/fgt/ - Film General Thread

File: 800T120.jpg (129KB, 1024x751px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1024x751px

Can get any cinestill film I want for free, what should I get?
Thinking 5 rolls of 800T 120, and 5 rolls of the 50 135.
Never shot either.

>>3088764
>Can get any cinestill film I want
>give me 5 please
get all you can, fucko.

>>3088765
10 total, not as much as I want but within reason.

File: 667x395x2.jpg (50KB, 667x395px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 667x395px

Hey /p/, why aren't you guys soaking your film in /p/ee?

https://www.lomography.com/magazine/284773-pee-film-soak-by-brigette-bloom

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	25 dpi
Vertical Resolution	25 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	395

>>3088769
>pee soak
>"Let’s all support each other and spread the creative energy!”
Fucking hippies REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3088769
Fucking disgusting the examples given in the article make me gag just knowing those stains are piss stains I bet it smells just as bad. Can't wait for art fags to soak this shit up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32337778
>oh those quirky eccentric weirdos!

File: revolog_film_large.jpg (22KB, 480x341px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x341px

How much of a fucking meme is revolog

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	620
Image Height	440

>>3088799
my man patrick joust being featured BIGLY. nice.

>>3088800
>tesla 1
>tesla 2
pretty fucking meme. also they sell film not only expired but actually busted and unusable. i hope their "bussiness" crashes hard, we dont need that shit.

>>3088775
...you know it has to be developed/fixed/bleached washed after?

There won't be any piss left on it

>>3088832
film is semi-porous and will retain traces of whatever liquids its immersed in, otherwise you'd not bother with the washing step at all

>>3088769
Imagine the poor fucking lab developing her shots without knowing.

>>3088769
Hey hey, didn't'cha hear, "the medium is the message"... "women's art"...

>>3088769
>messing with the minilab's chemicals and ruining other people's film
Disgusting. Next thing will be soaking film on pussy juice or menstruation.

>>3088920
>Next thing will be soaking film on pussy juice or menstruation.

Don't give them ideas.

>>3088769
So all it does it make stains on the film? i don't get it

File: IMG_0936.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

Which should I choose to shoot color film with? I've only shot film with the AE-1, the other 2 I've gotten recently. Should I choose the one with the best lens (the ME)? Seriously need help deciding.

File: img_0845.jpg (194KB, 594x594px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 594x594px

Any Ausfags used Hillvale Sunny 16 before? Just found out about it and I'm considering picking up some since it's cheap and Aussie made

>>3088935
Put a roll though both of them and figure out which one you like best

>>3088946
eh I suppose, I'm leaving in about a week for a trip and that's not enough time to get results from a lab ;(

>>3088965
Well in that case I'd go with the spotmatic coz manual mode but if you're fine with just aperture priority go with the ME.

>>3088966
Thanks, yeah I'll probably go with the ME mainly bc the Spotmatic was a piece of garbage my art teacher gave me that I fixed, so I'm not 100% sure all the shutter times are correct (though they seem to be). Plus the Spotmatic's lens is yellowed so I'm assuming that would result in yellowed pics

>>3088943
It's not aussie made, it's rebranded fuji

>>3088998
Well I mean its an Australian company rebranding it, would you happen to know what film it is?

File: Capture_large.jpg (20KB, 316x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 316x480px

>>3089016
>Hillvale Sunny 16

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	James Juranke
Image-Specific Properties:

>>3088935
>I s-swear the neatly laid out and photographed cameras I posted a huge unresized photo of are o-only there to ask that question, ooh me, so indecisive ;;;;^)

>>3089025
lol definitely picking some up its cheaper than all of those films

File: 18813740_1555320881179275_8769722701744168442_n.jpg (36KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x360px

How much would you pay for this?
57 rolls.

Most of them expired I guess. Has been cooled.

File: catalina.png (2MB, 1125x747px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1125x747px

Curious guys, I have a 28-85 mm lens, will I be able to shoot good photos of the island of catalina from a boat that will be off the coast of it?

I took a 50mm and went fishing with my brother and his friends yesterday but I just got my bigger lens in and I'm wondering before I go and rent a boat to try it out if it'd be enough? I imagine from the boat to the coast I'd be 20-30 feet away on average.

I'm shooting film so /film related.

>>3089066
$20

File: whaaat.png (154KB, 438x269px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 438x269px

>>3088769
Why not just soak the film in other basic solutions like ammonia?

>>3089066
For 57 rolls, I'd say something like $80 or something. Since the dude seems to be one of those "I know what I got" types though, you'll probably never get him to go under $100.

>>3089067
Was the 50mm you used yesterday fine? If not then use the zoom you fucking autist of course you'll get "good" shots with a zoom range wider and more tele than your 50mm

>>3089027
I'm not going to resize a phone photo, fuck off

>>3089091

It was okay of rocks in the ocean when close and some of the cliffs, but not what i was hoping for.

I've never used my 85 mm that's actually why i'm wondering. I literally just got it in the mail yesterday so I don't know its capabilities.

>>3089073
Hmm, the Provia is like 9 euros per roll already.
So there are 10 of them, maybe 11 including the one in the front if that is Provia.

That's 90 already.

>>3089097
This is true, but that's also the price for new film.

Where's a britfag to buy film online?

File: clara test2_proc.jpg (180KB, 902x1000px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 902x1000px

tried a 'proper' scanner for once
and now all my shit is covered in newton rings
god dammit why is scanning color film such a bitch

>>3089119
Just clean your negs and you'll be fine
http://howtoscan.ca/scanning-tips/clean-negatives-before-scan-alcohol.php

>>3089121
yeah I guess. it actually was pretty clean when I started out but fiddling with the neg holder a couple of times got a lot more stuff on it. good tip with the alcohol though, thanks m8

>>3089124
newton rings have nothing to do with clean or not, it has to do with the neg touching the scanners glass. set it flat and it wont newton.

>>3089126
I'm aware of that, just explained why the film is dirty - because I tried for a long time to place the film in a way that doesn't cause newton rings. which is practically impossible with the stock neg holder on v800 it seems, or I'm just retarded

>>3089129
>stock neg holder on v800

Is it with glass? If so, make sure the glass has the "rough / matte" side touching the film.

