/film/

File: ---_0657-1000px.jpg (359KB, 1000x742px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1000x742px

just got first roll developed from my fuji GS645S, and almost every frame has red line through it. The lab told me it was a light leak, but is it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	AgfaPhoto GmbH
Camera Model	d-lab.2/3
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.16
Photographer	Only the Best :-))
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:04 10:25:15
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	742

>>2976966
Yep.

>>2976968
fuck

Anyone know how to fix it?

>>2976972
You just have to stop the light from leaking. Most likely it's a piece of foam that's perished, find it, clean it, replace it.

File: JapanBW026.jpg (224KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1200x800px

>>2976966
>but is it?
Absolutely.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1471655820001.png (6KB, 679x615px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 679x615px

>>2976902
i like that last book

Got the Ricoh R1, bought a battery and just started a test roll. Question for any film Ricoh owners: some tiny, dry and thin pieces of plastic fell out from between the lens and body when I exercised the lens. Are they just some aesthetic thing or should I be worried about getting leaks? I'll see when I finish the roll I suppose, but still thought I'd ask. To me how thin they were makes it hard to believe they would seal anything, but I dunno.

Also holy shit the motor is noisy. Might be just from the camera not being used for years, but definitely not even close to the sneakiness of the digital GR. But it's so tiny and cool, feels great to shoot. Can't wait to see some results from it, I'll just have to tape the film window for now since my urge to shoot it is bigger than replacing the foam. I'll have to mod it for full frame 24mm too.

>>2976966
Film fags btfo

Nikon FM2 + Nikkor 50/1.4 for 200€
I was thinking about F3 myself but this seems pretty good deal. Should I get FM2 instead?

File: 17762237869_edef560d51_b.jpg (151KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x800px

FM2 is a good lil camera. What things does the F3 have thst the FM2 lacks that has you doubting the purchase?

>>2977188
That is a nice deal.
Ask to see photos taken with the camera if possible, my FM2's mirror is way out of whack and it's gonna cost me $120 to fix.
The pros and cons really come down to whether or not you use a flash on camera (I do all the time) or if you use autoexposure regularly (I do all the time). But if neither of those are dealbreakers, they're both fine camera and you should just choose on price/condition.

>>2977195
>>2977209
I was thinking about exposure too, because I've heard that old autoexposure Nikons are great for night shots. Film Nikons are pretty rare in my country and that FM2 is on local auction site for pretty good price so I don't have to order from another country. Thanks for the tip to ask about photos.

>>2977227
where you from, the moon?

>>2977405
Eastern bloc

>>2977415
you poor man

File: roll 9025.jpg (52KB, 870x580px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 870x580px

i like this picture so i'm showing it to you guys.

File: R1-37.jpg (887KB, 1523x1074px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 1523x1074px

Ok, so I haven't had a film camera since I was in middle school. I recently moved to Germany and discovered 1-hour film processing is still a thing here, so on a whim I went full hipster with the konstruktor. On one roll this happened. Is it double exposed, or a processing artifact?

>>2977417
Yeah I know, all that I see is old soviet cameras (Zent, FED, Smena) with inflated hipster tax.

>>2977434
The camera fucked up advancing the film.

>>2977434
that is certainly a processing artifact. You don't get hard edges like that with double exposure, and the images would be overlapping each other. You can tell by the way it is.

>>2977496
Just no. Never post again.
>>2977434
Obviously it's what >>2977495 said.
The camera didn't advance the film all the way and your frames are overlapping.
If you weren't a shit-slurping inbred retard, you would simply look at the damned negatives and see as much.

File: friendo.jpg (673KB, 759x1080px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 759x1080px

Just a bad scanning I made tonight, the picture was shot way back in April. This was my attempt of reclaiming the negative of a FP100C instant film. The color is a bit weird because I don't really know how to manually adjust the white balance after scanning.
I still have two packs of FP100C left, after using them up I will move on and convert my Polaroid 110A into a 4*5 camera. RIP peel-apart instant film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	226 dpi
Vertical Resolution	226 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:05 01:13:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	759
Image Height	1080

>>2977719
>Specify gray point
>Adjust color levels
>Either slide around with the histogram or edit as curves
A monkey can do it once it figures out where the settings are.

>>2977496
The hard edge is the edge of one of the frames. There's no possible way that's from processing. Processing doesn't cause images to magically move around on the negative.

File: F1000025_px1k.jpg (598KB, 669x1000px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 669x1000px

r8 m8, dont h8 lets sk8

1/2

File: F1000029_px1k.jpg (573KB, 1000x669px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1000x669px

>>2977742

2/2

both using portra800 with the XA

File: 17789799985_3d35e996c0_b.jpg (135KB, 708x708px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 708x708px

>>2977742
>>2977743
Sorry to say, but there pretty meh anon. First is really snapshits, second had promise but the comp isn't working (whole left side is pointless).

Props for getting close and not shooting people's backs tho!

File: img_023.jpg (226KB, 1000x642px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1000x642px

Canon Prima Super 135
Portra 800
1/3

File: img_021.jpg (158KB, 638x1000px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 638x1000px

>>2977832
2/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.18
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:05 15:52:37
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: img_027.jpg (182KB, 1000x656px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1000x656px

>>2977833
3/3

>>2977734
Well that's exactly what I did and before that the scan is basically an entire orange block. Think I need to calibrate my scanner. Thanks for the advice though.

File: kodak_d23_bw.jpg (49KB, 225x316px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 225x316px

Total noob here. How many rolls can I develop with 1 liter of D23?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:08:11 16:27:54
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	225
Image Height	316

>>2978180
RTFM
>>2977742
Would have been better if you'd called them wankers and taken a second shot. Would work well as a dyp.

