Film General Thread

File: untitled.jpg (452KB, 1100x725px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1100x725px

6x9 Acros

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

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

File: rip.jpg (216KB, 1220x1034px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1220x1034px

post film gore

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1220
Image Height	1034

On average, what size could I print 6x45 images shot on ISO 160 film, generally in broad daylight so with a reasonably fast shutter speed?
Mulling over whether I should go 6x9 or 6x45 for my first foray into MF but I won't print excessively large (nothing larger than 30" on the short side)

>>3014075
beautiful shot.

where can I buy cheap film?

is it really worth the time and effort of developing your own b&w? I work full time and I'm also lazy. isn't there a risk of fucking up and losing the entire roll?

>>3014104
hey, thanks for the reply matey.

what do you say, stop is unnecessary? I'll have to look into this. maybe I'll read a guide or two. thanks!

File: NakedRainbowLake2.jpg (532KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 800x800px

>>3014099
>where can I buy cheap film?
Depends where you live.

>is it really worth the time and effort of developing your own b&w?
It would probably take less time to develop a roll yourself than it would to drive back and forth to a lab to drop a roll off and pick it back up. For me, I save $12/roll by developing myself.

>I work full time
Who doesn't?

>I'm also lazy
It takes less effort than jacking off.

>isn't there a risk of fucking up and losing the entire roll?
Yes, but the only way that will really happen is if you mix up the order of the chemicals. There are 2 chemicals (developer and fixer, stop is unnecessary) so odds of you mixing them up are tiny if you have half a brain and pay attention.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5031
Image Height	4984
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	2012:07:05 13:55:12
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	800

File: ZooShark.jpg (115KB, 675x439px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 675x439px

>>3014106
Sorry, deleted that post and resubmitted it here >>3014107

I say stop is unnecessary because a quick rinse with water after the developing stage and then going straight to fixer is totally fine. A purist may disagree, but I'm lazy too. I've been developing bw without a stop bath since 2004.

[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	111 dpi
Vertical Resolution	111 dpi
Image Created	2007:04:23 18:04:33
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	675
Image Height	439

File: Yashica-Mat-124-G-Camera-1200x800.jpg (170KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1200x800px

Hey /fgt/,

I'm about to get this camera. 130 eurbucks, is it a good deal ? It seems in good condition, and the light meter works.

I always wanted to get into the MF meme, but too poor to get Rolleiflex or Bronica.

Also if there is any enlarger bro here : I do my own prints, so with 6x6 negs I could make larger prints than 30x40, right ? It's kind of the maximum I can get with 24x36 negs.

>>3014122
good camera, I have a Yashica-D myself so I can't really tell you how reliable the light meter is but it should be fine

File: JPY160NS115 - JPY160NS120mini.jpg (210KB, 1090x800px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1090x800px

>>3014083
>but I won't print excessively large
>(nothing larger than 30" on the short side)
Hate to break it to you buddy, but anything over 11x14 is excessively large.

>>3014169
30" with medium format is still excessively large?

>>3014190
have you ever printed 30 inches? you have to print on a fucking wall or in a giant lab with a huge fucking enlarger. medium format is good up to 11x14 tops.. 6x7 is very well suited for printing up to 8x10. if you want to print 30 inches you are using a 4x5 or 8x10 negative. Do you know how expensive it would be to make a 30 inch photo?

>>3014192
Are you sure he's not just going to scan & print digitally?

30 Inches at 300 DPI is "only" 9000 pixels. Depending on the setup, I think he ought to be able to pull that from 6x9. 645 no way, tho.

>>3014169
Are we talking about darkroom wet printing or printing digitally from a printer?

>>3014122
>130 eurbucks
NOPE. Don't buy a TLR with a lightmeter. Pick the yashica D.

What do you guys think of the Yashica A TLR camera?
Is the Yashica Mat 124g the only worth TLR by Yashica?

>>3014283
>Is the Yashica Mat 124g the only worth TLR by Yashica?

read yesterday that it has lots of plastic shit inside. but, that it has the most probability of having multicoated lenses, which the earlier models lack.

>>3014285
also, newer models have 5 blades, while the older models have 9 or 11 iirc. and yall know less blades = bokeh succ.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-02-02 à 14.02.10.png (550KB, 572x529px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 572x529px

>>3014283
>>3014285
The mat is basically a Yashica D with a lightmeter and worst build quality.
The D is build like a tank.
>pic related
Paid 30 Reichmarks on mine, did a paint job and cleaned it. Works just fine. Made in 1957.

>>3014283
I have the D and it's alright. Some spacing issues when not winding carefully but otherwise fine despite being quite beat up. Just make sure you like the ergonomics - I found I don't like tlr's or wlf's personally after shooting with it for a bit.

>>3014099
I buy Acros from this guy on ebay:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/121987047460?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

>>3014296
The glass is the same though. And i'd take a built-in light meter over a shinier box any day.

File: FH000007.jpg (462KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1818x1228px

rate my snapshits
1/4

[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	2017:02:02 12:36:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

File: FH000018.jpg (362KB, 1818x804px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1818x804px

>>3014363

[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	2017:02:02 12:38:17
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1818
Image Height	804

File: FH000019.jpg (889KB, 1228x1818px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1228x1818px

>>3014364

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1228
Image Height	1818
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	2017:02:02 12:39:09
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1228
Image Height	1818

File: FH000028.jpg (912KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

912KB, 1818x1228px

>>3014365

[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	2017:02:02 12:40:31
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

is the SX-70 a good polaroid camera?

would you buy one? if not what else?

File: w2.jpg (158KB, 856x584px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 856x584px

>>3014204
>>3014192
>>3014190
Hey, you can print any size from any source you like, at the end of the day. You just have to decide what your accepable level of quality is. This is a crop from >>3014169 which is 6000px on the long side. As you can see, the shot itself has motion blur, it was like 1/8th off a boat.
But using good technique, there's no reason you couldn't make a 645 frame that worked at that resolution you're after. It would probably just be better as 69 or 45.

Learn to link to previous thread faggot.

>>3014283
>>3014296

I had 124g and it was very plasticy. Lens was good though.

Get an older model.

File: Vapaa-style.jpg (995KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 1000x672px

Ultramax 400.

>>3014280
>yashica D

Then I'd have to cop a light meter, which costs almost the price of the camera.

>B-but the sunny 16

Not reliable considering the price of one roll.

Btw thank you for your arguments, you really convinced me.

