheap Kodak Gold, AgfaPhoto Vista Plus, Fuji Superia, Ilford HP5, or the classic Tri-X (these last two are b&w)

File: Ilford C41 B&W.jpg (49KB, 456x473px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 456x473px

What are some readily available B&W film that is also very 'contrasty'?

File: OlyMiniTriX52.jpg (277KB, 698x1000px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 698x1000px

[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	698
Image Height	1000

File: image.png (281KB, 540x350px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 540x350px

>mfw my prized Pentax 67 was stolen out of my vehicle today

File: EMOrtho002.jpg (1MB, 1350x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1350x2000px

>>2964383
Rollei Ortho 25 or Rollei Retro 80S, developed in Rodinal 1:50 are both very contrasty.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2964394
I got a Koni Omega Rapid for $200 last week, it's actually really nice to shoot once you work out where everything is. Not that heavy, the film advance is pure sex, probably the best implementation of MF film flatness outside of a Contax 220 vacuum-back.

I've been holding off on processing my C-41 for a while. I'm using the rollei C-41 kit.
Finally decided to process at 45c because I'm fed up of all the waiting. Anything I should be watching out for while processing at a higher temperature?

>>2963941
I recommend the Bronica SQ for a 6x6. The 150 3.5 is brilliant. There's a couple longer lenses out there, but I've not picked 'em up. Definitely cheaper than a Hassy/Mamiya 6

>>2964432
How much waiting are you doing?
Total time in chems is like 15 mins tops, even when they're almost expired, at normal temps.

>>2964443
I was processing at 13/6/7/1.5 minutes at 25c. I only have a smaller batch of chemicals ready so each film was being processed individually. So overall it was around 30 minutes per roll of film. I usually have about 5 or 6 rolls in my fridge waiting to be developed.
I don't much like the idea of spending hours each night processing film and agitating when I can use the rapid times of 2/2/2.5/1.5 at 45c. I have plenty of reels and a way to dry reels in between so the only bottleneck was development speed.

Having come from processing at 20-25c (and mostly B/W), I'm just worried if there's anything else I should be watching out for at higher temps. I'm already doing a pre-soak and warming the chems up for 20 or so minutes before hand. It takes me around 30 seconds to empty the tank/put the next batch in. Just worried about temperature shifts really and how much overprocessing (say a minute or so) would effect it.

>>2964432
Stir before measuring temperature. I'd recommend just processing at the recommended 38-ish °C.

>>2964465
can't you just use two reels and do 2 films at once?

>>2964512
Economy. Processing two rolls at once requires a larger volume of working solution.
C-41 chemistry costs considerably more than B/W and isn't stocked in stores locally. With how regularly I shoot C-41 it simply wouldn't be economical. Versus using a local lab it's still cheaper and better to process at home due to cost and risk.

I only have a slightly larger build up at the moment because two of the labs I use for 135 are closed temporarily.

File: D76.jpg (988KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

988KB, 800x1200px

D-76: the "fuck it, I'll just use this" developer.

You can develop a few rolls in stock, then turn around and use the same batch to develop your prints.
Then let it sit for a few months in the worse conditions possible past its expiration date, and use it to develop more prints and film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:04:23 12:40:29
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	46.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1366x768px

Looks like we get TWO ferrania shitposts in one month.

> THE CAUTERIZER
> Like we didn't ALREADY know film base is fragile
> Actually running tests with film base and chemicals
> Now testing with a REAL photographic emulsion
> Actually doing ACTUAL work

I'll give them another quarter or two including the current.

>>2964594
They can do it! They can make it happen!

File: okay.gif (916KB, 245x285px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 245x285px

>>2964606

Yeah sure...
I'm willing to bet on some more 'setbacks' so they could stretch another 365.

>>2964531
Would there be any reason not to use this? I've found the results quite pleasing in general, and it stays good almost forever because it's in powderform.

>>2964715
It's kind of a jack of all trades master of none type deal.

Ansel Adams talks extensively about what makes a good developer for black and white and while most of it went over my head as being super technical, D-76 is not in his recommended list. I think he used HC-110. I think his main criticism with D-76 is that it's just not a very sharp developer and prints lack very defined edges with so much grain suppression going on. I wouldn't worry about it if you're just a hobbyist, use what is most abundant and whatever works best for you.

File: 35360015.jpg (5MB, 3024x2005px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3024x2005px

I'm getting some Fuji Super F 500T this week.
The thing is the film has remjet and it doesn't come off with the C-41 process so idk what to do.
How do you even clean remjet if you don't have any tools?
I'm sending it to the local minilab to processing, the dude says processing is fine but they can't scan it.

[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: nikonosVbig.jpg (49KB, 612x416px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 612x416px

Anyone has experience with this baby for underwater photography?

>>2964720
I keep reading HC-110 is similar to D76, but what are the primary differences between the two?

>>2964747

clorox bleach gel + water.

>>2964767
My main reason for using HC-110 is just convenience and flexibility rather than the actual quality of results. The syrup is easy to store and keeps forever, and it's easy to measure out just a small dose of syrup to mix up a small amount of working solution. You can also control dilution to get the development times and results that you want.