File: cliff.jpg (839KB, 1792x1210px) Image search: [Google]

839KB, 1792x1210px

is this worth saving with the sky blown out

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228
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	2016:12:05 17:41:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1792
Image Height	1210

>>2978217

sky is ok.

File: mountain.jpg (1020KB, 1800x1216px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 1800x1216px

>>2978217

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228
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	2016:12:05 17:38:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1216

File: cactus.jpg (403KB, 1028x694px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 1028x694px

>>2978220
20kb grace size limit pls

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228
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	2016:12:05 17:43:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1028
Image Height	694

>>2978217
>>2978220
Neither photo is worth saving regardless of how the sky is rendered.

>>2978221
It's still 4KB under desu

>>2977803
I think your image would be stronger if you flipped it upside down

>>2978234
fuck no, that's corny as hell and the composition would be thrown way off

>>2977742
>sitting in the reserved seats
reeee

File: Cave50mmFLIP!.jpg (194KB, 780x780px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 780x780px

>>2978234
I don't agree with you, but here's one from the same day flipped.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	130 dpi
Vertical Resolution	130 dpi
Image Created	2008:04:18 16:53:52
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	780
Image Height	780

>>2978336
>>2977803
super neat.

File: 7187317777_f61b22bf3b_b.jpg (240KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x768px

Need help choosing between a Leica m5 or a Nikon fm2n or f3hp...

The idea of the camera is to last and be as practical for the rest of someone's life. (21st birthday present)

File: images.jpg (9KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 256x197px

>>2978354
Continuing from that... A travel camera and for every-day use. with a good bunch of lenses to expand on.

Price isn't really the issue its more of a sentimental gift.

>>2978354
Well what does the person like? Rangefinder is an entirely different thing than an SLR. For example, with a rangefinder, tele lenses aren't too much of a thing because of how difficult it becomes to focus. If the person likes to shoot portraits for example, then definitely an SLR. If street, rangefinder.

Remember that Leica lenses are going to cost a lot more, too. You said that price doesn't really matter, but for the price of one 35mm Summicron you can get a full Nikon kit easily.

>>2978375
To expand on this, are you sure you want it to be 35mm? Why not get a Hasselblad kit for example?

>>2978354
>Leica M5
>the retarded bastard duckling of the M family

So much no

>>2978376
Hasselblad would be great but for Practically, especially in Aus, a medium format won't last IMO.

Though you right, they like shooting everything, portraits, street, vast landscapes, weddings...

>>2978378
Considering it was hand made in Germany, and that it features the first TTL metering. I think its pretty spot on. Looks different but that goes against the norm.

>>2978381
Portraits, weddings, landscape? Yeah I'm gonna say you should go with a MF camera, not 35mm.

What makes you think a Hassy is not going to survive in Australia? I mean, they did survive the moon... I live up north, it was -27 celsius this morning and I know several people who use Hasselblads to shoot outside in weather like this.

>>2978405
more like getting medium format film...

I got an unused paterson autotherm kit for 40 britbongs,

Do i want to use fuji or tetenal chems? What do you use and why?

>>2978354
>wants to buy someone a camera that will last and be practical for the rest of their life
>person is 21
>buys them a small format film camera

>>2978414
>Doesnt want a medium format camera

>>2978416
I purposefully chose not to post a reply to the other posts but you just had to greentext your way in here.

I'm still going to say the same thing.
>buying a small format film camera
>being practical
>lasting the rest of their life

>>2977419
I like it too

>>2978411
We use Fuji at the shop I work at, for better colors, especially in (close to) blown highlights, than Tetenal.

>>2978420
Thanks bruh

>>2978406
You can get a digital back in the unlikely event that medium format film stops being made. They cost a fuckton but since money doesn't matter... I don't know where the meme of medium format being unavailable comes from, but it's not true.

For context, I would get a Leica personally since I only shoot street. It's the right tool for me - a Hassy isn't. Really think about what the giftee wants and needs. My ex for example always wanted a Leica; I got her a pretty good fixed lens rangefinder as a gift once, she didn't even finish a roll with it before it got left on the shelf because she didn't actually like shooting a rangefinder at all.

>>2978428 #
Dude do you live in AUS?

Film is already stupid expensive there. Suggesting a camera that takes 120 is such a dumb move. Do you not think they know what the film market in their own country is like? Somehow you know better?

They came in asking about practical 35mm cameras and you suggested an MF rig. They said that isn't a good idea given they live in AUS and you continue to suggest it's fine. Know how much the cheapest Propack of 120 costs? About 3x the price it does in the US.

Then you continue suggesting it by suggesting a digi back. Wtf dude? How the hell did we go from compact(ish) 35mms to a god damn MF camera with digi back?

>>2978434
Yes, I googled it. It's cheaper than here, and also more widely available (I'm not from or in the US). Stop being such an ignorant faggot and also learn to read. I wasn't suggesting a digital back, I just mentioned it's a possibility if MF film ever stops being made - it could actually be more future proof than a 35mm camera. I don't care what they ultimately decide on, I'm just offering my opinion.

Of course the person asking for suggestions can buy whatever s/he wants. And that's what it now sounds like - they're buying something that is cool to them, and not really thinking of the giftee. Which is shitty.

A relative gave me his Olympus OM-10 and I'm pretty eager to try it out.

I've not done anything with film since I was a kid and I don't know where to start.

Any advice would be appreciated.

>>2978438
The problem is the cost involved in using medium format film in our area is shit house. it would work out to cost like $35 - $45 after buying a roll of film and getting it developed.

For the person, they've never really gone on about a medium format camera, But yes they probably do want the Leica m5. in saying that the build quality of both cameras is good. I was looking for anyone who had one and could vouch that they rate it and what lens they rock with. not a competition between medium format film and 35mm.

>>2978443
Why an m5 and not an m3?