File: Snowday 02.jpg (1MB, 1422x969px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1422x969px

>>3014472
Ei vittu, meil samat

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: img250.jpg (492KB, 1172x1777px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1172x1777px

Fuji 400 processed in Ilfosol 3 because I don't give a shit about quality, I guess

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:02 16:54:42
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1172
Image Height	1777

File: 17634358676_527247291e_b.jpg (264KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1000x1000px

>>3014472
Shittiest film ever. Nice shot though.

>>3014476
I know nothing about those TLRs, but a phone light meter would definitely suffice. Test a few with a known good meter until you find a consistent one.

>>3014274
>>3014204
>>3014192
I meant scanning and printing digitally to hang on the wall, not an actual photograph yes.

>>3014476
>B-but the sunny 16
>Not reliable

Nigga what? People were shooting without a meter until the 70's. Just use your phone if you're not that confident.

You can't screw up a exposure on BW or color film. You can always recover the detail after.

>>3014285
>>3014296
>>3014303
>>3014340
>not getting a Yashica 635 instead and use a better non meme tier 35mm film which are cheaper, practical and easier to get

>>3014591
>using 35mm on a MF camera
God forbid

Just brought a hexar rf for 500.
Is that a fairly standard price?

File: IMG_0230.jpg (2MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3024x4032px

Ok fgts I got a 1970 c330 tlr and I like it but my 65mm lens if fogged and it's fairly large and the lower angle portrait style is getting old. I'm wondering am I missing out by staying with a tlr, is there a better system to move on to. I have the 65mm, 80mm, 105mm and 135mm lens. What if any other 6x6 cams are going to make my life easier, size, ergonomics etc.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s Plus
Camera Software	10.1.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:02 21:11:10
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-0.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3024
Image Height	4032
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.3
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3014601
Clean your 65mm, get a prism finder, quit your bitching.

>>3014601
get bronica. i think tlrs should be fixed lens or else just dont. they are enough cumbersome as they are. i have a rolleiflex, its small and cool, my c220 is too bulky, i dont like the image rendering a lot either, i think i have used it like 2 times in two years.

>>3014607
How to clean the internal element? I'll stop bitching I've used the thing a lot just wondering what's out there you know. Also I'm thinking the flash bracket and the prism will help but it makes the damn thing more bulky.

What's the correct procedure to figure out (empirically or mathematically) how long a film needs to be developed? Let's pretend I have a film/developer combo, and there exists no developing times for that combo. Where do I start?

File: IMG_20161008_230256.jpg (294KB, 1080x1350px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1080x1350px

>>3014615
Find a developer that is chemically similar. Find a similar film to the one you want to develop that you can find dev times for for both developers. Compare the times. Note any differences. Now find the dev time for the film you want to dev with the developer your cross checking with and take that time and adjust it according to your findings.

That's how I found dev times for films in Fuji Microfine. No times to be found for any non-Fuji films.

>>3014615
We'll my mate, you'd make a table of dev times (eye balled based off the ISO of the film and the concentration of the developer) you'd expose equal number of frames as dev times at the ISO of the film. (If testing 8 different dev times you'd have 8 different frames) Then you'd dev each frame at each corresponding dev time and you'd find which frame was properly developed. Assuming you have a light meter so you know your exposures were sound. There's probably a way to math it but fug it.

>>3014615
Let's say you have a film between 100 and 400 iso. You can develop it with rodinal at 1:100 for an hour.
>agitation first 30 seconds
>let it rest
>couple of inversions after 30min
>let it rest

>>3014629
Also higher ISO generally means longer dev times and higher concentration developer means quicker dev times

File: 420410.jpg (199KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 600x600px

Should I, /p/?

It's the cheapest bulk film I can buy.

>>3014635
I've heard it's pretty decent stuff? It's funny how people always ask if they should buy the cheapest stuff when it's the lowest risk but I never see people asking about the most expensive. I'd say fuck it and get it, at the very worst it's low quality bwfilm at the best it's cheap bwfilm.

>>3014640
>It's funny how people always ask if they should buy the cheapest stuff
It's cheaper than kodak and ilford but it still cost 40 euros + shiping.

File: small.jpg (967KB, 783x1200px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 783x1200px

Thoughts?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	7104
Image Height	4752
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:02:03 17:32:01
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	783
Image Height	1200

>>3014635
No. Splash the cash for some Delta/HP5 if you're in the EU or buy the Fomapan but don't buy 30 metres of it.

If you're looking for a film that pushes well or has good reciprocity characteristics, this is not a good thing to have 30m in your loader.

>>3014467
seriously.
who ever makes the new threads can you please link the new ones to the old one so we all know to migrate?

>>3014652
I was getting the 100 iso actually.

I only shoot HP5 at 1600 but I shoot most of the time slower films like FP4, neopan, delta 100, tmax100, etc..

>>3014658

dude. want a cool relatively low iso b&w? trust me: get fucking rollei 80s.

just get that shit.

>>3014659
Actually I have a roll of RPX100 on 35mm and rollei ATP in 120 film on my freezer.

I've never tried a rollei film before seems like they're made by agfa in Belgium.

>>3014658
Retro 80s is the same price as Fomapan 100 for 30m and you'll probably enjoy it a lot more than Fomapan. Foma in 35mm is a bit of a joke. Hell, FP4 is around the same cost but for 17m, RPX 25's a bit cheaper for 17m but those are all better options than Fomapan for bulk loading.

At the very least, shoot a roll of it first before buying 30 metres of the stuff.

>>3014677
>At the very least, shoot a roll of it first before buying 30 metres of the stuff.

This. This so much. Why doesn't everybody do this. Just run a roll through see if you like it instead of comitting blind to 20 rolls of entirely unknown stuff. Fomapan is hands down the worst emulsion commercially available and still manufactured. It has the worst reciprocity, grain, actual film speed and it secretly draws dicks on all your photos. If that's the look you like with bw film, hey, fomapan will be great for you, but otherwise, everything is a better option. So many cheap slower films on the market. Kentmere, ilford pan 100, rollei rpx, agfa apx, (though pan 100 is a league above kent and rpx from every example I ever saw)

How do you like pearl paper /fgt/? I need to buy some paper for printing and I feel like glossy was a bit too shiny for the type of street snapping I do. So the two other choices are pearl and satin.

File: kms.jpg (40KB, 709x765px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 709x765px

Attempted to develop my first roll ever today, meticulously studied the process and what I had to do to get it right, got access to my university's darkroom and went at it with what I thought was a throwaway roll.