I think HC-110 mixed up to a standard dilution gives results that are pretty similar to D-76, I think the HC-110 would lean towards being slightly sharper and the D-76 would be a bit finer grained.

>>2964394

did you have it visible in your car or did someone smash and look around

>>2964720
???
It's sharp on HP5, that's for sure.
It's quite contrasty, which I could imagine the Ansel not wanting in his negs; in fact given his propensity for shooting LF I'd imagine developer acutance would never factor at all in his consideration.

File: img465.jpg (474KB, 900x1100px)

474KB, 900x1100px

Delta 400 confirmed GR8

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6497
Image Height	5183
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:14 20:11:07
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	1100

>>2964835

I only recently got into shooting/developing BW, using mainly Ilford products. I've heard HP5 and Rodinal don't mix well, but I was interested in doing stand development. Anyone can confirm it's a bad combination?

>>2964927
Stand development is bad in any combination. Don't let the meme ruin your photography.

Do slr film cameras damage if i cock the shutter but dont fire it in a whole week?

>>2964964
No. Although if you go a whole week without taking a photo, you may suck at photography.

I shoot Nikon film, currently have an fm2 (full manual)

Looking to get an autofocus one for travelling. Thinking about F4. Any lenses to recommend? Already have 50 1.4 D. I want wide angle (maybe 17-35 2.8, but kind of pricy). Needs to be D lens (not G)

>>2964974
The F4 is big fat and clunky with a prehistoric AF system and a weird control layout stuck halfway between the MF era and the AF era. Just get an F100, it's the best AF SLR there is unless you want to pay a whole bunch of money for an F6.

>>2964752
Yea, what do you want to know?

>>2964872
looks great anon

>>2964927
I can confirm HP5 is fucking awful in Rodinal, Delta slightly less so. So bad that I refuse to shoot HP5 at all.

[spoiler]Just use DD-X or something to process your ilford film like I do.[/spoiler]

>>2964927
The usual cool kids' target for Rodinal stand development is tri-x. Expose at 1600 or 3200 (or even 800), soup in 495ml water + 5ml rodinal per roll for 2h, with continuous agitation for the first minute and four gentle rotations at 30m, 1h, 1h30m marks. Tends to make things like denim and leather look astonishing. Street photos come out with extra grit.

But compared to Tri-x in D-76 or something more ordinary, it's absolute murder. But, it's also a cool thing to do if you're starting out and want to shoot ISO3200 without bothering with actual push processing.

I like HC-110 for consistency and relatively short processing times. Not sure if it's supposed to build up such a head of froth though. It also tends to make my stop bath lose its acidity rather quickly.

File: RJpAJAk.jpg (188KB, 1920x1700px)

188KB, 1920x1700px

Trying to get a lighting setup like this one

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAAnyUjiNGs


More pictures here
>http://imgur.com/a/TD2SR

Cant find any good Cameo product lighting guides

>>2963807

There's Reala too in that picture.

>>2965122
I posted this in the wrong thread

Still after a decent fixed lens compact with date function, as I've been shooting journal type stuff on film a lot for the past months. Currently just taking notes on what shots I took on which days but it's annoying. Any recommendations?

>>2965297
Fuck me, ANY OF THEM.
They're all the fucking same.
As long as it works it doesnt fucking matter.
>inb4 im looking at an oly mju for $XXX is it a good deal???
holy shit kill yourself

>>2963805
lmao kys

>>2965555
Quads of truth.
I should have finished with
>stuck with what you now realise is worthless trash, and be forced to rescan your cut and filed negatives to get back the image quality you were throwing away by using said trash.

can I use expired C41 chemistry or will I just waste time and film rolls?

>>2965561
Depends what you mean by expired. Old but unopened, fine.
6month old mixed chems exposed to air, no.

>>2965560
le image quality and true colours meme needs to die honestly

>>2965566
okay so i'll throw away the mixed chems. what about pure chems, opened but not mixed?

>>2965571
do your own fucking research? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I was thinking about getting a manual crank for m645 super since the power winder is extremely loud and heavy and also because I've heard it can destroy the shutter mechanism.. is it true??

>>2965576
Yeah, there are like 5 anons who shoot this exact model of camera with the power winder who have experienced this problem.
Just buy CLA.

File: https%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2Fbf31046b59c2998d35754002c22d9f15%2Ftumblr_nrjs3blciJ1qzy531o1_1280.jpg (186KB, 544x816px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 544x816px

>>2965573
jesus christ what

>>2965127

i have loads of reala 220. but only 1 roll of astia.

>>2965576
I had a m645 super, for which the power winder destroyed the cocking mechanism on the first roll of film I was putting through. Body don't work no mo. So yeah, toss the power winder, it's no fucking good at all -- at least with the m645 super body, which would seem to have brass gears or some stupid shit like that, instead of the proper steel.

If only I could afford another body and winding knob. Sadly, it is not to be.

File: 220px-Pentax_6×7_MU.jpg (10KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 220x165px

I have this cool guy but it front focuses. How can i discard if its a lens or mirror, or ground glass problem? How do i calibrate it?

File: they're a garbage removal company.jpg (685KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 1000x667px

Back from Netherlands on business, didn't get a chance to really go anywhere.