File: 7ddLGeh.jpg (300KB, 1280x974px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1280x974px

>>3089103
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Film/catalogue/171/

Some anon linked 3 other sites in the previous thread.

>>3089066
57 bucks. Expired slide film isn't realible even if stored in the fridge plus I can't know for sure if it was propeerly stored.

just bought a canon a1. what lens would you recommend?

>>3089164
FD 50 1.4

>>3089164
FD 35 2.8

and >>3089166

>>3089103
http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/
https://www.sharifphotographic.co.uk/
http://www.studentphotostore.co.uk/

Learn to use google kid

>>3089148
>sells agfa 200 for £5
>poundland sells it for £1
I bought like 10 rolls last time I saw it, also, there's 3 poundlands in my city alone if one doesn't have it

>>3088732
Why can't any of you cucks post oc for the OP photo?
I have like 15 rolls hanging up to age that I haven't been fucked to scan :(

File: 1495455263909.jpg (323KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1000x667px

>>3088933
You passed the test anon.

>>3089066
Not even sure I'd bother. Nothing great from what I can see other than the odd roll here and there. Even that Provia is the pre-F version...

>>3089164
Both of these
>>3089166
>>3089185

[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	2017:05:22 21:13:22
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-6.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
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

>>3089164
The 50L and 85L.
The 50 Macro if you can't afford L shit.
Also the 35/2.8.

>>3089164
Get the 50mm f1.4. Have it on my ae-1 and I've had very nice results. It's film, don't blow a bunch of money on a lens you don't need.

What are some creative things to do with FP100c besides shoving it into my ass and anally birthing it with the help of a enema?

>>3089320
shooting it?

>>3089320
shoot a wide open cunt. focus just the literal cunt, everything else shouldve bokeyed, but the cunt in tack sharp focus.

>>3089323

I don't think I can get that developed in Japan.

>>3089326
>FP100c
>Get it developed
U wot m8?

Hi /fgt/s

A family member of mine passed away a few years ago. They worked as a photographer in the 1960's-1990's as a house photographer in a major sports venue. We are looking for a solution to scanning millions of slides and keeping a digital copy, as some of the earlier color photos are starting to change back to primary colors. With the cost of scanning per slide being at $.85 for someone else doing it (we have literally millions of slides, worth tens of millions of dollars), I'd like to take on the project myself if there is a machine which can scan very high quality bulk loads with relative ease. The cost of the machine is negligible. What can you recommend?

>>3089330
inb4 shitstorm

>>3088943
I've actually got a roll being developed right now. It was $5 from where I usually buy my film so I thought I'd give it a shot.

>>3089330
A lot of people are going to tell you to try DSLR scanning or flatbed scanning but considering how long the colour correction would take for 'millions of slides', Its not worth it for the minute details.
One of those Plustek film scanners is probably your best bet. They aren't exactly fast but its a pretty simple process to keep loading film in.

>>3089331
Amen to that brother. Who has a copy of the scanner thread meme pic?

>>3089340
>Plustek scanner
>Millions of slides
Good luck with that bro. You're going to need a pallet of Plustek scanners to do that job.

File: scanners.jpg (62KB, 420x500px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 420x500px

>>3089343

>>3089330 here
Archive quality is necessary. Some of these photos will be sold to sports teams for advertisements and some will be sold to museums.
>>3089346
Thanks for your input. Do you know of anything which has a bulk feeder mechanism?

>>3089330
>worth tens of millions of dollars

Not that anyone would ever pay that...ever...

Pay someone else to do it. If you have millions of slides, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of hours of work to do it yourself.

>>3089349
Bulk feed or not. It's the time of each scan that kills it.

From filmscanner.info:
A scan at full resolution and activated iSRD-function still takes nearly 10 minutes with the Plustek OpticFilm 8200i.

By my math, that's about 19 years to scan one million slides, and that is if there is no lag time between slides.

>>3089352
You would be surprised. Sports franchises like having a lock on historic photos, especially when there aren't many out there in circulation. We've already made 6 figures on a small batch we sold. They're building a museum as we speak and need material.
>>3089353
If there is a feed mechanism, I can have it running 24/7. Having more than one running is also an option, money is not a barrier here.

>>3089354
If money is no object, I'd suggest you contact Phase One Cultural Heritage. It is the only way to do a job like this if quality and preservation are your goals.

https://dtdch.com/film/

>>3089359
This is the best I have seen so far, I appreciate your input. Looking into this now.

>>3089362
You're welcome anon. I can only dream of having that setup. As a current user of Capture One, I would be so happy if they would just sell me the software.

File: slidescanner.jpg (398KB, 1642x1088px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1642x1088px

>>3089330
I work at a photo lab and we use one of these with a nikon d810 with an 85mm on it

Instead of the carousel top get a stack loader and load them in all with the emulsion facing the proper way oriented properly and its very easy to do

You plug the camera into the machine and it'll cycle through and snap each one and then you just load another stack of slides in. It's very easy to do and at work I've scanned at least 2k slides in a couple of hours before

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:21 11:02:50
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1642
Image Height	1088
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

>>3089326

It is instant film.

I bougyt an a7rii w/ the amazing 90mm f2.8 macro for my japan cunt shots.

File: stack loader.jpg (663KB, 1047x800px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1047x800px

>>3089330
And this is the stack loader I use where you can stack them about 40-50 at a time

It's fairly time consuming but this is most likely the best way to get the job done cheaply

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 40D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:07:18 11:34:37
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	34.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1047
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3089368

Holy shit, I want one.

Way too much I suspect though.

>>3089374
about 3400 bux

If he took them to a place they will charge 10 times that to scan the amount he wants done

>>3089330
Can you elaborate on who the photographer is? Seems like a very interesting project

Best bet is have a professional/business do this for you. Can't really take a few million slides down to your local photoshop, nor can you really expect to do it all yourself in a reasonable amount of time. Consumer film scanners take fucking ages (my Plustek takes a good couple of minutes for the highest resolution scan).