Midway through development I realized I had accidentally grabbed a roll of Portra 400 I had been sitting on, loaded of course with pictures from my cousin's college graduation (her dumbass parents somehow lost all their photos so I am the only one with shots from it) plus the last pictures I have of my dog who passed away earlier in January. Pretty much all of the negatives look like dogshit now.

Anyone else ever done something this stupid with film?

File: devious hiei.png (39KB, 179x196px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 179x196px

>>3014699
>decide to shoot Tri-X at 1600
>after shootan realize you accidentally used a roll of TMax
>results are still good

>>3014699
Worst I've done is shoot bw when I thought it was color.

I did leave my Bronica in a field of buffalos accidently for about 2 hours. Luckily didn't get trampled. Went to go shoot a photo and couldn't find my camera. Realized I had left it at the last spot I stopped at. Got back there well after sunset but found it just sitting there on a small rock right where I had set it down.

>>3014080
Every time I come across photographic paper at the thrift store, some fucknut opened the package.

http://www.youtube.com/negativefeedback/

This guy shoots on films, but it's evident that his photos are post-processed. Which Lightroom preset do you think he uses? Thanks in advance.

>color film was built for white people. Here's what it did for dark skin

https://youtu.be/d16LNHIEJzs

>>3014677
>>3014691
Well I don't have the choice to try it before. I live in a shitty country, someone is going to bring it to me.

Kentmere 100 is actually breddy gut but they don't sell it in bulk.

Is 17m of FP4 really worth the money?

>>3014754
YES buy the better one, dont be a cheap faggot.

>>3014699
wow. thats pretty bad.

can you upload any of the shots to see how fucked they are?

>>3014699
i have loaded my semi auto film compact without telling it the film was 400 asa and not 100. of course overexposed crap came out. i wanted to kys me.

>>3014699
scan em, probably can pull usable photos out.

>>3014699
Eh don't worry I did the same shit with a 120roll of portra 400, accidentally thought it was a roll of 125p. Dev'd for 7mins in d76 1+1 and it actually still turned out enough that I can definitely scan and should be able to print the pictures on bw paper still.

my mamiya blocked itself again after 9 exposures & I want to kms
I just wanted a mf camera to take pics, why does god hate me so much

>>3014699
for some reason I poured 150ml of rodinal instead of 15ml into the dev tank

>>3014947
I don't believe you. Also,
>using more than 3ml of rodinal

>>3014099
c200 is pretty cheap on ebay all the time. lots of potential in that film.

>>3014599
yeah. not an amazing deal but not a bad one. still amazing value.

>>3014615
HC-110 is very similar to Ilfotec HC, but development times tend to be 6-6½ min where Ilfotec HC would have 7. That's all I know about figuring out dev specs from related developers.

>>3014635
Nah. RPX 400 is better in every way, except at being a visibly oldschool emulsion straight from the seventies which it certainly fails at. Costs about the same in bulk as well. Or you can go for HP5+, that's a terrific (if different, I'd call it grittier) film as well.

For slower bulk-loads, I'd suggest RPX 100 (in HC-110 dil.B) -- it's about as close as you can get to the old formula (exp. 2012 or earlier) of APX 100 in Rodinal 1+50, which is straight-up fucking lovely. Or just buy rolls of Kentmere 100, that's only 50 eurocents more per roll than a bulk load, and you get cartridges to use for bulk loads in the future with every roll.

I've bought bulk rolls of rpx100, rpx400, fomapan 400, and fp4+; and in my opinion the fomapan 400 was a problem in the sense of "now I've gone and loaded my expensive plastic cartridges with film that I don't want to use anymore". FP4+ had a similar issue in that it's just too good to spend willy-nilly on walk-around snapshits. The Rollei films I will definitely buy more of in the future, and fp4+ in single rolls. Dregs of the fomapan 400 reel will last me until I have my next GAS episode.

File: rodi.jpg (1MB, 1200x804px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x804px

>>3014485

What you on about?

Ultramax is a great film.

>>3014368
If you want instant film, it's probably got the best quality. Would not pay more than 40 or 50 one though because film costs an arm and a leg.

Instax wide if you want a modern version. It doesn't really have the same feel but it's a lot cheaper. Fuji is developing a new instant film camera. God knows when it'll come out but, if you're not in a rush, I'd wait.

>>3015022
... forgot to mention that both RPX 100 and 400 respond to yellow, orange, and green filters exactly as one would expect. HP5+ mostly does too, but FP4+ loses way too much contrast with anything stronger than yellow, and PanF+ doesn't seem to benefit from yellow and demands too much light with orange and green. Tri-X is the reference film for comparison.

Fomapan 400 I've not shot with filters. Same for Acros.

I have no idea about RPX 25. I've shot a single roll, metering by summer-fatigued early morning eye, on a semi-working Fed 3, and that turned out varyingly terrible and semi-passable. Given the lighting circumstances, I think the film just has a low dynamic range. Saw no benefit to using it with a zebra Industar.

>>3015056
It's the grainiest 35mm film I've ever used by a big margin. Blue skies look like trash in particular.

>>3015188

Your metering and scannings are wrong.

Ultramax is great. Don't blame emulsion for your own incompetence.

>>3015191
ultramax is ass.

>>3015191
Doubt my metering and scanning are wrong. I can see the grain on the negatives themselves. I have a few rolls of the stuff left and don't even want to shoot it. Compared to other budget films it's by far the worst in my experience. Superia looks like 100 iso in comparison.

>>3014640
>It's funny how people always ask if they should buy the cheapest stuff
Not really, we're conditioned to believe that high price is a guarantee of quality, so we don't need to be reassured of the purchase.
I work in a bottleshop, the number of people that pick up the cheapest wine we sell and ask me if it's any good astounds me.
>it's $6 wine, you fucking moron, I'd say it's probably pretty shitty by any objective analysis, but it's probably also wholly adequate for a scabby crackhead like you
>>3014635
You're the scabby crackhead in this scenario, and yes, I'd say that foma 400 is probably wholly adequate for a basic babby like yourself.
>at least if you roll your own you can blame yourself for the scratches

>>3014615
Do what >>3014626 says.
I wanted to dev my Rollei Ortho 25 in Neofin Blau, but the massive dev chart had no times for it.
So I looked for other slow films that did have published neofin times, found one that had a similar time to the Ortho 25 in a more common developer like Rodinal, and used the neofin time for that.
>6.5 mins btw
At the end of the day, it's worth remembering that it's not that exact a process, even if your times are off by a couple of minutes you'll still get an image you can do something with, and you'll have a better idea of what to do next time.

>>3014699
Nope, worst I've done is accidentally dispose of my fixer without pouring it back in the bottle.