>>2965571
they should have expiration dates, if they're expired they're expired

>>2965573
HA good lord cringe

File: C003378-R1-21-22.jpg (723KB, 1834x1240px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1834x1240px

Just got back my first roll of Fuji 400H, shot it at ISO 200 and everything is fairly overexposed.
Should I be shooting one stop down because my camera doesn't have exposure compensation.
A lot grainier of a film than I thought it'd be though, but nice colours in general.. wonder how it'd go shooting at night.

>>2965728
>they should have expiration dates, if they're expired they're expired
woman detected.
>what's the point of a fast car when the speed limit is 100?
>you can't build a shed without a permit!
>refrigerates tomato sauce

File: 17948638225_c1b6e5d747_b.jpg (248KB, 1000x1000px)

248KB, 1000x1000px

>>2965764
How do the negs look? I've accidently shot that shit at 100 before and could hardly tell looking at the negs. It can get grainy with underexposure but you shouldn't be seeing much grain shooting at 200, unless you're bringing back tons of contrast in your scanning/post-processing methods. If thats what you're doing why are you overexposing to begin with? Just shoot it at box speed or maybe 320.

>>2965820
The lab does all the processing/scanning so I can't talk for their technique.
I shoot it at 200 because my OM1 doesn't go faster than 1/1000 and it's bright where I live.

File: 17658254742_5ba6e2fdf1_b.jpg (266KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1000x1000px

>>2965821
It's 100% their scanning methods then. Any overexposing you do is being compensated during scamning and making the grain more apparent.

Also, unless you're wanting shallow DOF, 400 iso is totally fine for bright sun. 1/1000th @ f11yo.

>>2965824
I thought so too but my lightmeter said otherwise

>>2965825
You shouldn't ever be needing to shoot above 1/1000th @ f16 on 400iso film unless you're going for some weird, into the sun silhouette stuff. You sure youre not accidently underexposing your negatives? That'd also make sense for why you're getting grain.

>>2965653
i feel you, 60 dollars for one piece of plastic crank is insane

>>2965728
I know but you can take pics on an expired film, I was wondering if the same thing applies to dev chems

File: 1470895592555.jpg (47KB, 750x743px)

47KB, 750x743px

For those who do not own a filmscanner. This is probably interesting...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MEyDt0DNjWU

File: ilfosol_3.jpg (22KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x500px

Hi /p/,

A friend gave me a bottle of Ilfosol 3, anyone have experienced this developer ?
I only use Kodak D76.

>>2965892
this only scans prints, not negatives though

>>2963846
what's the point of wasting film if you're in an irrelevant part of the country anyways lel. get a real job in a real city and you'll have photos worth taking with same day development.

>>2965915
kys

>>2965764

Well of course it's overexposed if you overexpose it idiiot.

>He fell for the you should always overexpose 400h or portra at least one stop meme.

File: makesuretobuythe2ndmodel.jpg (208KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1000x666px

>>2965561
>>2965566
>>2965571
>tfw just processed 7 rolls with chems that were mixed 5 months ago
Sometimes it pays to be an autistic fuck who stores everything in air tight bottles in a dedicated freezer for film/chems. Some chems handle better than others, a good rule of thumb to make things last is to store in airtight bottles (glass preferably) in a cool/dark place.
Buying 5 litres of multigrade paper developer never pays off though.
>>2965297
There's a whole bunch, but sure. I'll recommend you pick yourself up a Klasse. Pick up an S/W rather than a 1st gen if you can. It's a bit more flexible with exposure and has a shutter release.
>>2965576
>>2965885
Not sure about the Super, it's good with the Pro TL, no problems with nearly a year of use. The crank's a hell of a lot lighter though. You may have to spend more money on a shutter release depending on what you shoot though.
>>2965826
This. The only time I've had to expose 1/1000&F16 was a summer's day with ISO1600 C-41.

How does BW400CN respond to developing in B&W chemistry? I have an odd 10 year old roll lying around and some slavshit camera to test, and I'm out of regular B&W.

>>2965514
I get it, I get it. Maybe I'll just buy a third Mju for the date imprint. But I'd be most happiest with finding something similar but not quite the same, like I know the Oly AF-1 is essentially an uglier Mju I without the elevated price tag. That I know didn't get made with a date function though. I'm not informed on what cameras have it as it's not something I've paid attention to earlier.

>>2966025
Thanks for the recommendation. Klasse however is in the price range where I don't consider the date function important anymore and would go for a Ricoh, Minolta TC-1 or Contax T2 instead.

File: DSC_0005.jpg (319KB, 1000x685px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1000x685px

>artista.edu iso 100 film
>artista.edu matte 8x10 paper
Its good because it's cheap.

>>2966251
Also
>nikon d3100 + kit lens + window + tape = print scanning system
Its also good because it's cheap

do spectral sensitivity curves explain luminance and/or saturation?

>>2966260
Sure, if you math it out.

If all three layers are activated the saturation will go down, just depends on how much of each three. If it's mostly one and two and just a little three it'll be saturated, if it's a lot of all three it's not going to be very saturated.

RGB blending rules.

>>2966288
so what about luminance?