>>2978442
Put film in it
Shoot
Get it developed
Wew

>>2978442
It's a camera made for hapless morons. You set the ISO and the camera will hold your hand for the rest. Google up the manual and read it. Shoot the cheapest film available in your area until you think you know what you're doing. I hope you got the 1.8 50mm Zuiko with it instead of some Vivitar garbage.

>>2978443
Excuses, excuses. This would only hold true for E6. Anything else is laziness.

File: washichart.png (58KB, 713x396px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 713x396px

Hello filmfags I have a question

I've finished a roll of washi film s (50 ISO) and I'm about to develop it. The only problem is that I can't find online time and dilution for my developer Ilfosol 3. The only data I've found are for Ilfotec LC29 as you can see in the pic.

How would you develop it with Ilfosol 3?

>>2977419
Comfy

>>2977833
Spooky

>>2978452
Ausfag here, pretty much this.
>>2978451
>>2978448
OM-20 owner here, pretty much this.
>>2978405
MF shooter here, pretty much this.

>>2978444
Price... Price would play a factor..

>>2978515
Must be nice living in a city that has multiple places that process.

I have to pay to send it, pay for processing, scan or prints and pay for the mail back 35-45 I live in west qld

>>2978728
the m3 (double stroke) is not much more expensive, however no meter

>>2978730
color dev is really not that hard. just give it a try.

>>2978730
I process my own film. The postage is gonna be like $5 return? Stop being a pussy. If you live in "west QLD", why aren't you on them minebux? Money shouldn't even be a thing.

All of your objections are just excuses.

>>2978741
>west QLD
>mines

there's literally nothing out that far you turbo autist

>>2978741

now this is autism.

>>2978741
Ehh it's no point arguing,

For someone else
Asks specifically for Nikon fm3 or Leica m5.

Not a medium format

Film is pricy, get told it's not.

What else don't I know?

>>2978286
what composition? putting the subject in the middle of a square frame? At least try it
>>2978336
yeah doesnt seem to hold up, at least it's more interesting than an empty space though

>>2978286
you'd need to reframe it, but it could work

>>2978760
>Film is pricy, get told it's not.
Film isn't pricey. Simply claiming it's pricey because you're too lazy to process isn't an argument, it's just you being lazy. At £0.083p per frame for 135 processing, there's no way you can claim it's expensive. Hell, if I want to be lazy and have it processed by a lab it only increases to £0.097 per frame for C-41.

Shooting film is only costly if you choose to make it. You're not shooting LF or Instant film.

>>2978772
Again there is no point arguing with you over this, considering that most here shoot, hand a roll in and get it developed. Congratulations for being so invested into film photography that you have all your chemicals and a dark room etc.

For most around here it's a cost + those prices would add up to be about $1 aud.

Have fun with your medium format and abundance of film in your area.

>>2978772
You quoting prices you pay in euroland means absolutely nothing to someone living in Australia. You do realize that right?

The cheapest c41 kit I can find in Australia is $70 for a 1L kit. That's $4.30/roll. Assume the roll cost $10 (which would be a fucking deal) you're looking at $14.30/roll total expense. Assuming you're using the smallest MF film size, you get 16 frames for that $14.30 which equales $0.90/frame. Bump up to 6x6 and it becomes nearly $1.20/frame.

And this is all about a gift for someone else!
>here I bought you this medium format film camera!
>t t thanks anon, but isn't film and developing for this pretty expensive?
>well, usually it's ~$30/roll, but if you develop it yourself it can be as cheap as $15/roll!
>s s so you're saying I need to buy developing stuff and source chemicals that are quite difficult to find in stock?
>well yeah
>sounds like a lot of work anon
>WELL IF YOU WERENT SUCH A LAZY POS WHO COULD APPRECIATE MUH MFTONEZ YOU'D DO IT

>>2978772
>>2978775
>>2978808
>>2978818

lmaooooooooooo didnt even read.

what the fuck are you autists arguing about now?

that film photo is expensive? cheap? how about you all kill yourselves in neat ways so you make it to the news, and make your parents proud for once?

i thought you all had neet bux, but you are all poor as fuck. im ashamed to share board with you all sad pieces of shit.

>>2978825
I'm not poor as fuck, as evidenced by the fact that I process at home and have a decent work ethic.
With all the savings I'm making, I could easily buy 4chan ;^)

File: 60640011.jpg (626KB, 1537x827px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1537x827px

fell for the cinestill meme

[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	2016:12:06 00:06:24
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 60620009.jpg (426KB, 1080x716px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1080x716px

>>2978928

also some bw400cn stuff

[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	2016:12:04 23:55:46
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2978741
Weipa is where its at now.

>>2978929
dude, that horizontal pincushion distortion is out of control!

Anyone here ever use a Nikon N8008s?

>>2978928
And the labscanning meme
>>2978929
and the chromogenic B&W meme

Eat your pistol mate.
>mfw he totally would if drake did it first

>>2978977
or F801?

File: DSC03729 - DSC03754.jpg (383KB, 1043x800px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1043x800px

I bought a Koni-Omega Rapid.
I was a little disappointed with the lense.
4-element 90/3.5. Lacks bite.
Camera is fucking awesome though.

>>2979329
>Lacks bite.

what do you mean. thats a shitass photo btw, not even the greatest lens could have saved it.

File: Screenshot from 2016-12-07 18-26-42.png (64KB, 607x513px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 607x513px

>>2978464
Hey, I see nobody had taken a stab at this yet. I hope you're still lurking. I'll post this in the film general thread as well.

I compared the dev times for the two developers and found there was a film listed in common with both developers at a similar time. Makes sense to me.

Ilfotec LC29 1+19 develops Rollei Retro 400S in 12 minutes, and also does Washi - S 50 in 12 minutes.

Ilfosol 3 1+14 develops Rollei Retro 400S in 15 minutes. I would say...Try 15 minutes.