>>3014693
Satin=pearl.
Pearl is for portraits, baby. Unless you shoot street wide open, or with an artful vignette, I'd say go gloss.
Try glossy fibre, it's much less shiny than RC, you're actually sposed to hot press it to get the shine up, so if you just rawdog it it keeps a bit of tooth, but still gives you a dank black.

File: acros-web (23 of 29).jpg (3MB, 3000x1973px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1973px

>>3014699
First time I dev'd B&W at home I couldn't get the film onto the paterson reel. So naturally like an adult I cracked the shits after an hour and just rolled up the film in the bottom of the tank, put the center thing in and then put a spare reel on top of the loose film and developed it like that.

Surprisingly the film came out pretty well, here's a throwaway shot from said roll.

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

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

>>3015225
how did you scan it?

>>3015229
Plustek 8100

Usually a lot sharper than this, however I missed focus and was shooting at like 1/15th trying to get the roll finished

>>3015230
looks darn nice. i was actually looking at some plusteks on ebay earlier today.

File: noosa_preview.jpg (1MB, 989x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 989x1500px

>>3015232
They're not bad. If you can get one for a good price used then do so, perfect for personal use and decent sized prints.

DSLR scanning is better quality but more of a fuckaround to setup.

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

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

File: 20170203_230248.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

first time trying to make contact print sheets today. used a tool that was like a piece of plastic with sponge on one side and nice masked piece of glass for the negatives on the other side. it closes over like a book to sandwich the glass, negatives and paper.
there's gotta be an easier way to set this up without the pieces of masking tape i used in pic related.
i used tiny pieces because it was a piece i picked off the desk, didn't have any more to hand.
does anyone know what these tools are called so i might look up a manual? it was a bit of a nightmare to get the negatives to line up with the mask. it probably didn't help that my negatives weren't flat though, they'd been stored in an empty canister...
thanks!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-J320FN
Camera Software	J320FNXXU0APK2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:03 23:02:48
Exposure Time	1/16 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	3.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Unique Image ID	IMAGE 2017:02:03 23:02:48

>>3015238
>there's gotta be an easier way to set this up without the pieces of masking tape i used in pic related.
Literally just laying a sheet of glass over the negatives.

>>3015252
this. kek man.

>>3015220

Neofin Blau is extremely unpredictable developer. You can't trust the developing times you find online. You have to test the times yourself.

Developing times for iso 100 are really fast. 4 minutes can give under develobed negs and 6 minutes can give overexposed negs.

Neofin Blue isn't worth the hastle compared to Rodinal. Once you finally through trial and error happen to get good negatives with Neofin it will look pretty much the same as Rodinal.

>>3015252
but they were curling up into circles...
i guess i can't use one without my negatives being flat.

any good and cheap m39 lenses?

want a canon P.

File: tourist-snaps.jpg (467KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1000x666px

>>3015262
>place negative down and lay piece of glass over it
>place next strip of negative next to the edge of the glass
>??????
>Profit

>>3015293
Industar-61.

File: F1000001edit.jpg (669KB, 1000x670px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 1000x670px

Is there any legitimate reason why places charge a fee for push/pull? Would these places really develop a 3200ASA film no worries but If I gave them a 400ASA film shot at 3200 they would charge extra to develop at 3200? I can kinda understand with B&W but with C41 would it be any extra work in the slightest?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SLP1000SE
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232
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	2017:02:04 15:18:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	670

>>3015315
>but with C41 would it be any extra work in the slightest?
>I can understand
Do you really? C-41 is a set process. With your chems, in your processor every C-41 emulsion is processed at the same time/temperature at box speed. Pushing and pulling C-41 requires more effort and more time. Even if you don't see it as effort, that's time that one film is processing that you could be processing others.

>>3015318
Okay I wasnt thinking in relation to machine time but I think the overall point of the extra charge just for the concept of push or pull is a bit ridiculous. If you base charge of machine and labour time then higher asa would mean higher charge rather than basing it on what the manufacturer recommends a film be shot at

>>3015318
>>3015324
Sorry misread you a little bit. You said C41 is processed at box speed. Can the machine really read off the canister or something on the film? I was under the impression that the person loading the film in to the process machine always enter the film speed when the start the machine. Is that how it works?

>>3015324
You know, you're replying to me thinking that I care but what you're going to get is a whole different side than what you expected.

If you're unhappy with labs, process your own shit or shut the fuck up. No-one gives a fuck about your lab woes and issues.
>>3015327
It has nothing to do with DX code. The C-41 process is a universal process. The only adjustments required are different temperatures for different chemistry (fuji, kodak etc).

File: sku_194985_1.jpg (20KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x600px

>>3015328
>You know, you're replying to me thinking that I care but what you're going to get is a whole different side than what you expected.
Why did you bother replying in the first place?

>>3015331
I'm here almost entirely to answer questions outside of my own threads. Why didn't you just look up the C-41 process in the first place? That would have answered your question for you.
Boo-hoo a lab charges more to push/pull. You're always free to take your business elsewhere or process by yourself.

Currently scanning my first roll of Natura 1600. This shit rocks. I'll post some scans a little later

Exposed at 100-3200 and developed at 1600 and it came out amazingly. Even in low light the shadow detail is stunning

>>3015257
bzzt, wrong.
Contrast with the Rollei Ortho 25 and rodinal was way too high, it looked like litho film.
Neofin gave continuous tone and finer grain.
I think your problem was also trying to develop 100 speed film in it.
It was made for 1950's slow film, not 21st century "slow" film. It will be what I use for my tech pan if I ever get round to using it.

>>3014959
uhm ok pal

>>3015178
Thanks for both great informative posts. Could you elaborate on what you use green filters for?

File: Akiba 1600 16.jpg (981KB, 1440x963px) Image search: [Google]

981KB, 1440x963px

>>3015386
Natura 1600 is great. It isn't even that bad in daylight considering the speed, only the colors become washed out somehow.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3015424
Yeah I'm a big fan, my only regret is I didn't buy any more. During daytime you can pretty much set your camera to whatever shutterspeed and aperture you want and you'll still get an exposure, it's awesome.

Now scanning a roll of Superia Premium which is equally as kickass. Nice warm colours for a fuji film

File: Hiroshima 02 03.jpg (1002KB, 1280x857px) Image search: [Google]

1002KB, 1280x857px

>>3015427
Hell yes. Natura, Superia Premium and Venus were my Japan staples. Wish they were easily available on gaijin markets without having to pay jewgold prices.

Pic related is Superia Premium at 800.