I'm interested in getting a compact 35mm. Something to carry around easily and use daily. So a point and shoot or a small rangefinder I guess. Is there anything worth looking into on a budget of $50-75?

>>3089430
konica big mini

>>3089413
I do not wish to reveal the identity of the photographer. They took photographs for an NBA and NHL team for many years in a large American city. If I said which, it would be too easy to figure out who they are. I would wager that you have seen at least a handful in your life if you live in the US.

File: aidanaidanweb.jpg (2MB, 1010x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1010x1500px

>>3089430
Anything with a fixed focal length lens will be decent.

The lesser know Ricohs are good, the Contax cameras are amazing but have an insane hipster tax. Pretty much just find some no-name compact and you'll be right. My daily camera is a Canon Sureshot 80u that I bought brand new for $5 from a thriftstore, and it's not half bad.

Pic related is from said camera

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

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

>>3089413
>Best bet is have a professional/business do this for you. Can't really take a few million slides down to your local photoshop, nor can you really expect to do it all yourself in a reasonable amount of time

Once again as someone that works at a photo lab and not even an expensive one they will absolutely rape you on the price

>>3089436
bruh with a few million slides he's not going to a photo lab. You'll go to a professional archival service.

Plus he mentioned earlier that money is no object

>>3089368
>>3089372
Looks like a contender, I appreciate it.

Looks like Lucky is back, /fgt/: http://instagram.com/luckyfilm_china

Never shot it, but I've shot quite a bit of Shanghai Gp3 (who I hear is also coming back, with a 220 film too) which I think is nice. I'll try at least a few rolls.

File: c489521eb0cb376e5a653c01713062a9.jpg (504KB, 1700x2560px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1700x2560px

>>3089369
>>3089326

But no seriously though, would you get in trouble for trying to get hardcore pornography or even cunt pics developed in Japan?

On one hand, I'd expect them to not just a fuck and let you have your privacy. On the other there are all those censorship laws.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3840
Image Height	5760
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	2016:02:16 10:08:55
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1700
Image Height	2560

>>3089540
if you don't want the film scanned you'd probably be fine

>>3088943
>>3089336
5 dollarydoos for a color film seems crazy cheap.

>>3089540
I knew a guy who worked at a lab in NY who told me he always saved nude shots.

who wouldn't?

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-05 at 11.20.39.png (529KB, 1260x696px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1260x696px

>>3089548
Just get bricks of Kodak Colorplus.

File: Braun_034515_MULTIMAG_SlideScan_6000_872649.jpg (66KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x1000px

>>3089330
Get a Braun Multimag SlideScan 6000, it's quite good in terms of quality but the most important thing is that it does batch scanning with the most ease without being a professional machine with outdated software.

You just turn it on and let it do it's thing.

>>3089336
I'd love to see the results
>>3089564
No.

>>3089569
why not?

>>3089564
Isn't that film practically useless without flash unless it's a sunny day outdoors? At least that's what I was told some time ago.

>>3089564
I would rather fellate Steve Buscemi every day than have to shoot nothing but 35mm colorplus.

>>3088732

I just finished a positives roll.

Should I get the mounted? Or are they okay just in a sleeve like negatives?

I will probably just dslr scan them anyway.

>>3089573
You take advice from weird people. It's got vivid falsified colours compared to fuji c200/agfa vista (same stock), supposedly narrow DR though I never felt that too much burning through my 10 roll brick. I metered manually for shadows, though, might be that some auto exposure cams average stuff out to the point of underexposing shadows. At any rate it's a granier c200 with weirder colour rendering. You get what you pay for, but def. normal in lowlight conditions. Good recoprocity, too. Shot it indoors and in overcast weather/in the evening, normal cheap budget film.

>>3089572
Because I asked what people thought of the film not give examples of alternative film

File: n_portrait.jpg (623KB, 664x1000px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 664x1000px

>>3089573
nah nigga

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

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

Whats the benefits/negatives of using c-41 B&W film compared to traditional B&W?

>>3089590
The only real reason to use C41 B&W film is if you can't get real B&W film developed near you.

Real B&W film is better in pretty much every way, and it's absurdly easy to develop at home. There's really no reason to be using C41 B&W unless you like the particular look of the film or you can get it really cheaply

File: s-l1600.jpg (115KB, 1313x858px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1313x858px

>>3089590
Normal minilabs can not develop non-C41 black and white film.

So let's say you're an arsty-fartsy 20-something who wants to look cool, so you want to shoot black and white FILM because digital is passe and color is no longer hip.
You have no darkroom access, skill, nor knowledge.
You try a roll of Tri-X but the local minilab says they can't process it.
Somehow you find out about the C-41 film and viola!

You are now hip, retro, and cool.

>>3089565
>You just turn it on and let it do it's thing.

For 19 years.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151076&page=5

>>3089605
>4:08 min for 5000 ppi with dust removal per slide.
10.000 slides will only take 28 days, 16 hours, 23 minutes and 20 seconds not taking in account swapping mags.

If you really want to do a million it will only take you slightly less then 8 years.

But if you are looking at that much it will be quicker and easier to just hand it off to a specialty service.

>>3089610
damn how have I not heard about this by now

just gotta convince my university to cop one of these when he finally finishes it

>>3089547

I assume if it is a titty shot or a little muff it is probably fine, even if someone has to look at it like scanning or prints.

But post-creampie gangbang spread cunt might cause some issues.

>>3089562

Creepy, but not surprising.

If you were really gonna make sex pictures you should probably develop yourself.

Or better yet, use a digital camera. And make sure not to upload to the cloud.

>>3089593

>normal labs can only do c41.

Yep my local place in Japan had to send my e6 off.

>>3089593
That's not the real reason xp2 exists haha

File: Integra.jpg (31KB, 480x395px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x395px

Hey guys, I am looking for a camera from the early to mid 90's to recreate photos like this of cars from the late 80's to early 90's. I checked eBay and there are alot of listings for old cameras I am just not sure which one to get. What would you guys recommend?

It is very important to me for the date stamp to look very similar to the example. Is there a way to turn the date stamp back or am I going to be stuck with the actual date?