>>2979356
oh lol this is the fgt. Thought I was elsewhere.

report back, regardless

File: DSC03733 - DSC03750.jpg (355KB, 1247x1000px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1247x1000px

>>2979331
Did I say that the photo would have been better or different if the lense was sharper?
>it's a test roll m8 :^)
It's an 800px downres, Brownie photos are sharp at this size.
I'm saying it just doesn't have the microcontrast ;) of a more modern lense, or even other vintage tessars I've tried.
I think that shrub was at 5.6, this scene is at f11.
To be fair, it was a very bright day, and I think it's either an uncoated lense, or very primitive coatings. It's an OG Rapid, not an M or other later model, so '64 - '67.
My point of reference is the GW690 and its 90/3.5, which is fucking bonkers sharp at every aperture.
On the plus side though, this Konishiroku lense does give you the 3D nose.

>>2979356
This is how I extrapolated a time for Rollei Ortho 25 in Neofin Blau, seemed to work fine.
(6.5 minutes, btw)

File: DSC02194.jpg (169KB, 588x588px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 588x588px

>>2979367
Here's a crop pre-procssing.
To be fair, this scan was done with the Pentacks 100/4, which I don't really like at the best of times, and which may or may not have had a loose rear element when I made this scan, but I don't think that's really much of an issue, you can see what the Koni lense is doing.
The film is T-Max 100 in T-Max Dev.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
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	2016:11:17 14:43:13
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	588
Image Height	588
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: smh.jpg (272KB, 588x588px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 588x588px

>>2979375

heres an idea: how about you stop sucking shit and blaming the camera for your own incompetence? sounds like a neat plan to you?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:07 21:09:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	588
Image Height	588

File: DSC02194.jpg (217KB, 588x588px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 588x588px

>>2979379
I actually laughed out loud at that, so thanks.
Yes, I'm aware that sharpening exists, and I am proficient at it, unlike your drunken monkey ass self, evidently.
The comparative sharpness of the lense, relative to other lenses, is not a matter of my competence, it's a matter of fact.
Here's what a sharp lense looks like with the same scanning combo straight out of camera.
As you can see, there is a substantial difference.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
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	2016:10:24 17:09:19
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	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	588
Image Height	588
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2979392
>this is how its done, bucko!
>uploads soft ass garbage

what a trickster!

>>2979411
>100% crop from an unsharpened raw 24mp bayer sensor scan of 35mm film
>soft ass garbage
haha, you're funny.
That crop represents an area of film 3.5mm square.
It is, by any sane, objective frame of reference one might possibly have for this kind of work, very sharp.

>>2979438
Bet it'd be sharper if you just took a photo of the same scene with the 24mp camera itself.

>>2979443
digicamera scan meme ruined forever.

t. flatbed bro.

File: DSC03990.jpg (86KB, 588x588px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 588x588px

>>2979443
It probably wouldn't actually.
Even through the iterative process of shooting onto film and then scanning it, it's clear that all of the detail in the film isn't being resolved.
This a the same sized crop from a photo I took out of my window just now. f/11, rock steady camera, punched in manual focus, electronic first curtain, base iso, etc etc etc, all raw conversion sharpening fuckery turned off. That's all she wrote as far as resolution goes.
Digital BTFO.

[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	2016:12:08 12:21:04
Exposure Time	1/45 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	0.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	588
Image Height	588
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: underway to oslo.jpg (1MB, 1200x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x960px

On the night cruise from Copenhagen to Oslo.
portra 400 Fuji645

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:07 22:58:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	960

>>2979497

reee im jelly.

are you a rich fuck?

File: 4532429948_08b4bfb915_b.jpg (443KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1024x691px

>>2979392
You could try to develop the bw from the koni in rodinal. tri x and ordinal will give you the effect for sure. You just gotta find out the right time and concentration.

>>2979500
The tickets are less than 50$ if you order them a bit in advance.

>>2979497
Did you go to the west coast of Norway as well?

>>2979500
Cruises around the Nordics cost next to nothing. Mainly because they're intended for lower mid class to drink and fuck for 24 hours straight before hobbling out of utterly destroyed cabins to let the enslaved pinoy crew restore them for another run.

Not recommended for anyone.

>>2979356
oh thank you anon! but I've already developed that roll, in the end I've developed for about 13 min (because water was cold) and looks like it worked, at least pics appeared on the film but I'm still waiting for the scans to judge. Next time I'll try 15.

>>2979609
This. This right here.

I mean it's a cheap way to visit a neighboring country, but skip all the nightclub shit unless you want to feel like drowning yourself. If you're with friends you can maybe stand it for a beer or two.

File: 28A.jpg (444KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1350x900px

I'm gonna post recent snapshits.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
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	2016:12:08 17:07:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1350
Image Height	900

File: 23A.jpg (506KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1350x900px

>>2979941

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
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	2016:12:08 17:04:10
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1350
Image Height	900

File: 14A.jpg (212KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x1500px

>>2979944
I kinda like how this one looks without cropping, even though you can see the shoddy scanning from the photolab.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:12:05 14:40:48

File: 10A.jpg (353KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1350x900px

>>2979945

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
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	2016:12:08 17:13:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1350
Image Height	900

File: 9A.jpg (496KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1350x900px

>>2979946

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
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	2016:12:08 17:12:17
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1350
Image Height	900

File: 24A.jpg (252KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1500x1000px

>>2979948

File: 32A.jpg (290KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1500x1000px

>>2979949

File: 15A.jpg (532KB, 900x1350px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 900x1350px

>>2979951

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:08 17:40:59
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	900
Image Height	1350

File: 27A.jpg (503KB, 924x1387px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 924x1387px

>>2979955

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:08 17:06:03
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	924
Image Height	1387

File: 0A.jpg (187KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1000x1500px

>>2979958
Cliché af.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:12:05 14:40:22

any place to buy film in Utah?