File: natura-web (1 of 1).jpg (611KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1000x667px

>>3015430
Natura's lack of grain is based. First scan from the roll

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

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

Man, I should buy some Natura.

>>3015435
>this is iso 1600 35mm film

Why the fuck isnt this Fuji's most sold/exported film yet.

File: Tokyo D 17.jpg (1MB, 872x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 872x1280px

>>3015435
>>3015443
I know right? Here's a shot of Natura 1600 in daylight at box speed. Colors are bland but it's sharper and less grainy than C200 or Colorplus.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	NovaJinx
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3015315
At our lab we don't charge extra for push/pull of B/W, since those films have wildly varying developing times anyway, but of course we prefer to develop at box speed since chances are higher we can stick more film with the same dev times in the machine.
For C-41 push we charge extra, unless you bring in enough film to fill a big Jobo tank (5 135 or 6 120), in which case there is no time lost . I think that's pretty standard, and reasonable.

>>3015466
Thanks, that sounds reasonable to me.

I just got a bit annoyed since the lab near me charges 14 AUD for C41 dev and scan with 3 hour turnaround ($5 more for 1 hour) and the last two times I have been there they have been at least 10 minutes late with mediocre scans. To charge $4 on top of that pretty high price (IMO) for push/pull just seemed a bit much. I guess I was also venting about this lab in my post too.

>>3015482
Damn, you're getting ripped off. There's a lot of good labs in Aus, don't subject yourself to that

>>3015482
Could be worse, we charge 26AUD for dev + scan, with turnaround time being guaranteed finished on Saturday, if you deliver the film by Wednesday. (We're also the best value for the money you can get in town)

>>3015487
(In Norway tho, not Australia, just to clarify)

Did a fixer test using a leader snip of Delta 3200, and the piece came out purple. Is that just because I didn't prewash the leader or a characteristic of Delta 3200? Otherwise the film seemed to clear just fine.

My fixer (Ilford Rapid Fixer) is 1 year old, has been opened for about 6 months with 800ml of stock left, I just mixed a new batch to see if it's still fine. I'll probably do a test roll but still.

>>3014693
I decided to go with the satin one (Ilford's Multigrade RC) after looking at some example prints at the lab. I'm just learning so RC paper makes more sense than fibre, because it dries so quickly. Didn't really like pearl, has that 90's one hour vibe that would work better for expired C41 snapps.

File: Scan4_0002.jpg (93KB, 1195x806px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1195x806px

Quick question guys, I recently did a Kodak ISO 200 roll of film. I got the pics back and most of them looked really faded and with lines through them. Pic related is one of them. Can they be saved by scanning in the negatives? I don't have a scanner, but I would like to get one.

>>3015495
I think Ilford states that rapid fixer is good for 6 months after opening. If it properly clears other films fine then it must be fine

>>3015500
Very underexposed and from the colours the film is expired as well. A really, really good scanner could probably save the image but there's not really much point.

Work on getting the exposure right when you take the shot

File: 1486209988524.jpg (535KB, 1195x806px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1195x806px

>>3015500
to me it looks underexposed, obviously
but also
it looks scanned on a really poor quality scanner.
there should be much more detail in the sky. search for 35mm on flickr and compare with this scan. 35mm can do much better.

if you want you can take a shot you like off this roll and then go to a photographer who can scan them for you to test it out.

or look into macro scanning if you have the gear.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1195
Image Height	806
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:04 13:32:34
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1195
Image Height	806

>>3015504
I've read it usually lasts longer than that, and with 800ml stock left & the air squeezed out of the bottle I'm pretty sure it should still work. But then the purple film threw me off.

>>3015500
>with lines through them
if it's not on the negative it's the scanner
if the lines are also on the negatie then a better scanner won't help.

>>3015506
>>3015508
>>3015513
Thanks guys, yeah this is first venture into film so I'm still crap at it. Its weird I bought the film brand new from Boots a few days before I first used the film, and some shots don't even look faded at all. I'm currently going through a Lomography 400, hoping it will be better

>>3015484
>Damn, you're getting ripped off
huh?
>There's a lot of good labs in Aus
kek
>>3015482
>at least 10 minutes late
dude, worlds smallest violin is playing just for you.
>>3015487
This. I charge $25 and I'm the cheapest in town.

>>3015526
>you're getting ripped off

my local lab (Rewind) is $7.50 for any dev (E6. C41 or B&W) or $13 for dev + high res scans. Plus they actually know what they're talking about which is very unusual

>>3015495
Most ilford film is pretty purple from the antihalo, I believe. I just fix a little longer, cos the difference between 4 and 6 minutes isn't worth quibbling over, and give a good wash at the end.
If you use a steel tank, do the last washes with the lid off, and you can usually see the purple still leaching off the film into the wash for a good 5 minutes or so.
If you dont want to sit there running the tap, just leave each rinse to sit for a minute or so before dumping it, it's really just as effective as shaking it.

>>3015527
That seems fucking based, awesome.
Never heard of them though, see if they want to hire a social media coordinator.

>>3015528
Thanks, I use a Paterson. I guess I've just washed the film enough to never encounter that tint before. Good to know the purple is normal and not my fixer going bad.

>>3015532
c-41 full liquid kit is around 24 dollars from cinestill and can develop 24 rolls of film .. if you shoot film consistently you should buy a good scanner and develop yourself. So you if you shoot 150 rolls of film over the course of the life of say an epson v550. and buy developer at the price above or in larger quantities for less you will be paying 2 dollars per roll of film for a dev and scan.

File: Untitled.png (322KB, 1366x738px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1366x738px

IT"S HAPPENING

Ferrania has now begun to actually do something: actually start making and selling film.
Features include: moderate grain, slower speed, and scratches. Also, varying contrast is expected. Be aware, that the sample photos are biased and only reflect the best of the test photos. Expect the defects shown x4.

General sales of this alpha "testing" film is expected to begin mid February.

Not to mention, it looks like they lost their old domain and are now using some shitty free website builder.

>>3015549
>HAPPENING
My desire for B&W film made by wogs at inflated hipster prices is fucking sub zero.
It's sad that they failed, I guess, but there was literally never any chance of them winning, so there's no real sense of loss.
>another handful of our best and brightest banished to the obscurity and misery of bankruptcy thanks to their vainglorious millennial entrepreneurial delusions, sponsored by Kickstarter
>just imagen what triumphs could have awaited such hungry savages if they'd just taken a position at a large company and started feeding on the MBAitfish in the lower tiers of management

>>3015549
they are italian right? would explain a lot.

>>3015549
I love your ferrania hateboner. thanks for the update, will buy some and report back asap.