Would it just be easier to learn how to edit digital photos to look like this?

>>3089590
>Whats the benefits/negatives of letting daddy fcuk ur boipussi compared to traditional fxukcing w/ qt ""3D"" gf?

>>3089649
>highly versatile black & white film that can be processed on the high street (in C41 chemistry).

>However, the key differentiator of this film is that while it is a true black and white film, it can be processed in C41 type processing chemicals alongside colour negative films. This makes it the best choice for photographers who want to shoot film yet want the convenience of being able to get it processed on the high street.

It existed before digital, but essentially was still for bucks who want black and white without the hassle.

>>3089661
Generic compact with quartz date imprinting.

>>3089590
Requires C-41 color negative process, B&W developing gives awful results on it. There used to be a market for XP2, but in the current year film is a hobbyist thing most of whom self-process B&W anyway. There isn't much reason to use it unless you shoot color almost exclusively and want to try B&W without having to get a tank or paying extra to the lab for something that's simple as making a pot of porridge for breakfast. There's a good reason why Kodak's similar 400CN was discontinued.

>>3089661
Since I also started out like you I'll just spoonfeed you because it is so simply easy: You literally get any 35mm film camera, doesn't matter which one as long as it functions and the lens is not fucked in any way. Then you get some film, might aswell get expired film. And voila there you go.
Film cameras only matter for the functions it has, sharpness and all that comes from the lens and colors is from the film.

So tl;dr get literally any film camera and some film and there you go.

File: xg1.jpg (426KB, 1240x930px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1240x930px

>>3089661
Camera body pretty much only matters for its features (such as automation, metering), as >>3089744 pointed out, lenses and film are the ones that form the image. I recommend Kodak Colorplus for the soft and saturated old vacation snap look, it's also super cheap. As for the camera, a Minolta XG series with the 2/45 pancake Rokkor is pretty good value for money. Pic related, it's what I started my film shooting with.

File: F4980004.jpg (869KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

869KB, 1840x1232px

Zenit 12SD with 400ISO cheapo film
Helios 44m-4

[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 16:26:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

File: 20170604-53430007.jpg (1MB, 796x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 796x1200px

I just got a few rolls developed, some of which I'd been sitting on for a few years. I'd forgotten how exciting it is to get film back. Delayed gratification is underrated.

This shot is from around 2014. I don't even remember shooting it, but it's one of my favorites.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:04 18:09:14

File: 20170604-53420008.jpg (558KB, 796x1200px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 796x1200px

>>3089839

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:04 18:03:41

does kodak still make technical pan?
does anyone still do gas hypersensitisation to beat reciprocity law failure?

>>3089846
Only Acros and Tmax 400 have tolerable reciprocity past four minutes, if that's what you mean. And tech pan isn't made anymore.

File: fomapan-400-1stop#026.jpg (326KB, 1083x1625px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1083x1625px

Shot some Fomapan 400 again. It's quite nice when pulled 1 stop and developed in D76 (1+1).
Europeans might recognize the city.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1083
Image Height	1679
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:06 01:25:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1083
Image Height	1625

File: fomapan-400-1stop#021.jpg (156KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1000x667px

>>3089919

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1679
Image Height	1084
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:06 01:12:26
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

File: fomapan-400-1stop#033.jpg (166KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 666x1000px

>>3089936

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1083
Image Height	1680
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:06 02:22:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	666
Image Height	1000

>>3089938
>>3089936
>>3089919
Foma is underrated film. It's cheap and especially Fomapan 100 can give great results. Just forget about pushing it more than one or maybe two stops. I recently thought that I could just push Fomapan 400 to 3200 as to avoid using flash, like with Tri-X. Needless to say, that did not end up well.

>>3089949
I like the negatives this time. Last time I shot it, I rated it at box speed and developed in Rodinal. The grain can actually look nice.

>>3089951
Depends, I've regretted choosing Rodinal over D76 sometimes, the grain can be a bit too much at times.

File: EDIT-fp4-05-21-17#020.jpg (309KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 666x1000px

>>3089954
Absolutely, I wouldn't use Rodinal for pushing and usually prefer D76. Never pushed Tri-X to more than 1600, but it was enough to shoot some well lit streets at Rome during evening and night.
The problem with foma400 to me is, that if I have to pull it a stop, I shoot it on a sunny day with the 21mm f/4. I could then also use e.g. fp4 (picture related), of which I really prefer the results. Went up to f/11-16 at 1/500s with the foma, so the ~1/2 stop I lose when shooting fp4 is no problem at all. The price is then the only pro for the foma.
Haven't tried any other of the foma films though.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1099
Image Height	1680
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:21 22:44:32
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	666
Image Height	1000

>>3089959
The maximum I have pushed Tri-X is 3200, but apparently it can yield useable results at 6400 or even 12400. But I mainly push to 3200 to shoot in (very) low light nighttime situations, and at the light level that would merit pushing beyond 3200 I can't even see the light meter indicator on my OM-1 so I never bothered. Focusing is very hard in those situations too, I have resorted to just using the indicator digits on the focusing ring, leading to somewhat mixed results give the shallow depth of field at f/1.8. Anyways, I tried the same trick with Foma 400 (I too have only used the regular Fomapan 100, 200 and 400) but I got maybe 10 somewhat useable photos out of it. I agree with you that in some situations, price is the only pro for Foma, which I don't really like, because the savings aren't really that great and I don't shoot film to save money in the first place.

I like your photo btw, I'll have to try FP4 sometime.

File: 5gyKLLO.jpg (799KB, 3024x3024px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 3024x3024px

I've posted before about finding a 50mm lens for the camera.
Before making any decisions, does anyone know if a Jupiter-8, Jupiter-3, or a Canon f/1.8 LTM blocks the viewfinder at all?
I'd prefer to use that over the external one I'm using currently. Also if anyone knows other lenses, I'm all ears.
Thanks in advance!

>>3089969
None of those will block the viewfinder. The Canon lens is probably the best quality out of all those, very sharp and lovely to use.