File: IMG_20161113_114447.jpg (2MB, 2160x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x2160px

>>2978354
I rock the FM (original) mainly because I am hard on my cameras and you can literally drop it from six feet with no issues. Allegedly a guy was riding a motorcycle north to south across Italy and was documenting it with an FM. His motorcycle broke down and a piece needed hammered back into shape and all he had was the camera. The story ends with all of his pictures coming out just fine.

>>2980051
BH Photo? Freestyle? Adorama? Do you have mail service? If you can't figure out how to get film, how in the fuck are you going to get it developed?

>>2980135
>fuck me if i know!

you could have said just that, bro.

>>2980121
>goes motorcycle touring
>doesn't pack a tool roll
I guess he's all the tool he thought he needed?
>>2979452
>>2979455
I enjoyed all of the thoughtful responses to this put forward by the shatbedding brigade.

File: 17945408202_9e69d26561_b.jpg (154KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x800px

>>2980135
Ever think that they are on the road traveling or something?

Dumbass...

Looking to get into film for a hits and giggles.
Should I cop a Minolta x300s for $20?

>>2980263
Minoltafag here. I don't recommend the X-300, it's really stripped from features. If you want a cheap Minolta SLR, I recommend the XG series. XG-1 can be had for cheap and offers a lot more bang for the buck than X-300. Try to get the f/2 45mm lens with it, it's a great piece of glass and cheap as dirt.

>>2980274
Found an XG1 with a 28-200mm lens for a hundred bucks (about USD80). Should I cop?

>>2980286
That zoom lens isn't even worth its weight in junk metal. XG-1 body by itself costs $40 or less, no point paying up more when it comes with a useless lens.

Just got all this shit for five bucks. R8 me

Canon GIII QL
Ricoh 500 GX
Petri Color 35
Braun Super Paxette 35
Olympus Trip 35
Minolta Pocket Autopak 430E
Brownie No 2

Weston Master II
Sekonic Auto-Lumi
Hanimex PR-60 (battery leaked RIP)
Hansa Range finder

>>2976902
what would be a cheap, ok quality 35mm compact with focus and variable exposure?
could be auto or manual exposure, i don't want one that has it fixed
i don't like scale focusing so it could be af or rangefinder

>>2980319
Minolta Hi-Matic AF2.

>>2980298
>in which anon learns that all 40yo leaf shutters and selenium cells are broken by spending $30 on rare and exotic mercury batteries

>>2979500
>>2979607
>>2979609

I was in copenhagen for a museum opening and took a few days off. The tickets were $250 each and we got the second to best cabin. For ~$50 you don't get a window and that would be a waste.
I just went to Oslo for one night, it was a pretty cool way to go. They run into Oslo at 930am and back to CPH at 430, so all these tourists would do day tours.
4/10 would not recommend. I also didn't realize "fjord" means glacier cut river, so there weren't any actual impressive stereotypical fjords which was disappointing as fuck.

>>2979929
It can be hard to sleep though because noise proofing on the ships is often nonexistent and there's a pretty good chance a neighboring cabin will have a fucking orgy going on. A pair of earplugs are mandatory.

>>2980217
>I enjoyed all of the thoughtful responses to this put forward by the shatbedding brigade.
Don't lump those fuckers in with me m8. I didn't accept their membership into the club. I'm only against DSLR scanning because of the setup time, but I do accept the IQ increase. I just got tired of the constant threads which have gladly kept their distance from /p/ for a while.
Also A7 anon's better than 550d dunce (if you're the same person I'll cry, don't shatter the illusion). I think A7 anon may even be a top tier Bronica Bro.

File: 8A.jpg (529KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1350x900px

>>2979948
On second thought, this shot is much more interesting.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
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	2016:12:09 01:07:37
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1350
Image Height	900

File: IMG_9812.jpg (73KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1280x720px

Bought this for £70. Did I dun goofed?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 1479401935458.png (255KB, 1211x852px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1211x852px

>>2980405
70 brexits for a rickety plastic compact. Kek.

>>2980406
Rickety plastic compact with a Tessar lens though m8

>>2980407
A jewel of gold in a swine's snout.

>>2980407
Tessars are usually rather soft until you stop them down a fair bit, tho?

>>2980429

thats what cuckolds tend to believe.

>>2976902
Is the Nikon F/N80 decent? I wanted to start getting into shooting film and they're pretty cheap. Could I get something better for a reasonable amount more?

>>2980437
There's a reason why late generation film SLRs are cheap. You can find bargain bins full of them. Heavy use of plastic and electronics, early generation AF motors and whatnot made them age like milk. Opposed to older mechanical manual focus cameras, their faults are often fatal, because repairing electronics can be nearly impossible or very expensive.

Get a camera with uncoupled metering so you'll actually learn how to expose.

>>2980436
You have completely convinced me with your masterful use of language and logic.

File: Slobruthers2891.jpg (106KB, 644x495px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 644x495px

>>2980459
>>2980436
>>2980429
>>2980407
>>2980405
That seems like an absurd price for plastic trash, indeed.
You got meme'd, paid terry tax.
Much like people who paid the takumi tax, in about a week's time (about as long as it takes to develop your first roll/lose your first "race" to a loaded taxi) the realisation will hit that you paid $15000 and are now driving around a 30 year old Corolla with a 1.6L NA 4 cylinder.

Tessars have relatively high contrast owing to their 4 element design, thus giving fewer air/glass interfaces, and low field curvature, which again gives them good on paper performance in resolution testing. The thing is, they are not *that* sharp until they're stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.
There is nothing unique about it either; every other prime-lense'd compact has a similar design, except for wide angles like the GR, or the L35AF.