File: IMG_8022.jpg (2MB, 4799x3199px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4799x3199px

>>3014699
For those who asked, here's an example of what I got after scanning. I don't know what the fuck happened with these pics because most of the other ones came out fine

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4799
Image Height	3199
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3015694
>and nothing of value was lost

>>3015526
when they have 3 hours to do it yeah I'm a bit pissed that I have to sit in the shop for 10-15 minutes to get my scans because it shows they barely used that time at all. It is not a busy shop.

>>3015771
Also if it were a one off I wouldnt mind but it happens much more often than not

File: Provia100F_003.jpg (416KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 667x1000px

>>3015518
Post a photo of the negatives. Looks like the scanner sucked ass, your film could be totally fine.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
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	2017:01:24 20:22:41
Exposure Time	3.2 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cool White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3015794

fuckkkkk this is really good. how much did you digitally fudge this in post?

File: DSC08892unedited.jpg (385KB, 741x1111px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 741x1111px

>>3015797
Cheers! I don't really like the shot. The whole bottom of the frame is pretty uninteresting. Should've gotten closer to the guy.

Didn't do much in post. Pic is the 'raw scan'.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	73 dpi
Vertical Resolution	73 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:05 08:59:11
Exposure Time	3.2 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cool White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	741
Image Height	1111
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3015771
>when they have 3 hours to do it yeah I'm a bit pissed that I have to sit in the shop for 10-15 minutes to get my scans because it shows they barely used that time at all. It is not a busy shop.
Yeah, you're just here to abloo bloo bloo over your lab and I'm not fucking up for hearing it.

How about you put in the effort yourself then? Why don't you process your own film, dry it, scan it and burn it to a CD for yourself in three hours while dealing with rotating shifts, breaks, other customers and orders coming in at the very minimum. Go ahead. I'll wait for you to post your results.
There's a vary large difference between what you perceive their level of work to be and what it is. If you're unhappy, write them a bad review online, badmouth them everywhere (you're already doing this without naming them) and generally try and get those faggots closed down.
Or you could stop being a lazy cunt.

Beginner here. I randomly booked a trip to London next month and I'm probably going to bring my SLR with me. What's the best place to keep your used film while traveling? And will it get fucked up when I go through TSA?

File: IMG_0249.jpg (1MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4032x3024px

Anybody got any info on y/m/b values for contrast control with a brawler 67 dichro head? Or any rules of thumb in general? From using a standard condenser and contrast filters I understand more magenta cast the more contrast in the print.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 6s Plus
Camera Software	10.1.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:04 15:03:50
Exposure Time	1/4 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Just realized one if my rolls of Provia is only 24 exposures. Didn't even know they made those. Film is from '01

>>3015810
Put your film in your luggage. If it's over 800 ISO you might want to have it hand inspected, but I wouldn't sweat it. I recently traveled with a roll of Natura 1600 that must have gone through at least 10 hand luggage scanners and it came out perfectly. See >>3015435

>>3015835
>Put your film in your luggage

you mean, CARRY-ON luggage. putting it in your checked luggage is asking for it to get fukt.

>>3015837
Yeah that's what I meant, my bad

File: 35mm_Polaroid_Sofortfilm.jpg (8KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x165px

>there were instant 35mm rolls of b&w and slide film

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

but wait, theres more: they were instant, but you needed chemicals and a machine.. so not instant? can anyone explain the process here?

>>3015843
https://youtu.be/iBM8fJM2iL4 Seeing is believing. Mute sound unless you like banjos. This stuff's crazy, surprised it's so unknown nowadays.

>>3015843
You shot the roll, put it in a little processing machine along with a little box of chemicals, turned a few knobs, waited a few minutes and hey presto! slides

Don't know if this is the right thread for it, but what's a good beginner's camera for 35mm film? I want something reasonably cheap (£200 maximum) that has decent enough quality.
Also does it matter what kind of film I get for it, or will getting cheaper stuff make a big difference?

>>3015858
pentax spotmatic. you can get a very good one with the 50 1.4 takumar for about 50/60 euros and spend the rest on decent film. yes it matters, but its all an aesthetic choice.

>>3015858
Get any film SLR that works. Film cameras are pretty much just complicated light-tight boxes, they have very little impact on the end image. The Olympus OM1, Pentax K1000 and Canon AE-1 are like the classic film cameras, but they have a pretty heavy hipster tax.

Just go on ebay and search 'film slr' and pick one that works and comes with a lens (a 50mm is a good start).

Cheap film just looks a bit worse than pro film. It'll have a bit more grain, the colours might be a bit duller or have a slight cast or hue to them. Shoot cheap film until you know what you're doing, you'll fuck up on your first few rolls anyway.

Cheap doesn't have to mean bad though. Film like Fuji Superia and Kodak Gold are cheap as chips and look great

>>3015861
>>3015864
Thanks guys. I've never used SLRs and stuff like that before, is it easy to learn how to use and what all the options do?
I'll have a look at the cameras you suggested, thanks again.

>>3015815
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006130201152306.pdf
page 3

>>3015925
>is it easy to learn how to use
its easy as balls. everyone used them in the past, from children to the elderly. easiest way is to look the camera name on youtube there are lots of fool proof tutorials for begginers.

>>3015864
>Olympus OM1
>hipster tax
dude, lmao. The OM-1 is probably the most undervalued manual SLR out there, just cos it won't take LR44's by default.
The viewfinder in them is unrivalled for size and clarity, and they are smooth as silk in operation.
You can pick one up with the 50/1.8 (which is pretty heavily favoured as the best nifty 50 from any maker) for less than $100 any day of the week.

>>3015999
>zuiko 50mm f/1.8 being good

It's not all that good wide open: soft and flarey (but obvs if you need to go wide open, then that's what has to happen). Needs a lens hood at all times. The f/1.4 is much better at f/2, though at like a 100€ premium so maybe not worth it.

File: OM20HP520.jpg (345KB, 1014x1350px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1014x1350px

>>3016008
I disagree wit u.
Although I will say I don't shoot wide open very much, so this shot around 2.8 will have to suffice by way of example.
It could also be that the Oly's are smooth cameras that nail focus and the excellent keeper ratio is just swaying my opinion.
But for anyone actually wanting to shoot film rather than just do lense tests on their sone meme-7, that should all come into consideration as well.
Worth noting that Olympus kept making manual focus OMs long after their AF system crashed and burned, and into the start of the digi era, because they were the preferred 35mm system of a lot of pros even in the face of Canikon market dominance.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:05 16:26:42
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1014
Image Height	1350
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>3015797
>>3015807

Lmao, of course this was you, andrew. Goddamn it. Just now checked my insta.