>>3089969
My Zorki, which has the same rough form-factor as your Leica, gets some rangefinder blockage from both Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3. Effectively one of the RF images gets a chunk bitten off the lower part, about 1/6 of the patch. The viewfinder isn't especially obstructed.

File: 2.jpg (309KB, 1000x675px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1000x675px

what went wrong here?

is it underexposed?

>>3090024
Underexposed yes, or the film didn't have much dynamic range for whatever reason, and the minilab brought up the shadows via its autocorrection, hence all that grain.

>>3088732
Idk what I'm doing. I have a Canonet 28 I bought off of eBay and got a Wein Cell battery for it and one roll of Ilford FP4 Plus Black & White Negative Film ISO-125 35mm 36 Exposures.

Is it good film? Is it a good camera? What should I expect? Where do I develop this shit? NYC area if that helps. I just realized the ISO 125, what does that mean for the film? Is it not adjustable?

>>3090024
Underexposed and a garbage scan. A decent scanner would resolve far more detail and resolution.

If you're in Brisbane (I guessed Australia from the flight center sign) I'm happy to scan it again for you with a better scanner

>>3090072
Canonet's are awesome little cameras. They're aperture priority, so you set the aperture and it'll set the shutter speed.

Ilford FP4 is a great film. If you're just starting out you might want to use colour film though, as it's easier to get developed. To get your film developed, just google 'film development nyc' or 'film processing nyc'. It's a big city, you'll have a lot of choice on where to go.

Relating to the ISO: All film has a film speed. FP4 has a film speed of 125. This means it's ISO is 125. You cannot change this (you sort of can with push/pull processing but that's not for you to think about until you get the hang of film). Film has a set ISO, unlike digital.

Just shoot during daylight and you'll be fine. If you understand digital cameras you won't have much difficulty adjusting to film.

Negative film prefers overexposure, so if in doubt overexpose a little.

Does anyone here shoot 120? I'm considering starting and would love to hear your experiences with it.

>>3090072
I like Luster Photo. They're in Alphabet City though, so a little out of the way.

>>3090090
A fuckton of people here do.

It's great.

>>3090090
Just a warning once you go 120 you never go back

Just got my "first" film developed and it was a complete dud. It has been sitting on an old camera for 10 years and I just finished shooting it last week but it came almost completely blank so the lab didn't charge anything.

Old pics can be faintly seen, and I can recognise an old t-shirt I had in a portrait, and a couple of photos of friends playing DDR in the first 3-4 expositions, then the following 4 (still from the past) are barely visible yet you can figure out basic shapes. The rest of the film which was shot last week was barely some indeterminate smudges and nothing more, except a couple of purposedly high contrast shots by the end of the film that are still extremely faint but recognisable.

So, is this the power of expired film? Feels bad, man.

File: HIE_01b.jpg (546KB, 1000x685px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1000x685px

>>3090163
I mean...what did you expect? Everyone knows if you want the faded, nostalgic aesthetic you need to soak your rolls in urine before taking them to the lab.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>3090166
Meh, I'll try scanning them myself later today to see if I can still salvage the 3-4 shots that can be seen in the film.

File: f436provia_product_1_media_gallery.jpg (111KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1500x1000px

>get my first reversal film
>lay it on a light tablet

It....it is beautiful.

Shame this shit isn't made anymore, it would be all I shot. Kinda feel bad wasting the roll on mostly sightseeing snapshits.

File: fomapan-400-1stop#009.jpg (150KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 667x1000px

>>3089964
Thanks. I still have to try Delta 100, but fp4 was already quite nice.

>>3089969
If you're after a good 50mm, but are on a budget you might also want to consider the Voitgländer Color Skopar 50mm 2.5.
Otherwise, the Jupiter-8 and Canon 1.8 are good choices. Although the CV 50mm 2.5 is similar in price range as the Jupiter-3, I'd always prefer the Voigtländer.
I don't know if any of these block the finder of your III.

>>3090179
Don't feel bad- You can still shoot other slide films.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1076
Image Height	1688
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1200 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:06 00:45:05
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

>>3090179
Getting two rolls of Ektachrome back from the lab either today or tomorrow. Keen to see what I get

Post some scanz of your Provia

>>3090082
Why is color film easier to get developed than black and white? Shouldn't it be the same-ish? Like making white rice vs mash potatoes. As long as you have the tools then I don't see why it would be harder to find a place that does black and white as well as color if they already do color. I have no idea.

I haven't got the battery yet so focusing the camera seems still like a mystery to me, I don't think it's a range finder but it has a separate viewfinder than the lens which to me is weird. I kind of don't want to shoot a whole roll of film and it be all out of focus and soft.

>>3090094
I'll go there. I don't know any other place and they have good reviews. It's not terribly far, a little down town and in the ghetto but I'll survive.

File: DSC02593.jpg (1MB, 5538x3692px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5538x3692px

>>3090222

Here.

First one is full sized, rest are 1000 pixels.

Straight scans, nothing done with them yet (except fixing white balance in some which were extremely off).

[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

File: DSC02567.jpg (150KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1000x667px

>>3090246

[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

File: DSC02577.jpg (204KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1000x667px

>>3090247

[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

>>3090246
Did the cat really look like that, or is there a greenish tint?

File: DSC02600.jpg (61KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x667px

>>3090248

[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

File: DSC02602.jpg (235KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1000x667px

>>3090250

This is my favorite five.

[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

>>3090249

It was a mangy little cat. But you are right, I think there is a little bit of a green tint.

>>3090252
Sorry, didn't mean to break your series here..
Nothing you can't fix by adusting the curves.
>>3090247
>>3090248
are my favourites.

>>3090179
I just recently found several boxes filed with my late father's slide shots.

The colours are so fucking intense, it really is...beautiful.

>>3090244
>Why is color film easier to get developed than black and white?

They never really made minilabs to handle B&W to my knowledge (probably did), the last made C41 labs are nearly foolproof bombproof systems.

Most shops still doing analog have a minilab in a backroom but for b&w they have too send it out to their lab or to Fuji/kodak (Fuji and Kodak both still has a few central labs in a few countries)

File: DSC02576.jpg (198KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1000x667px

>>3090254

I went around with some friends, so most shots are actually of people. They are all wearing their program shirts, so I'd rather not post them.

And yea, I love the Silver Pavilion. Such a better area than the Golden one.

I am impressed with how it came out, but the colors are so much more vibrant on the positives themselves though...

[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

>>3090244
C41 (colour) process is standardised - every film, regardless of manufacturer or film speed, takes the same amount of time in the chemicals

B&W, on the other hand, is highly variable. Every single film and every single developer combination take different amounts of time. This is easy if you're developing a couple rolls at home, but if you're a business doing tens of rolls an hour you can't automate since all the rolls will take a different amount of time to properly develop.

Also I'm pretty sure the Canonet 28 is a rangefinder. The focusing is manual and doesn't require a battery - a rangefinder is an optical device.

Look through the viewfinder. See how there's a little orange (or other colour) rectangle in the middle? That's the rangefinder patch. As you adjust the focus, the split image in that little patch will move. Once the split image and the full image is lined up, the image is focus on what the rangefinder patch is pointed at.

>>3090264
Understandable. You could add vibrance/saturation and see if it improves the scan to match the slide.

Do you know of any good sites to buy film in Europe? Also any good places to develop film in Germany that isn't really expensive?

>>3090287
macodirekt and fotoimpex for film, paper and chemistry
develop BW yourself, big places that still do it like photostudio13 are great but much too expensive in the long run
use your local photo store for c41, what ever lab they send it to is probably fine and the price is usually okay and similar to what you'd pay doing it yourself with a digibase kit, the hassle is not really worth it IMO since c41 is so standard and consistent

What is your opinion on processing expired film?

I had some rolls Kodak Gold 200 (2006) I shot at 100 and said nothing special to the lab /w process. Just wondering if I fucked up.

>>3090291
might be just fine
I found some really old ektachrome 100 a couple of years ago that was expired in 1998 and probably never stored correctly, I shot it and it turned out pretty good

>>3090291
They'll come out fine. One stop overexposure is perfect for film that age

>>3090287
>>3090291
Also check your local brick and mortar just in case. If there's any specialized photography store (not the kind reconverted to a digital printing kiosk on the side, retailing small accessories and frames) they should have varied stock at good prices. I was able to snatch film cheaper than Amazon and eBay at my local shop.

>>3090291
It'll be fine, I recently shot some very expired Kodak 200 as well. I metered at 80 just to be extra safe as I knew it was never stored correctly either, exposures came out perfect.

>>3089121
cleaning negatives won't help with newton rings thou

>tfw taking photos at the Los Angeles train station and you get in trouble for taking too many photos for too long from the police

I don't blame them they're just doing their job but it sucks to get told you might be a terrorist so you're going to have to leave unless you get ID'd with security next time.

File: 000032.jpg (620KB, 901x1350px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 901x1350px

My outdoor shots in very bright sunlight often look "burnt". This doesn't happen in other lightning conditions. What is wrong?

I used fuji 200 1 month expired.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:02 14:47:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3602
Image Height	5397

>>3090366
UV rays?

your photo looks pretty fine btw, dunno whats the "burnt" stuff youre seeing.

>>3088800
That's too much of a shit even for full-blown lomographers

Is 120€ for a Minolta X700 + 50mm lens a good price as babby's first SLR? I've been shooting on a compact for a while and want to get something a little bit more sophisticated.

>>3090467
Terrible price you can get them for around 60-80 on ebay with the 50 1.7

>>3090477
Thanks, I'll take a further look. Any other similar model I should lay my eyes on? I don't want something too old that might be too much of a hassle to service though.

>>3089671
>h-having your daddy pleased?

>>3090479
Any of the Pentax k-mount SLRs since the Pentax 50mm 1.7 is such a great lens

>>3090467
Get the x-300 it's 95% the same camera and still has aperture priority mode if you want to shoot auto.

How do you guys dispose of your chems?

I wanna know what to do with these solutions before I start mixing the powder.
I'm about to start developing some bw rolls for the first time and I have kodak d-76 and kodak fixer if that makes any difference?

>>3090531
Down that drain mang.

>>3090531
if i recall correctly from my film developing days, the only bad things in the chemicals is 1) the acidity, and 2) the silver.

1) (the acidity) is neutralized by dumping the developer (base) and the stop bath (acid) down the drain together.

2) (the silver) is only in the fixer. silver is also valuable. if you do enough developing (read: a lot) it may be worth it to try to salvage this yourself. dont ask me how, i never bothered. but if you separate the silver from the fixer then you can dump the fixer. otherwise you should dispose of it properly. most labs will happily take it from you for free because they do salvage the silver.

Thoughts on this?

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/FED-3-LEICA-Rangefinder-Camera-Industar-Lens-Green-Leather-CLA-WARRANTY-EXC-/371948408807?hash=item5699da4fe7:g:LngAAOSwo4pYZlOp

>>3090678
They're pretty garbage in all honesty. Having owned one and then moved to a Canon P, the Canon is leagues better.

>>3090679
Yeah but its not cool and ex soviet

>>3090680
if you want it for display, sure. anything else, garbage.

>>3090680
Well buy it and see how it turns out for you

It's definitely usable but they're far more frustrating to use than the early Leica's that they're a clone of

>>3090678

The Russians cannot make camera's or watches.. they were able to churn out functioning guns but that's because you cant really fuck that up. Zorki FED Plebbit all are fucking horrible and cannot be relied upon.

>>3088732
New to film and was wondering if I have the correct equipment to self-develop film. I have an Agfa Rondinax 35u, c-41 press kit, and a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE scan dual IV and a Canon MX922. Are there any things I should consider buying or anything else I should I know?

>>3090708
That all seems fine, cool daylight loading tank by the way.

How do you intend to keep your C41 chemicals at the right temperature during development?

>>3090709
Yeah I forgot to address that. Should I just run some water out of my sink until its at the correct temp or what?

>>3090708
>DiMAGE scan dual IV

That looks neat, and is pretty cheap too.

I should see about picking one up.

>>3090715
Yeah it was cheap. $30 at a thrift shop and still had everything. Don't know how good it is though. Haven't put it to use yet.

>>3090712
I use my bath and have the chemicals and tank half submerged in the water throughout the process. Just keep adding water as it cools down

>>3090730
Sounds reasonable. Are there any alternatives?

>>3090735
You don't need a bath, a sink or large bucket will work. As long as the chemicals stay at the right temperature for the length of development you'll be good

>>3090735
yeah, temps need to be pretty much exactly at 100 degrees so if you dont want to waste water you can use your own piss.

>>3090742
Not hipster enough to use my own piss. What do?
Also, can't tell if you're being serious or not. If you're into pisstography, then ok.

>>3090716

Looks to be going for roughly $100 on e-bay, that is a hell of a deal. Specs seem great too.

I'd love to get a film scanner, or at least a flatbed that turns out something nice, but I have no idea what is good and what isn't.

File: IMG_1905.jpg (872KB, 1912x1242px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 1912x1242px

Just shot my first roll of Ektar, any feedback/tips to get the most out of this film?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	1912
Image Height	1242

>>3090781
holy yikes. what did you scan this with?

File: IMG_1906.jpg (1MB, 1934x1242px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1934x1242px

>>3090781

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	1934
Image Height	1242

File: IMG_1907.jpg (1015KB, 2064x1242px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 2064x1242px

>>3090783

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	2064
Image Height	1242

File: IMG_1908.jpg (942KB, 1952x1236px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 1952x1236px

>>3090785

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	1952
Image Height	1236

>>3090782
An old second hand flatbed. Why, is it awful? I don't really have anything to compare it to.

>>3090792
ektar is virtually grainless and very sharp, yours look super grungy and dull. scan them good, they can look WAY better.

>>3090809
Do you think it could have something to do with the exposure or developing as well or is getting a decent scanner the best thing to do?

>>3090816
exposure looks fine. dev cant tell because of the awful scanning. get a v500/v600.

>>3090816
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5496/10281832876_842cab3465_o.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8028/7619690558_eafcbae257_o.jpg
These are both high(er) resolution scans of 35mm ektar shots, note the lack of banding and choppy artifacting visible in your old flatbed scan. My old scanner behaves identically.

>>3090820
>>3090830
Thanks m8s. Would a v600 make a significant difference or would it be better to go for a Plustek? I'm considering trying MF which the former can do but the latter can't but I've heard really good things about Plusteks.

>>3090850
>trying MF
then def the v600. one doesnt just "try" MF, one gets sucked in for a permanent stay in kinoland. enjoy the trip, bro.

File: FH000001.jpg (1MB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1840x1232px

Speaking of scanners, how are dedicatef things like this?

>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007388-REG/pacific_image_primefilm_xa_prime_film_xa_scanner.html

Specs seem great, and being able to do scans in batchs would make it possible to finally digitize family photos.

Are the images gonna suck as bad as pic related lab scans? Or will they be pretty high quality like a dslr scan?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-2000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-7.7-0J-060
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:16 16:25:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

>>3090854
These suck, just get a Plustek.

>>3090850
A plustek shits on flatbeds but unless you have 2K for the UberPlustek you are locked in a format.

Just get both,

>>3090855

Plustek costs almost 4 times as much and has worse specs.

>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/890953-REG/Plustek_783064365642_Optic_Film_120_Scanner.html

Am I missing something?

>>3090857

Wait, I am a retard, I missed the comparable model.

>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1191681-REG/plustek_783064366878_opticfilm_135_35mm_slide.html

But still, same price with lower specs. What does the Plustek give over the XA?

File: Berserk-star-trigger-large-stats-mentionlist-starvstheforcesofevil-trigger-large-controls-collection_2ba36a_6234279.jpg (194KB, 900x728px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 900x728px

How crackhead would it be to make enlargements of 6x9 in the dark room, then scan those enlargements with a shitbed like a v600?

>>3090864
I'd guess you would lose a lot of quality and range of tones

Scan negatives for web use + make prints for personal use

>>3090864
>let me take this raw file and save it as a jpeg, then edit that jpeg and take a photo of it enlarged on my computer screen

>>3090854
Shit, don't look at the specs, that 10,000 dpi on the XA is pure bullshit.

The current gold standard Hasselblad Flextight X1/5 only has about 6500 dpi of actual res.
It's inflated just like flatbeds always do (looking at Canon with their 9000 dpi)

>>3090857
That is the Plustek 120, it shits on anything apart from the Hassy.

>>3090858
That is the Plsutek you should ignore, it's motorised but in turn you will lose so much quality.

The 8200i Ai/SE is what you want:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883631-REG/Plustek_783064365338_OpticFilm_8200i_Ai_Film.html

(Differs in software, plus the Ai comes with an it8 target)

File: Trebi100C_011.jpg (468KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 1000x667px

>tfw hikes always reach their climax during the worst possible lighting

[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	2017:06:07 18:50:23
Exposure Time	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	Unknown
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	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3090881
Still a good shot tho

>>3090867
>that 10,000 dpi on the XA is pure bullshit
>The current gold standard Hasselblad Flextight X1/5 only has about 6500 dpi of actual res.

Okay, so anything over 6500 is bullshit?

>The 8200i Ai/SE is what you want:
>7200 dpi

So is this bullshit too? I am confused. Seems like this and the XA both fudge their numbers somehow.

>>3090928
In practise the Plustek 7/8000 series scanners have a max of ~3600dpi or so, but to achieve that you need to scan at the 7200dpi setting.

It's fucking annoying. Scanners are old-world hardware. Film, as much as we pretend otherwise, is an old-world medium. Every solution for scanning film is a gigantic fuckaround in one way or another

>>3090928
Everyone fudges their numbers.
The effective attainable resolution is still is at about 3250 dpi.

Now that I look into it more I see that it is a rebadged Reflecta RPS 10M, Reflecta is quite a good brand really despite the 90's product design, their core business is film scanners.

But as always: The reflecta RPS 10M boasts an effective resolution of 4300 ppi, thus reaching a solid 86% of its nominal 5000 ppi.
>Scanning at 10.000 ppi will not boost the effecitve resolution.

Filmscanner.info is quite happy with it really but I've heard quite a few bad stories about it's batch scanning capabilities being very flawed and problematic hence my earlier post.

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html

>>3090933
>>3090867

I am reading reviews, and that plustek seems to be the best.

Except one thing:
>Scan Duration with iSRD + MultiExposure
>13:36 min

Is that right?

I have a couple thousand images to do. I don't need super max 100mp quality, but I don't want 1000 pixel scans either. Something near 20mp or so would be ideal.

There is a good chance the negatives would get destroyed in a hurricane, so I want some sort of decent backup.

>>3090933
>Scanners are old-world hardware

It kind of shows when the number 2 scanners behind the Hasselblad's are the 14 year old Nikon Coolscan 9000 & 5000.

The price level of the Hasselblad's is far beyond the ones of the consumer or semiprofessional devices anyway.

And the Nikon's it's a constant struggle with again hardware and software.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 14.23.02.png (22KB, 514x94px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 514x94px

>>3090938
As someone who ones one, yes.
Although I hardly do dust removal, just make sure your negatives are clean in the first place, the Plustek an enclosed box so there isn't any dust in the device itself.
I hardly bother with Multiple Exposure either but I use Silverfast and it matters little there.

Also don't expect anything about these devices to be a smooth process.
They are not, even the manual feeding of the film holders will sometimes make you strangle things.

To unlock the full resolution of the plustek you would have to scan in 7200, although to be honest I mostly scan in 3600 mode because of the slow speed and I post my pics on the web, for archival I would scan in 7200.

Also beware about storage, if you save in tiff (to preserve that 24 bit colour depth) @7200 you will end up with 200-800mb files.

File: FH000022.jpg (548KB, 1840x1232px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1840x1232px

>>3090950

Jesus christ.

At this point it feels like it would be easier to just streamline my dslr scans with a copystand and alignment brackets and shit.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-2000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER350/370-7.7-0J-060
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:28 18:50:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1840
Image Height	1232

File: Ektar100may-(3).jpg (2MB, 1556x1284px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1556x1284px

>>3090955
I'm just saying this because when I first got my scanner I thought it was smooth sailing all the way.
It isn't.

I used to really hate scanning and postpone it but now I do a sort of rough preview of a roll complete with full-res scans off the keepers in under an hour.

I think the quality is definitely good enough.

This is a 100% crop from the tiff file (saved as 100% jpg quality), no sharpening etc..

Film is Ektar 100, so rather fine grained.

File: Ektar100may (3).jpg (3MB, 2000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2000x1334px

>>3090962
And here is the full final edited shot to give an idea.
(would post unedited but I don't have the tiff with me)

For this it was about a 200mb tiff.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Photographer	omnidata.fr
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:13 14:43:41
Comment	Fuji Quicksnap Fashion

File: DSC02586.jpg (2MB, 5497x3665px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5497x3665px

>>3090966

This is what I am getting out of my DSLR scans, but not all of them look this good.

Straight scan of a positive, just cropped, no editing.

[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

>>3090973
Are you using a macro lens? DSLR scans are usually a lot better than this

>>3090979

I am.

I shoulda added I used a shitty travel zoom lens.

But still, they aren't that great.

>>3090985

Wait, that sounds confusing, I meant travel zoom for the film.

Minolta alpha 7 w/ 24-135 f4-4.5 on Provia 400x

Scanned with Sony a7 w/ 90mm f2.8 macro

File: IMG-20170607-WA0000.jpg (375KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1600x1066px

questions, since when are we able to open raw files with windows 10 image visor? How shitty is compared to actual programs like after shot and lightroom? Use image visor to process raw of pic related.

File: Web5_Print.jpg (656KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 1000x672px

Has anyone checked out CSW and Latitude in Chicago? CSW's prices are very inciting at $5 for 120 in E6 or C41, and Latitude charges $10 to use their scanners for a day which comes out to less than Central Camera and mail out options.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	360 dpi
Vertical Resolution	360 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:16 14:49:18
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	17.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

>>3090962
How long do the rest of y'all /fgt/s take to scan film, anyway? With my current setup and 2 years of experience, I usually get 36 frames of 35mm down in around 25-27 minutes, and a roll of 6x6 120 in about 20. Scanning at 2400 DPI on a CanoScan 9000F mk2, which is quantifiably worse than the proper Epsons.

And like, compared to the time I spend dicking around with those scans, scanning doesn't really look like much. For the most part I can do it while postprocessing, or watching Youtube shit.

>>3090966
Dude, there is no reason to have 200mb 35mm scans. Depending on the film, you're looking at a max resolution of ~90mb in the best possible conditions.

You're just wastin time and hard drive space with a bunch of useless extra 'information'

>>3091225
It's the problem of the plustek, to scan at the native maximum 3600 dpi resolution you need to scan at 7200 dpi.
I just batch resize them after I'm done.
The difference in quality is significant between 7200 and 3600 on the Plustek.

File: IMG_20170607_200510_703.jpg (372KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 800x800px

>>3091247
Damn, that's a shame.

File: river-web.jpg (2MB, 1008x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1008x1500px

>>3091247
The plustek still resolves some pretty great detail though. Great for a small desktop scanner

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

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

How terrible do you guys think scanner would be? I'm interested because of how cheap it is

>>3091265
Forgot the link
https://www.tvc-mall(.)com/details/2-4-inch-lcd-digital-35mm-film-converter-slide-negative-photo-scanner-skuhhc-2601.html?c=USD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=pla&utm_campaign=cse&gclid=CM6a16CErdQCFUa5wAodBuMBvw

>>3091265
what scanner?

>>3091265
>>3091268
These types of scanners are garbage. They're essentially a little fixed focus digital camera in a box, so not a scanner at all. You'll have trouble pulling any sort of detail from a negative

>>3091265
'No!'

get either plustek, or v500/v600, or become an ascetic dslr scan cuckhold, but dont buy that trash.

>>3091270
>>3091273
Got it, thanks guys. I'll probably get a v5/600 as I see they can be found for only twice the price