[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	644
Image Height	495

>>2978978
>chromogenic B&W
whyyy?

>>2980449
Have any recs?

yo, ive just started to change from digital to film. i picked up a few older cameras and the only one ive been able to locally find a lense for is the pentax asahi k1000. it was pretty popular from my knowledge. any tips about the camera itself or how to actually go about getting it developed?

>>2980531
ho-ly fuck... i remember when these things were going for $5k a pop with the 4age already swapped.. and they were rust-buckets back then too
plus for $25k you could almost afford an MJU II

>>2980539
For retards who want to shoot black and white film but can't afford to get it processed.
Where I live you can get C-41 processed for £1-2. Black and white costs around £5-6 per roll most places. I guess it's just because it's not as standardised as C-41.

I wouldn't know personally, I only ever used a lab once to process B/W and that was while my kitchen and bathroom were getting renovated.

>>2980754
Here B&W costs the same, but fewer labs do it. Not that there was any point ever using a lab for B&W, but I was a retard and did that for over a year, putting up with all the defects from improper processing like drying stains and scratches from using a fucking squeegee.

Anyway, chromogenic B&W's concept was fine when film shooting was still the norm, normies could try B&W every now and then and turn it in with their regular color neg rolls. In the current year film is shot by hobbyists for whom chromogenic B&W's concept works against itself.

>>2980531
What's so different about the L35AF? I've been using one of those before I decided to buy the Yashica T3 because it broke.

The T3 is pretty nice so far, the NA scope is great for street snaps. I don't think £70 is that much considering the T4/5 goes for double or sometimes triple that. The MJU II is also about £70-100 and if I were to buy another L35AF they're about £50.

File: images (1).jpg (10KB, 291x173px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 291x173px

For a travel camera that's quick on the go, gona shoot some landscapes, some portraits, some lifestyle shit. which one a bessa or leica...

>>2980780
Here's a question or two for you.
>Do you need aperture priority
Yes: Buy the Bessa, an R2A or R3A.
>Do you require a lightmeter?
Yes: Buy a bessa/modern leica
>Do you require 40mm framelines?
Yes: Buy a bessa R3/R3A
>Do you require 1/125 Sync speed?
Yes: Buy a bessa
>Do you require 1/2000 shutter?
Yes: Buy a bessa
>Do you want a fully mechanical shutter?
Yes: Buy a bessa R2/R3 or a Leica up to M6.
>Do you want a slow 1/1000 shutter with 1/50 or 1/60 sync speed that's slightly quiet but still audible?
Yes: Buy a Leica
>Do you have the balls to have a shutter that sounds like a regular SLR/Mirrorless shutter with the mirror up?
Yes: Buy a bessa.
>Do you want a relatively light camera with a small profile?
Yes: Buy a bessa
>Do you want a brass brick that weighs around 100g more but may or may not have a red dot?
Yes: Buy a Leica
>Do you want to show off to everyone who may have an idea of what a Leica is and you have the money to spare?
Yes: Buy a Leica.
>Do you want a 40mm framelined Leica that's a bit of a pain in the arse?
Yes: Buy a Minolta/Leica CLE

Outside of aesthetics, the only real differences are framelines, the shutter and the weight. Modern Leica's have lightmeters and so do the Bessa's. If you require a bit more from your camera (faster shutter/sync speed) A bessa's your choice. The rest is all personal preference. I believe the R2A/R3A series require batteries for the shutter (M7 onwards has this too), but I'm not the type of pleb who requires aperture priority anyway so I can't confirm.

>>2980437
The f90 is the best bargain in film.

File: IMG_8467.jpg (624KB, 2222x2222px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 2222x2222px

>>2980437
I've got a Nikon FE which I absolutely love. Highly recommend if you've already got Nikon glass. Can be had for as little as £50 in good condition.

>>2980821
No autofocus
No auto wind on
No proper flash control
No good metering
No anything

What you've got there is a hipster toy.

Seriously, try out a "modern" body, they are in a different league when it comes to usability.

>>2980789

wtf i love bessa now!

are they this good? ive seen them acceptably priced on ebay too.

>>2980858
i have a bessa and the only thing i prefer on the leica is the quieter shutter and to a lesser extent the effective base length.

people also say bessas feel like a toy next to a leica, but you should really get a hold of both and judge for yourself.

File: IMG_9806.jpg (300KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 960x640px

>>2980823
The metering is fantastic on the FE.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	960
Image Height	640
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2980789
The rangefinder baselength is shorter on the Bessa too, so if you shoot faster/longer lenses, Bessa may give you more shots with missed focus.

Bessa also feels less robust than a Leica, and from what I've read, they do break down easier. Like some others, I don't like the shutter sound. It's not loud or anything, just doesn't sound as good as a cloth shutter.

But are you ready to pay extra for all that and the red dot? I personally got a Bessa R2. A M6 would still be nice, but for now I'd rather spend that money on film.

>>2980911
>Bessa also feels less robust than a Leica, and from what I've read, they do break down easier.
lol bullshit youve done no research
bessas are 1000 times harder to knock out of alignment

>>2980911
>from what I've read in forums like leicaforum, leica is best

lmaooooo

>>2977834
český /p/ setkání kdy?

File: Soldier.jpg (275KB, 879x1000px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 879x1000px

love my cannon F1, recently found it in my parent's garage and started shooting on it.
hasn't been touched for 30 years and it still works great

>>2978354
between the two? The F1.
It's just sex in a camera form.
Especially if it's purely sentimental, having a camera that looks as good as it works will help them get into the hobby

>>2980913
I've not read any comments about alignment but if that's true, cool! I'm not babying mine, and it is pretty beat up looking already (got it for super cheap) yet seems to be spot on. No idea when it has been calibrated previously.

>>2980917
IIRC it was for the more electronics reliant models. I wanted a mechanical anyway since I only need a meter, and so got the R2.

>tfw bought a Pentacks 6x7 today and got to experience the massive mirror flopping around for the first time

Hold me /p/, I think I'm in love

>>2980965
>KA-CHAK

its so rewarding.

File: IMG_20161210_201612.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

I'll be shooting on this old orwo , any tips & advices on how to work with expired film are appreciated :3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Exif Software Version 1.0.2.0
Camera Model	GT-I9300
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	3264
Image Created	2016:12:10 20:16:12
Image Height	2448
Unique Image ID	ZDFI02
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
ISO Speed Rating	800
F-Number	f/2.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Lens Aperture	f/2.6
Brightness	-1.0 EV
Color Space Information	sRGB
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	2448
Image Width	3264
Focal Length	3.70 mm
Flash	No Flash

Has anyone got a crack/serial for colorperfect for mac? I've managed to get a torrent for Vuescan but there's nothing out there for colorperfect.

>>2980979

i hope you do LOVE lomography.

>>2980979
that film is already gone man, it was 25 iso back in the 70's, if you go by the reduce one stop every 10 years you would get around 10 iso, and even then you don't know how it was stored or anything. So just try and use it for snapshits and see how it goes, but i seriously doubt you can get any half decent results

>>2981005
I have no idea what that is

>>2981019
I'm doing this for fun so I don't mind getting noting

>>2980979
good news:it's slow bw film which is the sort to keep best. least fogging.
bad news: it's slow bw film that's 40 (holy fuck) years old. you will get usable results exposing at, uh, iso 3-12? Basically a roll of daytime long exposure film. Kinda awful. Dunno man, I'd auction it off and buy a fresh roll with the proceeds. Or just not get it in the first place. Good luck have fun if you're from the northern hemisphere at this time of year.

>>2981032
>daytime long exposure
exaggerated. I've shot on slow 20 years old bw film and got decent results

>>2981035
*with 1/60

File: sky.jpg (114KB, 1000x206px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1000x206px

why is the sky uneven? is this a camera thing? development? busted film?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3199 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3199 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:10 18:18:26
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	206

>>2981044
Probably bromide drag lines under the sprocket holes, happens if the developer is not agitated enough during processing.

>>2981044
welcome to the world of film! I too get uneven skies with c41 to varying degrees. It's pretty much unnoticeable on medium format, but sometimes rears it's head with c41. Funny thing is, I don't have this problem with e6. Same equipment, 5 degree hotter chems, same techniques, and I've never had anything uneven on my Provia in small format. Still haven't figured it out.

>>2981047

its 120

>>2981070

weird. my e6's from the same lab have impeccable skies with velvia.

>>2980774
It's a 5 element Sonnar design.
Has a softer look, much nicer for portraits.

>>2981072
Another thing I've noticed is that if you are post processing and noticeably "pull" the highlights, it makes matters much worse. I stressed over this for quite sometime and in the end I just gave up. Couldn't determine the cause. Gimmie a few minutes and let me dig up some examples.

File: images.jpg (14KB, 265x190px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 265x190px

I've got a roll of 1992 expired Ektachrome 64 Tungsten lying around.
What should I consider when shooting it?
Should I go full LOMO shoot in daylight without filters and cross process it afterwards.
Or should I use filters and develop it in E6?

>>2981100

shoot gas stations at night. shoot it at iso 50.

File: 1358193048377.jpg (86KB, 787x523px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 787x523px

You guys need a sticky. I'm getting my first film camera, what's the decent beginner film I should be getting?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	3
Image-Specific Properties:

>>2981147
kodachrome

File: 1468402382421s.jpg (9KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x247px

>>2981147
i need to know this too

>>2978417
thanks for fulfilling the 4chan contrarian faggot quota. you are excused

thats it, im literally shaking with rage. i dont have a single decent 6x6 camera, cant make this shit up.

redpill me on bronica 6x6, guys.

>>2981147
>>2981157
shoot Tri-X and develop it yourself. Cheap, distinctive, and forgiving.

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

123KB, 800x800px

>>2981165
One of the resident SQ shooters reporting in. Have had mine since 2006. Used it as my main camera from 2007-2010 and then again from 2012-present.

It's the best bang for your buck 6x6 SLR camera system out there. Incredibly affordable, robust, and dead simple. It's the one camera I'll never sell and if the day comes that it finally breaks (I abuse the hell out of mine) it will be replaced by another SQ. Optics are great, I've made beautiful 24"x24" prints from mine.

What do you want to know?

>>2981165
Buy a mamiya 6

>>2981147
Kodak gold or fuji superia

>>2981178

>>2981177
This guy again. Used a Mamiya 6 as my main 2010-2012. If rangefinders are your thing the 6 is a solid choice...especially for travel. The collapsable lens mount really makes it compact in your bag. Also, since its an RF the lenses are much smaller than the SQ's.

Shooting with it is nothing special though. So if this is someone's first foray into MF shooting with a 6 may feel pretty underwhelming.

>>2981147
just buy the cheapest bw film available to you. get some Rodinal and start developing. You can't really fuck anything up with Rodinal.

>>2981177
>800x800

also what do you think of the bronica EC?

File: 17243922596_8f36844227_b.jpg (456KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 999x999px

>>2981194
It's older and accessories/lenses are much less common. It's also not any cheaper than an SQ. There's no reason to opt for an EC over an SQ in my eyes.

>>2981197
now im less attracted to the idea. what do you think of the yashica mat 124? these have the look i want, bronicas have this "modern" rendering i dont like too much.

File: 17269375931_a961fcdaed_b.jpg (335KB, 999x999px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 999x999px

>>2981199
I know nothing about TLRs since they aren't my cup of tea. Mind posting an example of what sort of 'look' you want? From what I've seen 124Gs also have quite crisp, modern rendering...but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you want.