There's something bittersweet about getting really excited about a new photograph and then realizing it was shot by someone who already has your respect and adoration.

>>3015794
>>3015797
>>3015807
>>3016052
lmao, there's something gay as hell about seeing a man's cock so forcefully sucked for a photo as pedestrian as that.

>>3016070

Sometimes I think I shitpost too much and am generally bringing down this board singlehandedly.

It's nice to know that I have help. Eat a dick, fucktard. Try to get excited about something once in a while. No one worth anything will judge you for it.

File: 1923155_139346678059_1316992_n.jpg (29KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 604x453px

>>3016052
Teehee you make me blush

>>3014947
yeah sure mate

>>3015999
vintage olympus film gear is god-tier, but I'm partial to the olympus pen f over the om line.
>double the amount of exposures (film and processing is half price)
>tiny body and lenses
>greater depth of field makes for more accurate focus
>smoother build and ergonomics
>flash synch up to 1/500th
>personal preference for 4:3 ratio over 3:2

>>3016104
why don't you believe me??

Recommended film for a beginner looking to get into MF landscape photography? I've read Ektar 100 and Fuji Velvia 50/100 are popular, and Ilford Delta 100 for mono. Or is there some cheaper shit that I can practice on first, before wasting money and good film in the learning process?

>>3016131
If you dev your own B&W (you should, it's retardedly easy) just do a few rolls of any B&W you can get your hands on so you can get used the camera and composing and whatever.

>>3016139
Sounds good, will do. Cheers

File: 17253086956_dec2db7892_b.jpg (245KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 800x800px

>>3016131
Don't shoot slide if you don't have a grad ND. Portra is great for landscap. I'm not a fan of Ektar, but it's cheaper than Portra. Also look into Fuji 400H. Not cheap, but it's a beautiful film. For bw I'd suggest Fuji Acros.

File: negatives_0001.jpg (33KB, 1179x279px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1179x279px

>>3015794
My scanner does indeed suck ass, here is a strip of negatives from it (Scanned with same scanner though). The one on the right is of one of my best friends and he was pretty gutted that the pic didn't come out right

Just scored 20 rolls of Astia in 120 for $100. Hyped.

>>3016161
Really, really under exposed. The shadows have just become one huge blob on the negatives. What did you use to light meter?

File: Scan5_0001.jpg (123KB, 1197x805px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1197x805px

>>3016167
Ah I see, well the camera was a really dirt cheap camera that is basically a disposable camera but you can change the film. No changing aperture/focus/shutter speed options, and the fucking flash on it was broken. Pic related is another embarrassing fuck up.

This was my first ever venture into film, so I know now to actually invest in a good camera. What is a good beginner's 35MM camera?

>>3016176
Any SLR that works will keep you occupied for years. Just search like "film SLR" on ebay and pick one that works and comes with a lens. You'll be able to find something under like $25 no problem

>>3016163
pretty nice anon.

is film cheap in russia? if so is there a website where you could order it to a neighbour country?

>>3016157
you don't like ektar?

>>3016008
Don't forget there are several different versions of that lens. I had the f1.4 MC and sold it and went back to using the f1.8 "made in Japan" 50mm I have.

>>3016228
Ektar is pretty picky about the exposure.
If you don't get it perfect,the images tend to develop this nasty blue/cyan cast (blown channel?) in the shadows that's difficult to remove.

Just bought a Zorki 4K for no real reason. Anybody get any experience with these or Russian rangefinders in general?

Thinking of running Fuji Xtra 400 in D76 at 22celsius.
What's a good dev time?

>>3016301
Cock the shutter BEFORE selecting the shutter speed, otherwise you risk damaging the mechanism. Pray to gods it doesn't suddenly die on you. Don't go around without a backup camera.

>>3016301
i took a zorki 4 totally to bits and rebuilt it to learn how they work. They are shitty cameras.. but its fun as fuck to shoot on.

>>3016176
>flash on it was broken
You know that just because the flash doesn't work, it doesn't compensate exposure right?
>>3016131
>Delta 100 for mono
I'm a Delta shill and even I'll tell you to use Acros instead.

>>3016301
They are ok for the price. I had a fed 2 and a 5b.
The industar lens was nice.

>>3016315
Pretty much any russian camera, my lubitel just died on me when I cocked the self timer acidentaly on bulb mode. It's working now after some zippo fluid.

>>3016315
>>3016319
>>3016341
Thanks babes. I was thinking of swapping the lens out for one of those old collapsible ones so it actually becomes a pocketable cam (since there are no damn strap lugs, what is that about?).

>>3016348
Strap lugs on many soviet cameras are on the half-case's bottom part; or you're expected to use a half-case that's got its own fixed strap.

Enjoy your Zorki. Remember that the finder is mainly useless for framing, and don't touch speeds slower than 1/30s (or the 1/1000s one), and you'll be fine. Assuming the shutter works anyway -- mine didn't, heh heh.

Seriously, fuck the Zorki 4. Fed 2 and Zorki 1 for lyf.

>>3016228
Nope.

File: Ektar120001-3mini.jpg (142KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 800x800px

>>3016294
>>3016228
There's nothing wrong with Ektar.
These assclowns have created some kind of meme about it being difficult to expose because they are lab-scanning plebs who don't know how to correct colour.
Ektar is a great film, super fucking sharp, it just doesn't have cruise-control-for-cool boosted reds and flat contrast like portra, and you should be scanning it yourself with a DSLR.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment
Projection	Rectilinear (0)
FOV	9 x 6
Ev	13.60
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3016398
>it just doesn't have cruise-control-for-cool boosted reds

that's literally the trademark characteristic of ektar.

>>3016398
For me, there's just no point in shooting it. If I want latitude and a film that will work in lots of different light, I'll go Portra or 400H. If I want punchy colors during nice light, I'll go for a slide film.

File: IMG_0255.jpg (117KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x720px

>>3015926
Thanks m8, I swear I read that but must have missed it. Fucking hell is this new set up nice compared to my old vivitar e33/34.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Instagram
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 25280018.jpg (626KB, 1544x1024px) Image search: [Google]

626KB, 1544x1024px

r8?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-29_31
Camera Software	QSS-29_31 001
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1544
Image Height	1024
Unique Image ID	c44f6bc3b079fe710000000000000000

File: 25280020.jpg (547KB, 1544x1024px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1544x1024px

>>3016414
2/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-29_31
Camera Software	QSS-29_31 001
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1544
Image Height	1024
Unique Image ID	870b13f18afec6a10000000000000000

>>3016107
i was a bit interested in the half-frame aspect, but on your opinion, is there a noticeable quality loss in the images? Print-wise, i mean

>>3016421
Not who you responded to but yeah it's gonna effect prints, negative size is halved so do the math.