Looking to get into film. I've spent days reading about camera body's. Looking into an ae-1 program. Thoughts? Recommendations? How much should I spend?

>>2966292
The more response there is the more luminance. Red's like 50, green's like 80, blue's like 30.

>>2966341
The AE1P's a good enough camera for most starting out. Has a lightmeter and has the basics that you'd want or need as a beginner.
How much should you spend? That depends entirely on condition and what lens it comes with.

As for a recommendation. I'd say any SLR with a shutter speed dial and either 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a sec shutters. Which you choose depends entirely on what lens ecosystem you like the most. I locked myself into Contax, Canon and M42 so long ago that I can never truly justify buying an F mount SLR because it's redundant. If you like to shoot a specific focal length or have a specific lens in mind, then buy into that system.

>>2966251
Maybe I should have specified but critique on the pic would be nice

>>2965892
i've had an idea of taking lots of photos of a film fram using my phone camera with a super macro adapter and stitching them in photoshop. i just bought a film scanner instead

>>2965655
Unless you're always scale focusing, it won't be the lens. You can rule that one out straight away. Could be the prism, if it's been removed and not put on properly (assuming it's even removable). Could be the glass too, for the same reasons.

>>2965892
how did that dog get up there?

>>2965915
b8

File: D3S_8852-1200.jpg (208KB, 1200x970px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1200x970px

Anyone here have a Canon FTb?

Good camera? Seems like the AE1 & AE1P are rising in price but the FTb seems to sit around the $40 mark

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: snapshit 01.jpg (414KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 1000x667px

Anyone gonna post some snapshits this thread???

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One 8 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:17 19:11:18
Image Created	2016:11:17 19:11:18
Exposure Time	1.3 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.2 EV
Exposure Bias	1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>2966411

already fixed it, it was the ground glass, pretty damn easy in fact.

>>2966855

a nigger put it there.

>>2966919
The correct term is Basketball American.

>>2966919
>>2966921
lmfao!!!!! this is the kind of hilarious discussion i come to /p/ for am i right my fellow trollz

I have a bunch of old large format shit... lindhoff master technika with the box and shit, an aero technika, a load of nikor/schneider/zeiss lenses and equal quality shutters

also have like.... old enlargers, color analyzers, timers...

is any of this stuff worth anything? does anyone ever try to pick this stuff up? should I eBay it? I feel like ebaying it would be an absolute nightmare

>>2966965
Try selling it to Keh

https://www.keh.com/shop/catalogsearch/result/?q=technika

>>2966965
if you want money out of it, put it on ebay, at least the camera&lens

the enlarger & accompanying junk will be a harder sell, mostly because of transport. I it is B&W only I might not bother beyond craigslist, but a good condition 4x5 with color heads should get you a few hundered hopefully at least, especially if you can sweeten the deal with accompanying stuff.

File: img469.jpg (552KB, 1100x1100px)

552KB, 1100x1100px

>>2966915
You rang?

1/5

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5254
Image Height	5558
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 00:58:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img467.jpg (639KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 1100x1100px

2/5

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5204
Image Height	5242
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 00:50:10
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img470.jpg (627KB, 1150x1150px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 1150x1150px

3/5

[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	4000
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:18 00:55:51
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1150
Image Height	1150

File: img468.jpg (560KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 1100x1100px

4/5

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5257
Image Height	5293
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 00:52:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img472.jpg (590KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1100x1100px

>>2967065
Finito

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5217
Image Height	5244
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 01:02:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

>>2964594
Are you using the Classic Theme Restorer addon? If not, I would recommend downloading another version no higher than Firefox 38 and installing it and the addon. I recall Firefox 33 was a pretty decent version, though I could be wrong.

There are security issues with continuing to use such old versions.

t. /g/

>>2966984
>falling for the KEH jew
Nice try Carlos.

>>2967126
What have you got against Keh?

Surely your complaint isn't that they give you less money than they sell the gear for, right?

>>2967191
Sites that have permanent google links for items they don't have in stock piss me off, for one.

>>2966094
It's not worth it. BW400 is stil chromogenic, and is essentially a C41 film with color castrated off.
There are folks who have done this prior to, suggest you google image some sample images.
It's best to just develop it as color, BW development of C41 gets rather finicky and long at times.

>>2967353
TOO LATE

The camera was broken anyway. RIP.

>tfw instant 4x5 wasn't funded

>>2967383
And nothing of value was lost.
Seriously, what is up with you polaroid babbies spending *so* much money per shot to get lomo results from what should be the finest cameras available to man?
Never ceases to surprise me, the perverse link between wanting to be an artsy hipster and blowing bulk cash to do it.

File: LiquidLightMetal.jpg (233KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1024x576px

Has anyone here ever tried printing with liquid emulsions? I've finally got a good metal surface figured out (stainless steel works, aluminum does not). I'm going to have to try adding a touch of developer to the emulsion to make it a little more contrasty I think, and I'm still deciding on if I want to brush the steel (like the image on left) or leave it with a mirror finish (like the image on right).

Now I need to find a reasonably priced steel supplier, I want to make some larger sizes if possible and I don't have great equipment for cutting stainless.

These are contact prints from 4x5 film using Liquid Light emulsion if anyone is curious. I've never really seen anything printed like this, they idea popped into my head months ago and I've finally got the time to mess with it in the darkroom and just printed them today.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G900V
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Photographer	Alex Burke
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	31 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5312
Image Height	2988
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:18 15:36:46
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	576
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	F16QLHF01SB

>>2967407
I don't understand how the steel catches lights and react with the developer.

>>2967410
I coated it with a liquid emulsion that you pour or brush onto the treated metal surface. The emulsion is white like paper, so you expose it to light under an enlarger just like you would with paper, then you develop and during the fixer stage the parts that were still white turn clear revealing the metal underneath as highlights.

These things look real neato in person. They are a tad low on contrast but the metal surface behind the image really catches light when viewed at certain angles.

>>2967407
No, I've never tried that before, but your post makes me want to

File: Kodak.jpg (207KB, 353x526px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 353x526px

Noob here

Whats the difference between Kodak 100 TMAX & Kodak TRI-X 400? Aside from ISO obviously.

>>2967545
T-max has tabular grains which are a relatively modern invention. It gives less grain and more resolution, also has a reputation for being a little more finicky and sensitive to developer choice.

Tri-X has cubic grain which is more old-school. It's the classic black and white grainy look that's been around for decades.

File: F000055f005-010ab-9780323096331.jpg (48KB, 512x503px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 512x503px

>>2967552
I meant to post a photo too in case you give a shit. Here's T-grain on the left and cubic on the right. Note how the T grains are big and flat and all parallel while the cubic grains are randomly oriented, that's why T-grain more effectively captures light.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2966965
>>2966984
Can anyone explain why a technika cost so fuckin much? its a goddamn light-tight box isnt it? i get that its highly adjustable and whatnot but, i still dont get how they justify nearly 10 grand for a new one

File: img473.jpg (633KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1100x1100px

More snaps. This thread needs more pics.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5198
Image Height	5204
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 23:30:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img475.jpg (725KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 1100x1100px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5195
Image Height	5259
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 23:44:35
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img478.jpg (698KB, 1100x1100px)

698KB, 1100x1100px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5194
Image Height	5219
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:19 00:05:38
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: img477.jpg (588KB, 1100x1100px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1100x1100px

That's all.

Post some snaps, /fgt/'s

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5192
Image Height	5236
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	2400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	2400 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:11:18 23:56:23
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1100
Image Height	1100

File: DSC_0464-1.jpg (1MB, 999x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 999x667px

Trying the dslr scanning meme. Picked up a little miniature Japanese copy stand, not nearly sturdy enough for my D800 but i'll make it work.

Have some 11 year old provia.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:18 22:19:52

>>2967575
Very cool, wish she had a blob of light on her face.

>>2967573
Also nice. Have you tried cropping away the cut off line of light blobs on the left, and correcting perspective distortion so the line on the right becomes less crooked? I think that would make it look more pleasing.

>>2967407
Very interesting. I'm waiting for a cyanotype kit in the mail, would love to try something like this too.

>>2967403
Have you ever shot large polaroids?

>>2967597
>Have you ever shot large polaroids?
No.
But you are exactly the target market for that shit.
A "gotta catchem all" short attention span hobbyist. Taking junk photos so you can not be doing nothing, getting a problem-gambler style hit from worthlessly snapshitting on ever more exotic and expensive formats.
Deciding LF pola is the medium for you because you can actually hold it up in someone's face and prove to them you're a photographer, which you never could before, because when there's an intermediate step where you need to decide if a picture's worth printing, you always decide no.

i've shot quite a while with the canon ae1, but i'm wondering which camera to try next? some analog camera with bigger zoom and so on.

>>2967715
Why don't you just get a new lens?
Cameras are basically the same.

>>2967718
well yeah, I meant lens. any suggestions?

File: 1_6A.jpg (753KB, 2218x1468px)

753KB, 2218x1468px

have a snapshit

in my latest rollmy scans came out with wrong focus when I'm pretty sure I did focus perfectly.
How to troubleshoot/fix this? could it be the pressure plate?

>>2967720
I'm supposed to guess what you enjoy shooting?

>>2967723
What kind of scanner are you using?

>>2967723
Is the grain in focus, it looks like it is on that shot, if it is, you are the problem, you missed focus when taking them.

File: 1_27A.jpg (1MB, 1468x2218px)

1MB, 1468x2218px

>>2967730
they were lab scanned, in a pretty shitty lab
>>2967733
I'm not ruling that out, but I rarely missed the focus this much in the past, so I was surprised
here's the more obvious one, can't resize on phone sorry

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2218
Image Height	1468
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:02 20:33:59
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1468
Image Height	2218

>>2967738
Foreground is sharp
You just can't focus very well.

Is there an adjustable diopter, have you moved your focusing screen, touched the mirror or dropped the camera?

>>2967739
there's a split screen I use for focusing and have been using for 6 months. What I meant is at that time the screen showed I was in focus
didn't touch the mirror and the camera is always in my bag but didn't got really hit (I think)
should I post more snaps just for the sake of it?

>>2967742
Dont bother, next roll just take a couple of control shots using a slanted ruler.
If they come back out, get a replacement film body from a retailer (not ebay) repeat the test and return the body if it's out again.

>>2967723
95% sure it's the pressure plate. You can test this by setting it side by side with another camera with a similar lens and matching the focus scales. If there's no difference in where they focus, then it isn't your mirror alignment. The focus has shifted towards the camera from where you were trying to focus, which makes sense as the slack pressure plate will allow the film to move from the proper focusing plane further back.

In either case, the only way to fix it is to take the camera to a technician. I called up one guy about this once, he wouldn't even quote a price but said he couldn't guarantee the cost would be under 100e. I tried to pry for info on how exactly misaligned pressure plate is fixed but he wouldn't say anything aside from "Checking with a collimator." In the end I just bought a new body. No point in paying for a tech on a 40e camera body unless it has emotional value or something.

File: 1_15A.jpg (565KB, 2218x1468px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 2218x1468px

>>2967743
>>2967744
thanks guys, will do this!

I have 2 pictures left on my current roll, what's the best setup I could use to try the focus?
set up a ruler and few other stuff ?

have a finish cliche sunset

>>2967709
Haha, I don't understand why you're so mad someone has fun with photography, I'm sorry you don't.
I print a ton of pictures, maybe you're projecting?

I'd encourage you to give pack film polaroids a try, it's wonderful fun for the whole family, and the IQ isn't even shit.

>>2967760
Not him but while I don't hate you for having fun I do think you post entirely too much zero-effort shit on what is supposed to be a photography board.
I don't doubt that you print a ton of PICTURES but I doubt there's even one proper photograph in the pile and I don't think that crap belongs on /p/.

>>2967766
I'm sure you believe that.

>>2967760
what if you took even more photos

what if you posted even more scans

what if you got real weird with it

>>2967768
Are you telling me you do put effort into the shit you post here?
That's even worse but keep trying I guess.

>>2967770
I take a shitload of pictures, I just don't post much anymore, everyone gets their panties in a twist.
Editing my Japan pictures now, maybe I'll make a thread when the one I have up is dead.

>>2967771
Yes.

File: 2016111215.jpg (456KB, 1025x769px)

456KB, 1025x769px

>>2967760
I really wish I could take this thing out for a spin but
>25 shekels for 8 snapshits

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M10
Camera Software	OLYMPUS Viewer 3 2.0.1W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	11644
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:12 19:17:13
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2967773
>everyone gets their panties in a twist.
everyone must be wrong then, right?
This is why you will never improve.

>>2967776
And you don't even get a neg from it, the nicest thing about FP-100C.

>>2967778
I'm happy to take critique from people I know and trust, or just people who can offer a proper one (which is one of the reasons I still post here, sometimes I do get that).
Abuse from anonymous trolls and/or idiots who not only judge photography by effort, but their own shit perception of it is hardly good for a laugh.

>>2967793
I judge it by more than just effort and I used to take the time to write long-ish critiques both for you and for others. After so many replies to the order of "that's just your opinion, man" I developed a disdain for the people posting them which continues to grow.
You can of course luck out and produce a masterpiece with little or no effort, but that's not what's happening here, Catsby.
You're posting snapshots of your dog and your friends and that simply doesn't belong on a photography board.

Would you care to post some of the good proper trustworthy crit you get from your friends? I'd love to get better at c&c as well as photography and looking "the good stuff" is one way of doing that.
Thanks.

>>2967804
If what you say is true, I'm sorry if I have seemed un-appreciative of it. I hate to discourage actual critique. I do take on board whatever critique people offer as long as I can discern a thought behind it. I've changed my opinion on many of my photos that I used to be pleased with after friends have pointed out how it's shit in a way I can agree with.
If my presence annoys you that bad I suggest you filter me.

I receive feedback on photos from friends on the internet and from IRL discussions with art friends, but I don't have any sound bites to be copy pasted for you.
It's not by any means major critical breakdowns of individual pieces, mostly niggles about pictures or complete dismissals as shit photos. The difference being that when those come from people whom you trust the judgment of because you know their taste is aligned to yours, and they know what you are trying to do, it's easier to take it to heart.

Anonymous critique for me requires a lot more reasoning behind it to agree that it's worth taking notice of, since it can't rely on previous authority but has to claim it each time. And of course this is not something I expect people to have the patience to do for something which is so far from their personal taste, just something I appreciate when people do. Again I'm sorry if you feel your critique has not been appreciated, it's impossible for me to tell now if it was or not. Maybe adopt a name.
I don't claim to be good at critiquing either, or even trying to be.

File: 1479502923609.gif (524KB, 500x620px)

524KB, 500x620px

>>2967804
>anonymous decides for everyone what does and doesn't belong on a photography board

>>2967818
Board rule #2
"Post only photos that show at least trace amounts of thoughtful composition. Do not upload random snapshots."

And while we're at it. Board rule #1
"Only upload images that you, the photographer, have taken."
So fuck off with the anime reaction images. There are plenty of other boards of that shit, regardless of how much of a weeaboo site 4chan started out as.

File: 1479573269210.png (27KB, 248x236px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 248x236px

>>2967824
No.

How do I see how many stops my image has in Lightroom?

File: 1464735537483.jpg (49KB, 649x649px)

49KB, 649x649px

>>2967562

File: Untitled-2.png (104KB, 895x409px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 895x409px

>>2967832
This isn't related to film, wrong thread man.
I dunno about Lightroom, but a right click on the file gives you the level of luminosity, atleast with Sony's Exif.

What are places in Kopenhagen to look for compact *working* film gear? Planning to visit Charlottenlund flea but what else?

>>2967873
it is though. i was trying to compare scans

>>2967875
Kirkens Korshær?
I never see much photo gear in secondhand stores of any kind in Denmark but I have found a few Mjus and SRTs over the years.

>>2967878
>>2967873

You can't compare scan like you'd do for digital files.

I was after a date imprint P&S, and suddenly one just appeared. I jokingly placed a lowball bet on a Ricoh R1 that had perished foam in the film window and leaves a thin scratch/streak on film. Won it.

>>2967921
Then expect just IWO.

File: 1444375601154.png (284KB, 650x581px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 650x581px

>>2967824
ayo boi seems like you've been triggered by an anime image.
I think you've forgotten where you are.
>>2967953
Good for you anon. Check the pressure plate when you buy it and you'll probably be fine.

>>2967953
How much did you pay?

>>2966869
a common problem with the FTb is that the prism 'de-silvers'. What that means to you and me is that you get some weird shit fungus looking marks in the viewfinder and it's un-fixable unless your replace the prism.

>>2968123
but that wont affect any of the images right? It just fucks with the prism?

>>2968132
yeah, the images are fine, just fucks with what you see through the viewfinder.

File: GRapids01.jpg (355KB, 1280x849px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1280x849px

posting some fotos echs dee

File: Birbo.jpg (246KB, 1280x846px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1280x846px

>>2968154

File: I-75.jpg (321KB, 1280x849px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1280x849px

>>2968155

File: il_570xN.729533686_9fi6.jpg (32KB, 570x378px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 570x378px

I only have the 50mm f/1.8 lens that I got with my Canon AE-1 and was looking at old lenses online and found the Canon 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 for 25 dollarydoos which seems like a steal but in the description the seller wrote

"In good condition visually, although the zoom and especially the focus actions are not smooth compared to other FD lenses I have owned. It still focuses sharp but focusing feels scratchy. The glass is in quite good condition."

The scratchy feeling when focusing sounds like a red flag to me but im not sure. Should I get the lens anyway or does it sound like its not worth it? I'm assuming it would be pretty expensive to get a professional to take a look at the lens.

>>2968191
Much of the appeal of film gear is the tactile feels. If the seller says it feels scratchy, then find a better deal. Film-era zooms are kinda shit anyway.

>>2968225
Do you think it could become a problem that would damage the lens with time?

I'm Australian so it's pretty hard to find good deals on lenses. This one is close by so I also wouldn't have to pay for shipping. At this price if it is an just ergonomics issue then I am happy to deal with it. I'm just concerned that grit (or whatever it is) in the lens might cause future damage.

>>2968231
Most likely it's that the lubrication has come out or dried out in such a way that at this point the mechanism feels scratchy. Zuiko and Mamiya focusing rings get sticky and Nikon becomes less smooth. Canon's likely in the latter category.

Probably it's not related to any grit or such that'd damage the lens over time.

>>2968249
Can confirm that Mamiya focusing rings are an absolute cunt. Zeiss go scratchy-ish until relubed.

>>2968249
Great I think I will get the lens, thanks for your help :)

File: 161107175008_DSC00806.jpg (84KB, 500x333px)

84KB, 500x333px

Someone is selling a Pentax 645N for a good price, but the exposure compensation knob has broken off. I haven't had much luck finding information about how to repair this but I did find a replacement part. Does anyone have 645N and/or know how to replair it? Pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	ILCE-6000 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	46 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:07 11:03:27
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Brightness	4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	31.00 mm
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2968026
Cheers! I'll check when I get it.

>>2968102
€40.

File: 61810002.jpg (420KB, 1080x716px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1080x716px

recent snapshits with olympus mju i and ql17

fuji 200

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:23
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61810003.jpg (480KB, 771x1080px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 771x1080px

>>2968469

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:23
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61810006.jpg (288KB, 1080x607px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1080x607px

>>2968470

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:23
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61810023.jpg (217KB, 716x1080px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 716x1080px

>>2968471

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:25
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61810017.jpg (248KB, 1080x716px)

248KB, 1080x716px

>>2968472

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:24
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61820019.jpg (267KB, 1080x607px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1080x607px

>>2968474
ultramax 400 expired i believe

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:26
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61850015.jpg (386KB, 663x995px)

386KB, 663x995px

>>2968475
random boston snaps
ektar

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:29
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 61850013.jpg (457KB, 926x1080px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 926x1080px

>>2968477
its that girl again

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 13:53:28
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2968478

its that delicious girl again. gg anon.

but
>that disgusting watercoloring effect from noritsu koki

get something else to scan your pics, dude.

File: 61850013.jpg (406KB, 926x1080px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 926x1080px

>>2968551
probably my shit attempt at post processing
heres the default scan

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:20 18:42:03
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2968575

no you faggot. noritsu scan software does that to film grain, it applies some weird noise reduction filter.

Yesterday I went shooting with my film camera and one thing I noticed when looking at a building really far away from my viewfinder was that the split image did not agree with my lens' infinity focus. This lens has a hard stop infinity, so I figured, oh it must be because of the weather/atmosphere/whatever and the lens can't go past infinity to correct for this.

Throughout the day I checked buildings off in the distance and every time, infinity focus was not in agreement with the split image focusing. Another thing I noticed when taking pictures of things at about two or so meters away was that when the image was in focus to my eye, the split image indicated that focus was a little off.

This is really annoying. Is there something wrong with my focusing screen or my lens? I only have one lens for this camera and I haven't yet developed my film to see how it came out, but I suspect I wont be able to find out because I was shooting with a deep DoF.

>>2968712
Infinity focus on the lense is almost certainly correct.
Try other lenses in the same mount.
If they also show a similar discrepancy at the marked infinity on the lense, your mirror is almost certainly slightly out of adjustment.

>>2968475
Funky grain. I like.

File: canon_ftb_vivitar.jpg (53KB, 709x472px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 709x472px

best place to buy rolls with international shipping?

Also, stumbled upon this camera (Canon FTb) with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm 3.5 , any worth on it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 20D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Photographer	unknown
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:01:12 21:31:44
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2010:01:10 15:25:15
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	709
Image Height	472
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual

>tfw the photo place right next to my work is going to quit doing E6 at the end of the year
Fuuuuck. And as far as I know, it's the last place in Helsinki that does E6. And the price was the same as for C41.

>>2968922
>>tfw the photo place right next to my work is going to quit doing E6 at the end of the year

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

that might happen here within one or two years. life is neverending pain.

>>2968922
first who's next and now this =(

I don't have enough space at home for home dev =/

I've ocassionally shipped stuff to Kuva-Paijula in Turku, but I'm not sure if they do sizes larger than 120. Makes me paranoid they'd stop doing alides too =/

>>2968712
Infinity hard stops are usually spot on.

What the problem lies in is the miscalibration of your focusing screen. You have to shim it to get it bang on.

>>2968922
It's time to do your own work anon.
It's cheaper, better and you'll be self-satisfied.

>>2968933
>I don't have enough space at home for home dev =/
Get rid of some of your clutter faggot.

My friend whines about the same thing and he's also a fin, he has the space and so do you likely.

>>2968962
I've been reading about focusing screens, and I found that apparently split image focusing isn't accurate if the line you're lining up isn't parallel to the film plane. I wonder if this could be the case.

But I also attempted to clean smudges on the mirror and rubbed one of those "fiberless" cotton swabs on the focus screen because it had some major dust that shows up on the viewfinder, pretty annoying. I probably fucked it up myself...

>>2968966
My bathroom is fucking tiny, (barely enough space for a washer and shower, essentially) and wife would never let me fiddle with chems in the kitchen, lol


I should probably just bite the bullet and look and see if one of the oldfart camera clubs would have a darkroom for rent at a reasonable rate. I just hope I can avoid any "socializing" part related to those circles...

>>2968899
the camera is probably okay, the lens not (Film Vivitar Zoom lenses are mostly shit)

As for Film, I use a local store but I also used amazon before

>>2968969
>>2968962
Again, extremely unlikely it's the focusing screen.
For 99% of cameras, it's set in the camera at the correct location and never fucing moves.
The mirror bounces up and down every time you take a photograph, and rides on a stop that usually contains some degree of adjustability.

Now think with your brain, children: Which one of these is more likely to fall out of adjustment over time?

I'm about to get the Epson v600.
Any reasons why I shouldn't?

>>2969002
Are mirrors easy to adjust? Is there some screw I can turn? Mine is an FM3a

Just my fucking luck, my other film camera was a rangefinder and came to me out of alignment. Luckily, all I had to do was twist a screw to align it, done in a minute.

>>2969005
What are you going to scan with it?

>>2969009
135 films. Mostly bw.
Why?

>>2969011
For 135, you're better off with a dedicated scanner like a plustek or DSLR scanning.
Unless you shoot 120 or larger, it's not really worth the money/time/space.

>>2969013
I'm looking into buying a Pentacon Six, so it needs to do 120 as well.

What do you think about the Canonscan 9000?

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

455KB, 2138x795px

>>2969005
pic related.
>>2969007
Google it.
It's a pain in the ass, you'll want to loctite it in place.

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

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

File: IMG_5773.jpg (410KB, 1080x1080px)

410KB, 1080x1080px

So ye I pretty much just mounted my Norca's 105/8 to my RB67 for filthy hipster fun with blu-tac.

Roast me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.2.2
Serial Number	1680801276
Lens Name	EF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 17:26:30
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Small
Focus Mode	AI Servo
Drive Mode	Unknown
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	2
Sensor ISO Speed	224
Color Matrix	129

>>2968922
Fotoyks is stopping E6? Well what the fuck am I going to do with this Agfa Precisa (rebranded Fuji stuff)? Crossprocess like a goddamn hipster, fuck that.

How much is the cheapest E6 kit on maco anyway, for about 12 rolls total.