File: tumblr_inline_n2jssr75cF1rvg3oq.png (86KB, 214x242px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 214x242px

want to buy first film camera to try it out
what is best/decent to begin with?

preferably cheap

File: ym124.jpg (124KB, 444x446px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 444x446px

>>2981200
like this. sharp but soft, not that contrasty. tessar like, bokeh is more animated. from the bronica pics i get more of a xenar feeling, out of focus areas are "static".

>>2981208
124g bro here
the camera kinda sucks to be honest. very hard to get nice contrast out of it. seems 'cheap' for such an expensive camera (now at least). if you enjoy the look out of them, then great, but its not really versatile and has quite poor tolerances

File: Dec 10 2016 0.jpg (431KB, 1000x985px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1000x985px

>>2981044
>>2981092
So this is about as even a sky as I get with c41. I know I'm gonna catch some shit for this, but it seems I get more even skies with this Lomo100 than I get with Kodak Pro films. That might be my fault, or maybe it's not.

Also, 6x6 reporting in.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One 10.0 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	1000
Image Height	985
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

File: 17082196158_4f43c5ba5d_b.jpg (332KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 800x800px

>>2981208
Honestly, I don't see the problem with achieving this look with the Bronica. All you need to do is shoot wide open, miss the focus on the face a bit, and use diffused window light.

TLR vs SLR should be more of the deciding factor rather than that look (which I'd argue is more of a product of lighting and focus than particular optics) given how much film type and post production can effect the image. Bokeh is kinda the only thing that the lens effects that you can't manipulate...and I agree that the Bronica lenses don't have any special bokeh effects going for them.

But yeah, figure out what style of camera you want first, then look into optics. Cross shopping TLRs with SLRs is kinda weird.

>>2981215
reee sky looks lumpy and dirty. do you selfdevelop?

medium format should be fucking clean, i dont know why the fuck im getting these uneven skies. maybe the low iso helps. but what is it, then? bad rolls? bad developing?

File: DSC04657_stitch.jpg (344KB, 814x1000px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 814x1000px

>>2981218
Yep, I do.

And using the same equipment, the same techniques, the same scanning rig etc, here are the skies I get with provia. Is it me??? Can some of you other fine gentlemen post up some c41 skies???

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:15 23:23:36

>>2981217
optics are first. wlf needed, will do with a single normal lens.

File: SailboatFerry.jpg (627KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

627KB, 800x800px

>>2981220
Here's some c41 sky developed at a lab. Film is Portra 160NC.

>>2981222
Well if you're fine with a single lens, don't mind dealing with parallax error, and enjoy the photos you've seen taken with the 124g it sounds like you've found the camera for you! Go buy it anon.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3224
Image Height	3200
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	73 dpi
Vertical Resolution	73 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2011:05:14 16:10:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2981071
Irrelevant. The most likely reason for streaks like that is that the film has developed unevenly, which happens if it's not agitated well enough during the process.

File: img008.jpg (952KB, 1244x1256px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 1244x1256px

Since 6x6 seems to be the theme of the day, here are a few of my recent Nettar snaps now that I've been released from the shackles of NORITSU KOKI.

File: img009.jpg (977KB, 1280x1248px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 1280x1248px

I swear train autism is the only damn thing you can do in this town.

File: img011.jpg (1MB, 1280x1253px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x1253px

Last one one. The Novar lens has some weird-ass field curvature, DOF seems to be extremely convex so shit falls off around the edges.

>>2981226
Yep. I see the same muddiness I get with my c41. It's especially noticeable in the thumbnail.

>>2981228
I hear what you are saying, but I have tried every possible method of agitation, different temps, longer and shorter dev times, pre washes, no pre-wash, unicolor chems, genuine Kodak Flexicolor chems, etc. You name it, I've tried it. Still get muddy skies. This >>2981226
anon posted his lab developed skies and I see the same muddiness I get. I love c41 for everything but this.

>>2981228
Also to note, if my agitation is at fault, why does my e6 and b+w skies come out perfect?

File: Madeira5_16.jpg (1MB, 1280x856px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x856px

>>2981234
>>2981235
Then I guess it's your camera somehow. >>2981226's photo just shows vignetting which is caused by the lens, but yours doesn't look like it. Also some scanners cause streaks when they are about to die because the sensor sensitivity has become uneven, but those are usually more clearly defined. May want to keep an eye on your scanner in case they get worse. I've shot C-41 for years and always had nice, clean skies, except for the one occasion when my 2nd hand scanner died of old age and caused a dark streak across the frame.

Does anyone know if any stores in Japan sell the Yashica Electro 35?

File: WillSunburst.jpg (102KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 800x800px

>>2981242
I've seen them in both general second hand stores, as well as second hand camera stores.

>>2981234
I don't see the muddiness in my photo. It looks iffy in the thumbnail...but I think that's due to shitty compression/resizing on 4chin's part.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1799
Image Height	1799
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	293 dpi
Vertical Resolution	293 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2009:03:23 20:16:50
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

>>2980823
>nikon FE
>No good metering
Confirmed for total fucking moron.
Stop giving advice on the internet.

>>2981005
>>2981019
>>2981032
Bad advice.
>>2980979
Don't shoot it at 3, you will roast it beyond salvageability.
Shoot it at 20, extend your development time by about 1/3rd.
It will be fine.

>>2981243
Cheers. I've been looking at some camera sites and found most to be cheaper in my country

File: IMG_2859.jpg (86KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1000x667px

Here's some Tri-X 400 I pushed to 1600 on a rainy day. Canon A-1 with 50mm 1.8

File: IMG_2861.jpg (109KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1000x667px

>>2981267
Two/3?

File: IMG_2851.jpg (116KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1000x667px

>>2981268
Three/3