File: untitled.jpg (483KB, 1100x729px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 1100x729px

More pictures, less text

6x9 acros

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

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

File: untitled-2.jpg (506KB, 1100x730px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1100x730px

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

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

>>3016430
this shit is crazy.

pyrocat right?

>>3016434
Yeah

File: 0ee8cd37d8061fa188c641391c2b168f.png (74KB, 939x736px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 939x736px

>>3016399
Sure buddy

>>3016430
>>3016432
>>3016434
:/
Was zero midtone contrast the goal?

>>3016459

Never seen film souped in pyrocat before, have you?

>>3016430
>>3016432
The detail in these is insane, but they just feel so flat. A little punch of contrast in Lightroom (or in the darkroom if you're wet printing) would really help

>>3016495
Yes I have. But the point is to process heavily from the quite versatile negative, not display the straight scan it all its flat boring glory.
>shooting log profiles
>not grading the footage
>ettr a7r2 raw
>-100 highlights +100 shadows in lightroom
>post to 4chen at 2048px
^^^These are comparable autismatisms to shooting 69 acros in pyro.
As these are presented, a iphone picture of the same scene would carry more visual interest.

>>3016495
Also, fine grain compensating devs can often be a trap; once you've re-stretched the contrast to where it looks good again, you've often got a grainier image than if you'd just used an ordinary developer that kept contrast in the midtones, at the expense of shadow detail.
Because, y'know, midtones are usually most of the picture, not shadows.

File: Screenshot_2017-02-05-20-52-58.png (279KB, 800x1280px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 800x1280px

Someone sent me photo on messenger and i downloadeed a exif reader/viewerand it said unknow for every singal thing except where in my storage it was save and the rez. I know the person google location is on and was wondering what i should do and can do . I dont have a computer atm and androind apps kinda seem unreliable or maybe there no data what so ever on the photo but i know there has to be some . Suggestions,knowledge,advice to help

>>3016521

It's possibly to scrub exif. Most image processing apps do it automatically.

>>3016514
>Yes I have.

Let's see some of your pyrocat shots then.

I like shooting fast film and pushing slow film. I hate the long development times though, so I normally process at 75°F.

Are there any disadvantage to developing hotter?

>>3015192
Ultramax is the tits. It's Kodak film - every emultion is quality

>>3016522 #
Well i know you can run a pictureexif esaer , but the person that sent it i know didnt cause i know they have no clue in any way sense or form to do that . They took the picture , then sent me the gallery pic three messenger . Its galaxy s7edge that it was taken and sent from . I tried the tops 4 apps on play store and non of them worked but to give my storage location and rez, i tried this with a bunch of photos to see if it was just that photo but every one said same info . I tried screenshot random google photos and even took photos then tried them .

>>3016534

Then the exif got scrubbed, my man. Sorry to put your stalking to an end.

File: Retro80S120001-1mini.jpg (165KB, 542x800px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 542x800px

>>3016523
I don't use it, I've seen it.
This might surprise you, but I don't often find myself running out of resolution or dynamic range shooting B&W 6x9 negs...

>>3016539#
Eh stalk not really its a picture of food , child went to bed before i got outta meeting and was wondering if that was really today dinner or a old pic and there have a superbowl party . Thats all .

Scub ? How does a photo get scrumb if you dont mind explaining . Like i know about doing it urself but not ur phone self scrumbing it?

>>3016545
>>3016534
>>3016521
Nice film desu.
>>3016530
Are you happy with the results you get? If you are and you're not running into reticulation then you're fine.

File: CLOCKTOWER.jpg (1MB, 944x1250px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 944x1250px

[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	2017:02:05 23:42:26
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	944
Image Height	1250

File: ladylib1.jpg (1013KB, 1250x1279px) Image search: [Google]

1013KB, 1250x1279px

>>3016567
thats from a Fuji GS645s. Great camera, super portable. Just sold it to get ride of debt.

This is a Hasselblad with a 120mm lens. Both are Portra 400, the only film I really ever shoot in 120. Dumping more soon.

[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	2017:02:05 20:49:26
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1250
Image Height	1279

File: LADYLIB2.jpg (1MB, 1250x1271px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x1271px

>>3016571

[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	2017:02:05 23:55:46
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1250
Image Height	1271

>>3016576

Fucking incredible. Stop hiding these gems in the /fgt/ threads.

So I have a Pentax Z-1p, and wanted to test it out so I bought a new battery for it. Put it in, turned on fine then after a few minutes the camera and battery got extremely hot and smelt metallicy, then the camera flashed that the battery was half dead. The battery is a Panasonic 2CR5, which I know is the right type, so I'm guessing it's a problem with the body itself. Any ideas?

File: DRUMPF.jpg (1MB, 1250x1283px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1250x1283px

>>3016578
thanks! I don't have another concrete body of work to show like the urban prairie or inauguration stuff yet. I wish I had more stuff from the Statue but it was cold as fuck and I forgot all my film in the stupid locker.

PSA if you go to the statue of liberty
A) The ferry has coffee and food but its $10 minimum on card, nearly impossible to hit unless you eat all the hotdogs.
B) if going to the pedestal or crown, you need to check your bags. This costs $2. Cash only. If you dont have cash you need to go to the ATM in the gift shop, which has a fee of $4.00, almost as bad as a strip club.
finally C) once you get the cash, you need to break the $20, because the baggage lockers ONLY TAKE SINGLES also like the fuckin strip club. So you then need to buy something because the salespeople can only open the registers for sales.
Nothing says American bureaucracy like going to a place my tax dollars funds only to pay money to access my money due to an unmentioned necessity.

This is from a recent protest.

[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	2017:02:05 22:43:44
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1250
Image Height	1283

File: tyres.jpg (572KB, 1250x514px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1250x514px

>>3016582

this one is kinda whatever, but I'm selling this widelux so I had to make at least a few images I liked or it would've been for nothing.

[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	2017:02:06 00:03:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1250
Image Height	514

File: _IMG5616_pano_pexp.jpg (103KB, 1490x417px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1490x417px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:06 01:55:21
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1490
Image Height	417

File: _IMG5627_pexp.jpg (459KB, 890x1200px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 890x1200px

>>3016638

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB