Film General Thread

File: wood.jpg (197KB, 680x1000px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 680x1000px

2GET for TMY

File: 2015-08-13-9804-TMax100-34.jpg (190KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1500x1000px

>>3036239
TMAX was here, get the fuck out and take your shatbed scan with you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	668
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:08 18:20:40
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Red-Eye Reduce, Return Not Detected
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 000058400011.jpg (1MB, 2796x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2796x2048px

fuji acros 100 shot on fujifilm gs645s

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.50.007 (151023)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2796
Image Height	2048

File: 7598-005.jpg (441KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1818x1228px

>>3036247
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a good scan?

>>3036248
wtf I hate Acros now????!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-016
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:08 14:34:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1818
Image Height	1228

File: 000058400009.jpg (1MB, 2796x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2796x2048px

>>3036249

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.50.007 (151023)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2796
Image Height	2048

File: 14554244934_cce26b100b_h.jpg (431KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1600x1067px

>>3036250
Get a yellow or orange filter and process your scans better or something. Go to curves/levels and lower the black point. Your photos look more gray and gray than black and white. At box speed, Acros is not a very contrasty film but this is what it looks like when I scan it.

File: acros-web (5 of 29).jpg (3MB, 1983x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1983x3000px

>>3036257
Depends how you process it. I pull Acros to 80 in Ilfosol 3 and it's pretty damn contrasty for me

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

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

>>3036249
>I'm sorry, is that supposed to be a good scan?
pot calling the kettle black, look at that piece of shit you posted

>>3036247

Please resize your snapshit

File: 28542540087_o.jpg (202KB, 1364x1364px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1364x1364px

what camera is the murderer leftist using here, /faget/?

>>3036290
Looks like a Soviet KVK-220, with a prism finder attached. They were famous for operating well in humid conditions.

>>3036289

>150kb
>not even 1080p

fuck off retard.

>>3036289
>190KB
>1500x1000
read the sticky then end yourself faggot

How do I keep fucking up printing? I just started printing again because I took an 3-weeks-unclaimed box of print paper from the communal darkroom I use. Even when I carefully inspect my test strips, my shots are coming out over and underexposed.

Tonight, I made prints from some negatives that were probably a little overexposed. The prints were blown the fuck out (very white) and even when I doubled the exposure time, detail wasn't appearing. What baffled me is that there is clearly plenty of detail that wouldn't show up, no matter how long I exposed them. Is that the sign of a thoroughly overexposed negative?

I really need to relearn printing, since I haven't done it in almost 10 years. Should I just go back and read Ansel Adams books for that info?

Also, on a related note, how the fuck do I spotmeter? I did recently read Ansel Adams' book on the negative. I can't seem to nail this shit. As of right now I'm taking double shots, usually one or two stops apart, because I don't trust myself. I still fuck up most of them. It's very hard for me to "think" in black and white; differentiating brightness while ignoring colour. Anyone got advice for it?

Lastly, I'm finally gonna' make the jump to DSLR scans. I wanted to get a V800 but shit is too price for me. I have a shitty old Rebel, and the lens it came with. AF is broken on the lens, though. Is AF necessary? Is the default zoom lens capable, or do I get a prime? I already have some cheap Nikon extension tubes and adapter ring, without contacts for AF.

>>3036297
Sorry, very very tired. Long day. What I meant here

>detail wasn't appearing

is that there was information clearly visible on the negative that wasn't coming through on the print, regardless of greater exposure. I couldn't tease it out.

File: 1486252869177.jpg (385KB, 741x1111px) Image search: [Google]

385KB, 741x1111px

>>3036298
Are you checking your test strips and prints in white light? Shit that looks like it has no detail in red light may actually have detail in white light.

[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

>>3036280
Pls stop posting this snapshit.
If you really feel you have to, at least have the decency to resize it.

>>3036290
>>3036294
It's a Leica with a visoflex, morans.

>>3036303
no, and also no

>>3036297
Are you leaving your test strips to dry? Prints appear darker when wet

>>3036302
Yes, I checked it in white light. Once I pick them up tomorrow I'll post the prints to show what's going on.

>>3036307
How long do they take to dry?

I'm starting to recognise a big part of the problem is that my exposures aren't proper. I do need to get a handle on spot metering.

When I was 14 and taking snapshits with the Nikon 35mm, I never had significant exposure problems like this. That SLR had TTL. Nor did I have an issue with the 30-degree sekonic dinosaur while shooting the Hasselblad.

When I have complete conscious control over metering and no hand-holding, my retardation comes to the fore. I feel defeated.

I just don't get how negatives can look fine, and then print like shit. That's why I want to get on scanning them with the DSLR.

>>3036297
Was there anything at all on the prints? Or just a blank sheet of paper? My advice would be to max out your contrast filters, overexpose and under develop. Increase your exposure using a bigger aperture rather than a longer time. I do the opposite for very thin negatives, once got a reasonable print out of an almost blank negative for a friend whose cat had died, and whose favourite pic of it was of course the worst negative I had.

>>3036297
>how the fuck do I spotmeter?
Important to remember that a spot reading is most useful in conjunction with an ambient reading, as the density of any one point on the negative is relative to the exposure you give the whole scene.
Also useful to remember, if you only have a reflected light meter, that green grass meters the same as middle grey.
Before you really know what you're doing, spot metering is mostly effective as a teaching tool; take careful notes of readings throughout a scene when you photograph it, and then comparing that with how you find the process of printing/scanning them.

File: untitled1.jpg (885KB, 1200x815px) Image search: [Google]

885KB, 1200x815px

XA+Ilford Pan 400

>>3036320
shit boi that's a lotta grain

File: 400H001-1-1.jpg (797KB, 3362x3352px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 3362x3352px

My Epson V600 wouldn't focus on my films even with the factory film holder. What to do?
Also goddamn I love Pro 400H

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:08 23:58:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3362
Image Height	3352

File: 71FlbUrMz7L._SL1500_.jpg (178KB, 1500x1001px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1500x1001px

Also is this any good /p/? Are they worth importing?

>>3036326
If you can get it cheaply, then do so. It's not worth paying a premium for, but it's *alright*. I'd put it on the same level as Kodak Gold or Fujicolor 200

>>3036331
I guess I will pass then. Might get some Provia 400X for shits and giggles. But to be honest, I don't even know why would I need fast slide films. I got too much sunlight in where I live and I rarely shoot anything faster than 400.

>>3036320
>slavshit takes an actual photo
>not a test shot
>with film that didn't come from some subhuman eastern shithole
>it's not terrible
wew, lad
>it's still self-referential and process-compromised, but hey, babby steps

>>3036336
>But to be honest, I don't even know why would I need fast slide films
Truly spoken by someone who's yet to use 400X.
My dick gets hard just imagining what that shit would be like in 120.

>>3036324
>Also goddamn I love Pro 400H
why tho?
Those colours make me wanna vomit.

>>3036324
Is the film grain in focus? If it's not, then you a scanner issue, if it is in focus then you have a camera issue.

The tree looks more in focus than the people are, so are you sure your shitty eyes didn't miss focus when you took the photo? Especially if it's a manual focus camera, make sure you don't have a wrong diopter set on the viewfinder or something.

>>3036345
well it's my scanner and probably me as well because I am having trouble differentiate blue and green. You should not use my photo as a reference.

File: acros.jpg (590KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1000x1000px

>>3036257
I find Acros to be one of the most contrasty films I've used apart from Rolleis retro films.
At the photo shop we usually dev most B/W in XTOL 1+1, but we do Acros and retros in 1+2 specifically to reduce contrast in the negs.

>>3036297
What paper and contrast grade are you printing on? Have you tried with paper you know to be decent, that you didn't just swipe from the communal?

>>3036320
P cool m8

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

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

>>3036346
not even the dusts were in focus, so that's the problem. I did messed up the focus in this photo, but some of my slides look sharp in the slide viewer but look like shit on my computer.

File: 52870005.jpg (882KB, 1000x1508px) Image search: [Google]

882KB, 1000x1508px

Bought up all the got damn Ektar 100 I could find homie

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-30
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3089
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	2017:03:09 23:01:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1508

File: 52870017.jpg (778KB, 1000x1508px) Image search: [Google]

778KB, 1000x1508px

>>3036362
IDK why these scans are so shit tho. Gonna try my hand at dev'ing later since I got a bunch of HP5 and all the places where I live just do C41.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-30
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3089
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	2017:03:09 23:04:23
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1508

File: sdvuep4013-img600x400-1487946832zzf8oc17933.jpg (24KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x400px

>>3036320
Cool shot!

>>3036326
>>3036336
It's alright, not worth importing unless we're talking <$2/roll for 36exp rolls. It's simply Fujicolor 100 branded for business use. 400X on the other hand, I'll be able to post 35mm examples early next week from my first roll. Pushed it to 800. I have 5 pro-packs or it in 120 waiting to be used.

Went ahead and bought a ga645 (picture from the auction). Should have it by early next week. Beyond hyped.

>>3036366
the gs645s would have been better choice

awright lads, been a while since we've done this one.

It's time for scanner wars.

Labscan cucks (noritsu and frontier users) vs shatbedders vs DSLR cuck.
Which one's better and why do you use it, which one takes up the least space/knowledge, which one's quicker, which one's the most idiotproof.

Go on and war to yer hearts content.

>>3036390
fuck off

>>3036392
Nah, you fuck off. I bet you use a lab to scan your film.

Posted in the last thread but got no constructive advice. Looking for quality 35mm film, will be shooting with a Nikon F.

Mostly shooting candids of people, architecture and overall street.

>>3036390
Get the fuck out.

File: 17269443021_d3bf72e132_b.jpg (416KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 800x800px

>>3036378
'cept I don't want a 75mm lens, nor any sort of manual focusing/exposure. Gs645 would've been a terrible choice.

>>3036308
>When I have complete conscious control over metering and no hand-holding, my retardation comes to the fore. I feel defeated.

You and me and everybody else, buddy. Just gotta learn how to work yourself: I know I'm tempted to underexpose every time, so I bracket +2, +1, 0. The last one almost never comes out thick enough.

>>3036401
You need to use period correct films for the best results. Even TriX won't work because they changed the formulation. Better start trawling ebay for some kodachrome.

>>3036401
There's so many choices

-Velvia 50 for unreal colors as a slide film
-Ektar for slightly red tinged (it looks great) vivid colors in a negative film (more dynamic range).
-Fuji Natura 1600 for very high speed color negative with very natural colours
-shoot movie film in the appropriate light (daylight for daylight, tungsten for tungsten) for very natural colors as well.

>>3036314
>contrast filters

During printing or during shooting the original negative?

The paper isn't quite blank. There are bits and pieces of the detail I see on the negative.

>>3036354
I'm not sure what paper I'm using other than that it's RC paper. It was just leftovers that someone never claimed in a box that was not its original home. Left a note with my email, asking if it was free to take. All told it was probably a bit over a month.

I bought some fresh paper from some folks at the dark room and have been using that stuff with no issue. Haven't bothered to buy a whole box for printing, because I'd want to be very good at it before committing in cost.

>contrast grade
?

Another element involved is that I'm shooting x-ray film, which is orthochromatic. Makes for a hell of a learning curve in blowing the fuck out of every photo. I mitigate this by using a wratten 44a filter on my light meter, but the transmission and sensitivity graphs of my film and filter don't quite line up. Cutoffs are almost exactly the same, while transmission at specific wavelengths are not exactly the same.

Still much better than taking readings without. Was much harder to meter before, because it's impossible for me to mentally adjust a reading without magic vision telling me how much red and yellow are in the ambient light at any given moment.

I'm saving up for an incident meter now, actually. It's next on the list.

>green grass meters the same as middle grey

What do you mean by this? I thought that the whole point of a spot meter is that you're choosing /what/ is going to be middle grey.

Can anyone answer my questions about DSLR scanning in >>3036297 ?

>>3036411

I don't know what I'm consciously doing wrong here. I try my best to choose what I think is a middle tone of lighting, and always end up wrong. All the more frustrating because I actually handle lighting okay on some shots. Very fucking confusing.

>>3036234
have you guys ever seen a leica m3 go for sale in a thrift?

>>3036459
>I don't know what I'm consciously doing wrong here. I try my best to choose what I think is a middle tone of lighting, and always end up wrong.

That's because you meter C41 negative film for shadows and E6 slides for midtones/highlights (context-sensitive). If you want shadow detail meter for shadows, the simplest concept in film.

>>3036420
>>3036421

This helps a lot, now I have an idea of where to start looking. Thanks a lot.

>>3036520
This is useful, Kurwa. Thanks. I was trying to do some Ansel Adams shit and choose what exactly I thought I wanted to be the middle grey, and I think I was making some bad choices.

In particular your information explains why my E-6 shots are looking great so far.

I'm going to go print a few more shots I took yesterday. Will come home with the prints and scan in the office scanner. Hopefully the shit from yesterday was properly exposed. Negatives looked okay.

>>3036528
i don't know much of the zone system, but i think that for being done correctely isn't only about metering the shot, but to correct all the tonal range at development/copy taking as a base the zone for which you exposed. also i think it was made thinking more about black and white photography than color.

>>3036471
I saw a Leica IIIf at a antique shop the other day, but the camera was poorly maintained and probably need a deep CLA and a curtain change. And the owner was asking for $320. Good luck selling that piece of junk.

>>3036535
Yeah from my learning about the zone system is for prints not for taking the photo. Taking the photo you want the best tonal range and that's all that matters you can edit it later in the darkroom.

>>3036535
I guess I should have been more clear before. I'm primarily shooting x-ray, which is orthochromatic black and white film. I don't know why people are assuming I'm shooting colour here, especially if I'm making the prints myself.

>>3036459
M8, you just sound like a fucking retard who's outsmarting himself at every turn.
Load some fucking Superia 400 in a 90's point and shoot and fuck off already.
>hey guys I need a little advice regarding my car specifically oil changes, it's a 1976 RX-7
>yeah, I've been doing my own oil changes for a little while now but i wanted some advice on the best oils to use
>specifically friction modifiers, I've been adding cream, because it's got calcium but is also quite slippery
>also my oil filler cap is getting difficult to open, the key is getting difficult to turn
>also, does anybody have a good recmmendation for tyres mine seem to be wearing out really fast, are coopers good for mileage?
>I've been running 6psi, for traction

File: 20170131_121204_Richtone(HDR).jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>3036562
If you're already using a camera that requires handlong and developing xray sheets and yet don't know the basics of metering something has gone extremely wrong somewhere.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-P605
Camera Software	P605XXUCNF2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:31 12:12:03
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Unknown

mju 2 owners:
do you have problems with the shutter button not depressing properly? I feel it depresses half way to focus, but then it doesn't depress futher and it is kind of hard to know when it will decide to take a photo.

>>3036571
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>3036564
I am a fucking retard, we can agree on that.

>>3036569
As stated previously, I'd never had issues with metering until I started using a 1-degree spot meter. The Nikon slr with TTL never gave me serious exposure issues, nor did the 30-degree sekonic.

>>3036572
ok

File: 19cs3pbxgemx.jpg (84KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1000x1000px

>>3036571
Never had a mjuii that did that. Sounds like something is a bit fucked.

>>3036592
>>3036571
Anyone care to post some pictures taken from Mjus ? Can't decide if I should get one. If the lens is too shit I don't want to bother wasting film.

File: 1484997290525.jpg (582KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1000x667px

>>3036597
For a fully auto point and shoot it'd be my first choice.

[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	2017:01:21 20:08:37
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1480402654933.jpg (464KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1000x667px

[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	2016:11:28 21:39:26
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Brightness	-6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1468411657133.jpg (506KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1000x667px

There's 3 examples

[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	2016:07:13 21:03:42
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: OlyInfinityMini-Superior100-DSLRcuckScan.jpg (832KB, 1080x1620px) Image search: [Google]

832KB, 1080x1620px

>>3036597
The lense is fine.
Your skill as a photographer would be the major determinant of the quality of the output.

[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	2017:03:10 09:53:19
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1620
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036626
nice filename.

>2017
not shooting with a self made pinhole camera exclusively fucking plebs i swear

File: mju8x10scan.jpg (2MB, 2995x2399px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2995x2399px

>>3036597
If you mean the fixed lens mjus then they're pretty dank, the mjuiii is the best zoom. got a few pics i think. Posting larger sizes for quality reasons.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2995
Image Height	2399
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	2017:03:09 18:30:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2995
Image Height	2399
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: mju3zoom.jpg (2MB, 3606x5425px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3606x5425px

>>3036642
Besides the Mju1 and Mju2 they're nothing special but they're pretty cheap. There's better p&s for less but don't want to meme them.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	MLF
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:09 18:33:40
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3606
Image Height	5425
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

File: OlyInfinityMini-Superior200-DSLRcuckScan.jpg (710KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

710KB, 1500x1000px

>>3036626
>>3036629
Yep very nice.
This one is at infinity, wide open (f/3.5 on this came), and underexposed, owing to the large amount of sky in the frame, so this is about as bad as the lense will ever look.
Also handheld; it sounded like at least a 15th, maybe an 8th of a second.

[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	2017:03:10 10:31:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: mju3zoom2.jpg (2MB, 3519x5293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3519x5293px

>>3036645

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	MLF
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:09 18:38:04
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3519
Image Height	5293
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>3036640
a friend started doing that recently. photos look like shit.

File: mju1dslrscan.jpg (2MB, 8365x5725px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 8365x5725px

>>3036649
I like the mju1 but mine has mid-roll rewind issue especially when cold out, and it's always cold out.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	MLF
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8365
Image Height	5725
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:09 18:45:47
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	8365
Image Height	5725
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

File: holga.jpg (94KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x500px

I shot a roll of (Lomogrphy) B&W on my Holga and this is what came back. All the shots came out like the right, except for the one on the left. Though it does show "14" running down towards the left side of the frame, but doesn't have (or as pronounced,) the mottled look or spots.

In some ways it's kind of cool, but what the hell happened? Holga lo-fi hipster crappy shit aside, I expect the light leak and fuzzy focus, but not this to overrun the entire roll. Plus this was my first B&W roll and cost more to develop, so I'm kind of bummed.
Only thing I can think of is there was bleed through on the backing paper's print, or it was mistakenly printed on the film side, and that reflected light back to the film.

>>3036654
It's alright, you can always make new friends.
>>3036655
Is this a SuperRes or a stitch? There are shitty artifacts everywhere.
>>3036645
>>3036649
And in these two the lense looks broken there's so much field curvature. I guess it's fit for purpose as a garbage zoom P&S, but I wouldn't bother using it. Also, light your negs better, the falloff at the edges is very distracting.

>>3036659
how long have you had the roll for? really weird bet yea almost looks like the backing was on inside out and reflected the guide markings onto the film?? Idk but it's to be expected I guess shooting random ass lomo film in a holga, I doubt next roll will do the same thing.

>>3036660
It's a stitch, I'm assuming the artifacts are from not resizing but compression from a 130mb file, idk fuck all about digitalizing film and it shows. Might just stick to prints.
I bet the curvature is from my dlsr scan not from the mjuiii itself, I've made prints from the camera and there hasn't been any. I'll definitely have to step my scanning game up a notch.

>>3036663
I just bought the Lomography film the other month, so it's brand new. First thought was light coming through the back window since I use black painters tape to cover it and has that kind of mottled look. But I've never had that problem before, and if it was the case should only have appeared in the center.

I could read the guide marks as normal while using it, so at least that part of the backing was fine. There's also the mottled effect which suggests some kind of irregular reflection.

>>3036659
>bleed through on the backing paper's print
Got it in one, buddy.
But from light, not from the actual ink bleeding.
Your holga is essentially a piece of shit and not suitable for photography, it leaks unwanted light like a sieve, and then doesn't let in enough light when you go to take a photo.
You probably also did some stupid shit like carrying it around in daylight, that's a big nono with garbage cams; keep them in a bag.
It basically means that the light leaking through the back window of the cam contributed an excessive amount of exposure to the film, relative to that which came through the lense.
My guess is that the whole roll is woefully underexposed, but that the shot you took literally of a fucking lightbulb was the only one with enough density on the negative to mask the base fogging coming through the backing paper. If you had properly exposed the film, you might not have seen the numbers at all, but because the processor had to jack the contrast so high in post to get any image at all off your mostly blank film, it's quite prominent.
>tl;dr: tape you holga's window, keep it shielded from the sun as much as possible, use higher quality film with stauncher backing paper and a higher exposure sensitivity (tmax400), shoot in adequate light for your f/8, 1/60 toycam

>>3036668
Very weird, Maybe the backing stuck to the emulsion?

File: mylifesofar.jpg (161KB, 1225x671px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1225x671px

Going to be testing out this Holga GTLR with the Holga Instax Back on this tiny house. Any tips when using this type of camera?

File: 33110433366_3c3beb4b19_o.jpg (205KB, 966x780px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 966x780px

>>3036667
>It's a stitch, I'm assuming the artifacts are from not resizing but compression from a 130mb file
No, the artifacts are from your shitty stitch.
>>3036667
>I bet the curvature is from my dlsr scan
Maybe, but it also appears to be on the film, esp in the first one.
You've got a few issues going on; 35mm is really an inappropriate focal length for copy work, and you aren't stopping down enough.
Getting further away, with a 50 or 100mm, will improve your alignment of the sensor and film parallel to one another, the longer focal length will decrease your depth of field, and thus improve the quality of your backlighting, and the working distance will make you a much happier camper. Also, those lenses will be sharper. The 50's have less distortion and no CA, the 100's have no distortion, better field flatness and higher resolution.

[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	2017:03:10 11:19:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-7.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	966
Image Height	780
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036671
>Any tips when using this type of camera?
They're really good for action/press shots. Try some rooftopping, get some macros of oncoming trains, document the crystal meth trade in your local area.

>>3036675
Ahhh I see, I popped it into photoshops auto merge. So your saying is a 50mm + extension tubes should be better than a 35mm macro lens? But yeah probably don't need to stitch 4 pictures together for a 35mm frame haha, I print all my b&w anyways, but I'm starting to shoot a lot more colour so I realized I'll have to find a scanning solution as I'm not gonna start R4a printing anytime soon.

File: NewerScansForP.jpg (3MB, 5936x3945px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5936x3945px

>>3036678
A 50mm Macro. The Pentacks-M 50/4 is dirt cheap, try that. No CA, no distortion.

[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	2016:08:29 10:52:14
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	5936
Image Height	3945
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036684
think a 50mm f/1.4 with extension tube would be give or take the same results as the f/4 macro.

File: img051.jpg (197KB, 670x1001px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 670x1001px

From a test roll of Delta 100 in my GW690ii

File: img052.jpg (151KB, 1001x674px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1001x674px

>>3036690
Same roll.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2016:11:29 19:54:59

>>3036677
Even though it's not true advice, it's still pretty funny

File: 2trees1doge.jpg (510KB, 1001x662px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1001x662px

And old shot on expired Superia.
It was the last shot on the roll. I remember that because I remember taking it out of the camera standing where that shot was taken, and then dropping the roll in the grass.
Spent a half hour looking for it. The dog did not help.

It's one of the rare photos I have where I think less grain would have actually improved it. I usually feel that grain and sharpness don't make a real difference in the snapshits I produce.

>>3036689
Do you think I would have clarified the point if I though that?

>>3036698
Do you have any insights on extension tubes, master scanner?

File: Scan-140219-0030.jpg (253KB, 1001x670px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1001x670px

>>3036572
We are so blessed to have you here, Kurwa.

HP5 from a test roll in a Cosina CX-1.
Nice little camera actually. I should use it more.

File: Scan-140220-0017.jpg (250KB, 1001x675px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1001x675px

>>3036700
I made one myself by gluing together a body cap and a rear lens cap once. It worked alright and cost me like 3 dollars.
Credit where it's due; it was Ayya's idea.

More HP5. I think this was in the OM10.

>>3036700
Macro lenses have a flat field of focus which is critical for getting good sharp scans of a flat piece of film. Putting extension tubes on a regular lens means you're using that lens in a way that it wasn't intended to be used, it's not going to have a flat field and super high resolution because that's not what the lens was designed for. You'll get results and maybe they'll be good enough, extension tubes are dirt cheap and nobody is stopping you from just trying it yourself if you don't believe the advice you asked for.

PS I'm not the guy you're responding to and I think DSLR scanning is a retarded waste of time. You can pick up a used Plustek 35mm scanner for pretty cheap and all you have to do is slap your negatives in the holder and push a button to get good consistent results without having to nigger rig a whole contraption.

>>3036705
My Plustek always missed focus on slides

File: 1486559722358.jpg (240KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1000x667px

>>3036678
Get the Canon FD 50mm macro. That's what I scan with. Dirt cheap, flat field of view, get the fd25 extension tube made for it and you get 1:1 magnification.

[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	2017:02:07 18:43:30
Exposure Time	2 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
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	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: fuck.png (1MB, 758x604px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 758x604px

>>3036678

Do you guys pre-rinse your film before developing?

>>3036730
yes

>>3036730
Always.

>>3036729
sorry bru new to this.

I just got my first film camera the other day, Memolta XG-M. Before Ive only just used my phone or my digital camera to take pics.
Ive shot one roll already just to check to make sure everything worked. I noticed Im not very good at gauging exposure yet...
But yeah do you guys have any tips? Maybe types of glass I should look into or anything?

>>3036746
If you understand sunny 16, this is the part most people don't mention. http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart

>>3036746
The 45/2 MD pancake is one of my favourite lenses ever and they're dirt cheap.

>>3036749
This guide is pretty good so far, hes sticking more to nature photos which is something Im interested in. Thanks man.
>>3036754
This looks rad, I saw a few lenses at the spot where I snagged my camera so Ill be sure to go back to see if they have this one. If not Ill look around online, thanks.

File: FH000008.jpg (469KB, 1232x1840px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1232x1840px

>>3036326
If you're in Japan and can get for real cheap but i wouldn't import it at a premium
I think I shot this on industrial

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0J-014
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:25 19:14:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1232
Image Height	1840

>>3036736
>>3036737
How long, just 30 seconds or so?

File: cake.jpg (526KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 1000x667px

>>3036345
I like Pro 400H too. It has nice colors for skin tones and some other stuff. It has a decent exposure latitude but you still need "good" light to make things look good. It can be inconsistent and a challenge to use but when it works it works. It's also grainy so it's best used on bigger than 35mm.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Image Created	2015:08:19 00:28:08
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

>>3036746
The XG-M is one of the best starter cameras around, good choice. Minoltas have excellent exposure logic, so as long as you pay attention to what your intended subject is you'll be fine with metering. In high contrast situations swing the camera around at different objects to see what readings the meter gives you and figure out what the proper one should be for your subject.

You can't go wrong with Minolta glass, just stay clear of 3rd party stuff like cheap Vivitars.

File: Provia400x_004.jpg (309KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1000x667px

>>3036366
Got then pushed 400X roll back. Only had time to scan a few frames before heading out for the weekend. It looks much better than Provia 100F in terms of colors and tones imo.

[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	2017:03:10 17:38:44
Exposure Time	2.5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036730
no

File: Provia400x_003.jpg (354KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1000x667px

[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	2017:03:10 17:36:57
Exposure Time	2.5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036746
get the 50mm f/1.7, the 28mm f/2.8 and maybe the 85 f/1.4 or 1.8 can't remember exactly (though that one is expensive)

File: acros-2.jpg (669KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

669KB, 996x1000px

>>3036783
Until the rinsing water comes out clear.
I usually fill my tank with water and let it soak while I mix the chemicals, that does 95% of it, and I just have to make one final rinse after.

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

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

>>3036847
Alright nice, I'll remember to do this

File: 193983928665.jpg (600KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

600KB, 1000x750px

>mfw I find mum has an MJU and a bunch of sweet photos from Japan
I don't think it's the model /p/ loves, but still cool considering it has a fresh roll and the battery is full after who knows how many years of not being used.

File: C003378-R1-13-14.jpg (2MB, 1240x1834px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1240x1834px

when you almost exclusively shoot in portrait orientation and thus can't use any of your work as a wallpaper.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:15 17:33:06
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3036730
It's best practice for sure, but unnecessary for most B&W.
The purpose is not to wash out the antihalo layer, like slavshit said, but to stabilise the temp of your film, tank and reels to the temp of your dev; to soften the emulsion so that it will readily take on the dev, and to pre-wet the film, so that the first contact with the dev isn't so harsh, and doesn't leave visible splotching on larger pieces of film.
But if you're only developing smaller formats, and your developer is going to take more than 5 minutes, and your ambient temp isn't wildly different to your dev temp, then you can very confidently skip it.

>>3036602
The green bush is pretty

>>3036234
hey i bought some of this provia 100f film in 36 exposure but im not sure how to shoot it. does the canon ae-1 counter go up to 36 or stop before that?

>>3036896
yes it does

Retards

File: F4980003.jpg (651KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1840x1232px

Zenit 12SD with Helios 44M-4 and didnt know where to focus because i didnt have glasses and also didnt know what shutter speed i needed to use due to my batteries not working.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SLP800
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER330-3.0-0E-518
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:10 16:26:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

My local camera shop threw all my pictures onto a CD when i got them developed, to any of you that do the same, do you resize your photos after you get them back or do you stick with what he shop gives you? and if you do resize, is there a standard size or is it all preference?

File: s-l500.jpg (19KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x500px

this plastic piece of fuck just arrived. 2 minutes in and its the shittiest camera ive ever tried to use, and i say this as a proud owner of a pentacon 6. will post the schnappz when the roll is done.

File: the one and only.png (126KB, 700x595px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 700x595px

>there are people in this world that use lab scans
>there are people in this world that pay for drum scans
>there are people that dslrcuck scan
>there are people that don't buy their own good scanner
>there are people that use espon or canon scanners

>>3036975
>There are people that are different to me
Low quality b8 m8

>>3036923
Pretty damn good

>>3036966
why do you dislike the P6

>>3036597
>>3036600
>>3036626
While were at the mjus, is there a way to stop going into auto flash when you pull it out? Got a Mju I but I feel weird pulling out the camera to quickly take a good shot and then everyone realizes I took a photo because of the flash.

>>3036659
That looks exactly like the backing paper of Shanghai Gp3 actually. Never had that happen though (shot several rolls of it in a Holga, too), but I've seen it happen to others. Googling that will help you out.

But good to know Gp3 still exists. I guess I'm either a weirdo or got a good batch for my 10 rolls, but I actually liked that film.

>>3036975
>supercoolscan9000
this sounds like a joke name lol

>>3036873
You could crop photos to 16:9 vertically and make them phone wallpapers, dummy.

>>3036876
You're right about this, but I still usually rinse off the dyes and shit until the water runs clear. Developing wastes a bunch of water anyway, it won't hurt to do a good thorough pre-rinse and skipping it won't save much time or effort or water.

>>3036849
I really like mine. You can out-resolve the lens pretty quickly shooting dense things like grass, but for a point and shoot it does the job really nicely.

>>3037035
I heard somewhere that Shanghai GP3 was out of production because they were relocation their factory? Does anyone know?

>>3036959
I resize to 1000px on the longest size and >1mb, because the only place I post photos is /p/, and i'm a good cuck.

>>3037058
Wait until you see the coathanger abortion of a computer system you'll need to run one.
>>3036975
>people complain about nigger rigging DSLR setups, then pay literally THOUSANDS of dollars for one of these 90's memes, and then have to totally nigger rig a fridge-sized Compaq running Windows ME on 512mb of ram to talk to the thing.
>and then the scans are worse than any 24mp DSLR setup
>noise
>banding
>pissweak DMAX
>DMIN irrelevant, because as soon as you increased contrast on a thin neg, the scan quality would fall to shit
>only 20 mins per frame on the only quality setting worth using
>manual feed, unless you find some other unobtainium 90's piece of plastic shit
wew lad

File: Provia400x_002-1.jpg (443KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 667x1000px

>>3037002
No, but if I'm walking around shooting photos I just disable the flash and then don't close the clamshell so the camera stays in that mode.

[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	4000
Image Height	6000
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	2017:03:10 17:33:19
Exposure Time	2.5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036602
>>3036601
>>3036600
What film stocks were these taken on?

File: 1484463243399.jpg (624KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1000x667px

>>3037111
Ultramax 400, industrial 100, ultramax 400

[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	2017:01:15 15:36:16
Exposure Time	8 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-6.3 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	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3036363
You're scans look alright. I love Ektar 100.

>>3037091
works on any apple computer with firewire and any windows pc with usb
ie all of them

>>3037067
computer wallpapers obviously you idiot

>>3037104
If only the shutter button wouldn't press itself so easily in my pocket and take pictures while I walk.

Guess I will try to tape it over or something like that.

>>3037160
Nigga, just flip the screen.
Next you'll tell me that you bought a meme monitor that doesn't have a VESA mount or rotating stand.

>>3037294
I use a laptop

>>3037295
Travel back in time and slap yourself for your bad decision. Alternatively, travel back in time and abort yourself.

File: Picture.jpg (369KB, 633x1000px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 633x1000px

Some recent snaps from Thailand

Pan F developed in Memeinal at 1:25 dilution

1/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:05 21:52:14

File: Picture-7.jpg (427KB, 1000x632px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1000x632px

>>3037303
2/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:05 21:52:16

File: Picture-3.jpg (332KB, 1000x639px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 1000x639px

>>3037304
3/3

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:05 21:52:15

File: IMG_9234.jpg (130KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1500x1000px

Anyone try this shit out on a non lomo camera? It's cheap but I wanna know what happens if you stick it in an AE-1

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3037359
you get photos. dumbass.

>>3037304
Id be very proud if I were you

File: Havana1.jpg (318KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1000x1000px

boxing gym in old havana, 120 400 tx, 6x6

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

>>3037359
Please give me your camera and I will give you some cheap point and shoot for you, then everyone is happy.

>>3037374
>>3037386

So in other words you don't know

>>3037507
Please leave this board

>>3037510

Hey man, it's okay to say you don't know, I won't judge you or anything. I had a question of my own and it was semi technical

I'm not your dad, you can point your teenage rebellion elsewhere.

File: 1488839413898.jpg (68KB, 624x480px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 624x480px

>>3037535
Hey man I'm not the carer of your kindergarten group, gotta be a big boy and try to find out stupid questions like these yourself. Preferably without trying to hide that by acting like a smartass in the end.

But I don't like to make fun of retarded people so here I'm going to spoonfeed you.
You imbecile why would it matter what brand of film you put in your camera jesus fucking hell. If you get film from the brand lomography and put it in your non lomography camera that takes that type of film it is going to work like every other film also. Just that this film most likely is absolutely crap since people buying that expect crap film.

>>3037359
>>3037507
>>3037535
1) put film in camera
2) operate camera
3) develop film
4) kys

>>3037537
>You imbecile why would it matter what brand of film you put in your camera jesus fucking hell. If you get film from the brand lomography and put it in your non lomography camera that takes that type of film it is going to work like every other film also. Just that this film most likely is absolutely crap since people buying that expect crap film.

See? Was that so hard? I have a question and if you have an actual answer you respond.

I mean I know photographers as a whole are unreasonably elitist and theres some unwritten rule where you're just not allowed to be new or have newbie questions but just answering the question from the start would've been easier than attempting to dish out whatever was served to you when you first started.

Quit projecting, it's too on the nose and reeks of insecurities.

>>3037535

Please kill yourself

>>3037540
Okay, but only because you said please.

There. I did it. I'm now dead and posting from the great beyond.

>>3037539
I seriously hope you are trolling because if not you are beyond help.
Do you not see the irony behind this, that you are too unable to help yourself and get mad at others for not helping you?

So please just open your window and jump out.


And on a sidenote, how do you suggest to getting good at something without beeing 'elitist'? Please seriously jump out of your window and leave this site, since you clearly are under 18.

>>3037543
>hopes Anon is trolling
Way to take the bait, maybe you should kill yourself instead

If I had to guess I'm going to assume the Anon actually is new and had a question about film in the film thread on the photography board. Fuck them right?

I THINK the question is either whether you can use this brand film universally with any 35mm or if there's any hipster/lomo look that somehow comes inherent in the film---- like how Kodak tends to look warmer than Fujifilm etc?

Am I right here? What exactly is it you're looking for, Anon?

File: 1488888333002.png (35KB, 771x774px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 771x774px

>>3037547
now you are just getting pathetic please stop

>>3037542

Hey, good job

File: IMG_9240.png (256KB, 494x359px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 494x359px

>>3037548

Guys can we sustain the autism in sony vs. fuji and gear threads?

File: DSC_1843.jpg (234KB, 1001x789px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1001x789px

Anyone have some good developing and fixing times for Kodachrome 25?
I have Rodinal and ID11 in the house. For fixer I use Ilford Rapidfix.

>>3037558
umm Kodachrome isn't a Black and White film so your Rodinal and ID11 are useless.

Unless you have the chemicals and knowledge needed to do a K-14 process or manage to find a lab that still does the process (don't think there are any left in the world), you're out of luck

>>3037558
Rodinal 1:50 for 15 minutes should be fine.
Fix as per normal.

>>3037561
hey faggot how about you don't post when you don't know shit and spread counterproductive misinformation, huh?

Every 35mm film regardless of process records the latent image by exposing silver halide salts suspended in gelatin and (optionally, for colour processes) bound with various dye couplers and sensitizers. Every development process, bw or colour, begins by developing that latent silver halide image. Every single film emulsion can be developed as a black&white negative, it's just that all the extra layers of shit in colour/slide emulsions make it hard to print/scan the (usually thin) bw image. Sure you can develop kodachrome as a shitty slow bw film, but that's smearing a medieval parchment with a dog turd to get a dick doodle - wasting the base material. Don't post until you know the basics of the stuff you intend to talk about, shitstain.

>>3037561
>what is crossprocessing

>>3037565
>>3037566
ok

>>3037565
You sure are mad.
Let me guess; isi was asking the film question and that's why you're whiteknighting like a sperglord.

File: IMG_9241.jpg (44KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x500px

>>3037565

But what if it's lomography brand film?

[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	500
Image Height	500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3037574
Then rethink your life choices of paying greedy austrians to rebrand budget emulsions and sell them to you in new boxes under new names.

>>3037574
I've shot a lot of their iso 100 color negative film. It's decent enough.
Film is the only thing you should buy from them really. The cameras are insanely overpriced but if you have an old 110 camera and you want to try it out lomography.com is a good enough place to go for the film.

>>3037577
Maybe he cares more about taking some actual photos rather than shooting endless test rolls and jacking off to sharpness charts and microscopy of T-grains.

File: img-5.jpg (801KB, 2264x3232px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 2264x3232px

>>3036234
Any of you shoot HP5 at 3200? This image was HP5 @ 3200 in D-76 1:1 for 25 minutes. Looking to shoot an actual roll soon and develop with some HC-110.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2264
Image Height	3232
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:11 20:28:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2264
Image Height	3232

>>3037642
Mine barely looks that good at 400.
I think I just suck at scanning.

>>3037643
Honestly I don't really like HP5 at 400, I think the negatives are quite flat and lifeless. I'm not really using an expensive scanner here either, canoscan 9000f m2.

Maybe try ging it a go at 1600 / 800 and scan then, also make sure you're adding sharpening in lightroom, without that they look pretty dull.

File: 1600hp5.jpg (453KB, 1001x696px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1001x696px

>>3037649
Here's some HP5 at 1600 from a few years ago. It didn't make me want to try 3200.
I used to shoot HP5 a lot, I think it prints really well for a film this speed, but after I exchanged the darkroom for a digital scanner I have come to dislike the film more and more. I'm switching to Delta 400 for my "fast" film of choice now. It's a quite different beast but I like it. You should give it a try.

File: Scan-140607-0037.jpg (440KB, 1001x681px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 1001x681px

>>3037656
Here's some Delta 400 at box speed. Haven't tried pushing it yet now I think about it.
I should.

>>3037359
It is Kodak Gold.

>>3037657
Not a fan of either picture but your Delta 400 looks pretty damn good at box speed, I might pick up some on my next film order and give it a go.

The tones on your hp5 look pretty good, what scanner are you using and processing both after scanning and dev?

>>3037662
The scanner is a Plustek 7200.
The jpg is years old so I really don't remember what I did with it. Probably very little.
I think I was scanning with Silverfast at the time.
I scan with an Epson V550 using Epson software now, which I like.

I know the pics are shit, it was mostly about showing what the films look like.

>>3037383
wtf why does this have no replies, this is superb m8

>>3037304
nice.
>>3037383
cool shit m80.
like how the ring stands out.