/fgt/ - Film General Thread

Have any of you /fgt/s used rerolled motion picture film before?

>>3114826
I have a roll of Cinestill 800T in my fridge, but I'm saving it for my vacation next week.

>>3114826
Sorta, bw archival copy film. Hand-loading is completely viable if you have a god's patience and a large lightproof room.

>>3114826
I've used regular Kodak Vision 50D before. I really liked the results, especially how it looks overexposed, If I still had a 35mm camera I'd be shooting it all the time, but I am also lucky that there is a guy developing ECN-2 near me.

File: 62080022.jpg (682KB, 1545x1024px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 1545x1024px

>>3114821
I'm looking for a budget film scanner for medium format and 35mm; any idea of what I should get?

I'm currently looking at the Epson V550.

Mostly I'm trying to get away from paying $15 to have my photos developed and scanned from a single roll, so a $100 used scanner sounds good to me.

And with that said as well, does a decent free post scan processing software exist, or at least something I can pirate?

Also pic related is from my first roll from my OM-1 with the 72mm Tamron telephoto lens. Quite happy for 8:00pm dusk and 400 speed, 20 year expired film.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 10.00.020 2009.12.21
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1545
Image Height	1024

>>3114869
you got a dslr? dslr scan

>>3114870
No DSLR, only reason I have the OM-1 and OM-2 and shitload of lenses is that I got it for $80.

But that said, I'm looking into getting a Sony A6000 body with adapters for my OM lenses. But that's going to be at least $500.

>>3114869
Canon CanoScan 900F Mark II does a fantastic job. There are only two minor problems with it:

1. The software is a pain-in-the-ass to figure out. This tutorial helped me out a ton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cjrFMYBWz4
2. The output images are ever so slightly out of focus when under close inspection. I think this is because the included holders elevate the film off the glass about a millimeter or two. This isn't too huge a problem, but it makes 9600 dpi scanning useless.

Other than those two things, it makes an excellent scanner for 135, 120, 220, or slide film.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-CanoScan-MKII-Negative-Scanner/dp/B00AGV7TQG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500146999&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+canoscan+9000f+mark+ii

>>3114826
I bought a 200' spool of tungsten balanced vision 2 a few years back. It came out pretty bad (very grainy, weird colors) but I was shooting in daylight with long expired film and developing in old c41 chemicals. I have another roll in a camera now and I got a yellow filter for it so we'll see how it turns out.

belomo agat 18 vs Chaika 2

what would you choose /fgt/s?

>>3114932
i have a chaika 1, it's good. dat metal. agat 18 plastishit.

File: BzeFaFa.jpg (630KB, 1500x1102px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1500x1102px

>>3114932
have used both, agat's only upside is size/weight, the chaika is bigger/heavier than a lot of 35mm compacts. Infinitely better control-wise and iq-wise though. Awful focus shift on that industar-69 though. They're both bottom of the half frame barrel bad but the Agat is another kind of bad entirely. The shutter and aperture are physically the same thing and you're stuck using prefixed combinations and the lowest you can go is f2.8@1/63ish, no bulb and the lens is horrid soft wide open. exclusively a daylight snapshot cam. Here's a photo Catsby took with one.

How do I into Velvia? I had to get 2 rolls because my Ektar won’t arrive in time for my holiday.

>>3114869
V550 is a good shout, I use it. Exactly the same as the V600 but without the software which you can pirate anyway.

>>3114869

Flatbeds aren't bad. 35mm doesn't look that great from them, but MF is pretty good.

I prirated VueScan before. It's pretty good, but last time I scanned I just used default epson program. Results were fine.

>>3114940
>>3114942
thanks guys

File: comparison3.jpg (616KB, 1775x671px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1775x671px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:15 18:06:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1775
Image Height	671

>>3114984
>inb4 dumbshit comes in again and says the flatbed scan is better

>>3114984
How good is the DSLR method compared to these old Nikon film scanners that aren't produced any more?

>>3114998
It's a highly cropped scan made with a V600, keep your dreams alive, faggot.

>>3114984

How does the v800 handle 35mm scans

>>3115018
I don't know, sorry, all I can say is that DSLR scanning is way better than V600 and I guess lower end flatbeds. I'll provide more comparisons these days, I'm still experimenting since it's my second day adopting this method. It requires a little bit more time to do it but it's also less expensive if you already have a DSLR, I spend just 2€ using some brain to set it up.

>>3115020

have you tried wet mounting your negatives?
I real ghetto way is using cooking oil, so if you try it, use a test negative you don't mind

File: IMG_20170716_025846.jpg (1MB, 1628x2464px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1628x2464px

>>3114984
I also provide the source, that is a slightly underexposed shot, 1 stop more or less.
Nikon N4004, Af Nikkor 35-70 and Kodak BW400CN. Amatrice, Italy. As I said in some /fgt/s ago that place now doesn't exist anymore.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	900
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:07:16 02:58:46
Image Width	1628
Image Height	2464
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/0.0
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Light Source	Unknown
Exposure Mode	Manual
Image Height	2464
Rendering	Normal
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Manual
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	1628
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Gain Control	None
Flash	No Flash
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Time	6 sec

>>3115034
Man, with all respect, who the hell would dip in vegetable oil a negative?
At least not me, not even giving a try, too much time cleaning and shit to increase by not that much the results. I'd say that DSLR reproduction for me is just enough, no chromatic aberrations, no time waste, more definition (someone says otherwise but that's what I clearly see) and better color/contrast rendition.
At least acceptable to share my snapshits with you guys and on social medias. For the rest darkroom all the way.

File: A7 Scans.jpg (5MB, 2063x3597px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2063x3597px

>>3114998
I used to use a 9000ED and now scan with my A7. With 120 the 9000ED beats the A7 if we're talking about taking a single shot and cropping. I have a feeling going 1:1 with the A7 and stitching the photos would, at the very least, match 9000ED quality. That'd be a pain in the ass though.

Can't do any direct comparisons because all of my negatives I scanned using the 9000ED are on the other side of the world. Plan to do some comparisons once I'm reunited with them.

Here's some 120 A7 + Canon FD 50mm 3.5 Macro scans with 100% crops These are single shot scans, not stitched composites.

[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	606 dpi
Vertical Resolution	606 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:16 14:37:15
Exposure Time	1.3 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	Cool White Fluorescent
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2063
Image Height	3597
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3114869
if you have a computer with an old OS sitting around spend the money and get a coolscan 8000. the 9000 is the way to go if your a richfag

>>3115144

Vuescan can operate coolscans

>>3114821
ok guys, should i even care about the camera ? or should i just care about the type of films and my talent in shooting (or capturing, idfk) ?

>>3115020
>hey everyone, I used to be bi, but now I've realised having sex with women is way better. It's easier, cleaner, doesn't alienate me from my family and most importantly feels better
>>3115034
>yeah, but have you tried going bound bottom in a pos-on-neg bareback gangbang?

File: FM3ASuper10000036.jpg (236KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1200x800px

[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	2017:07:16 19:22:13
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.0 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	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3115179
kys

File: FM3ASuper10000025.jpg (256KB, 1182x800px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1182x800px

>>3115187
I think what he's saying is that doing something that will make the shatbedding process infinitely more terrible is not the next step for a person who's found a better way.

[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	2017:07:16 19:44:15
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.0 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	1182
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: FM3ARetro80s00020.jpg (312KB, 1197x800px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1197x800px

[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	2017:07:16 19:53:07
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1197
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: FM3ARetro80s00008.jpg (464KB, 1164x800px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1164x800px

[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	2017:07:16 19:58:45
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1164
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3115167
You need a weird ass interface card to use the old scanners

SCSI if I remember correctly. You can buy adaptors to USB tho

>>3115020

I used DSLR scanning for the longest time, but having my only digital tied up in my scanning setup got pretty fucking annoying pretty fast.

I wnde up getting an 8200i and have absolutely fallen in love with it. 3200 dpi sc(ns are quick and easy. 7200 take awhile longer, but look absolutely amazing. Software that came with it is pretty nice too.

Got no vlue what I will do once I get a 120 camera though...

Buy a 6x6 digital back so I can scan with it? topkek

I have been borrowing my dad's old Yashica since I started shooting film, and I've been thinking of getting a camera of my own.
I don't know what to get though, I have a Nikon DSLR but none of the lenses have aperture control so they don't work on most SLRs. I have some m42 lenses but the most expensive one is a $60 Mir.

I've been thinking about the Nikon F3, I really like the modularity of it. Would it work for me? What's the price I should pay for a pretty nice one? I need to get some lenses too but right now I can use the converter I have for m42.

>>3115204
>>3115204
It depends on which system you adopt. My DSLR is completely untied from the scanning "device" I created, it takes literally 2 seconds to get it ready and even less to put it away.

>>3115213

Yea, I was using a tripod and light tablet.

It only took a second or two to get attached, but quite a long time to get them aligned properly.

I wanted a proper copy table, but I have no room for one here.

>>3115178
guys..

Alright team, just bought an Nikon F3 and MD4. What cheap lenses should I be looking at?

The huge catalog of lenses is quite daunting and I don't really know where to start. Anything like a good 50mm?

>>3115209
I'm lucky, just scored a nearly mint f3 for $130AUD from a Japanese auction site. I reckon you shouldn't pay more than something like 250US for a good condition body.

>>3115222
>>3115224
Disregard both of those, I got my winning bid cancelled. Well and truly cucked.

>>3115178
You should absolutely care about everything, camera and film are important as much as your capabilities. So study how to damn take a photograph and buy some good gear and films

>>3115225
>I got my winning bid cancelled
how?

>>3115227

Seller didn't want to sell to dirty gaijin.

>>3115209

So I buy and sell old 35mm cameras on eBay. I think you can get a nice F3 or F3HP for between 150 and 220. Just check new listings once or twice a day. I mean the best F3HP I've seen I paid 100 bucks for it, cleaned it up and tested it, then sold it for 160 (I thought it would go for more). Lots of deals to be had on eBay if you're patient.

I am looking at going for a Nikon F5 and a used CoolScan 5000. If I have the budget are these decent materials to make high quality enough scans for a medium sized print?

File: comparison4.jpg (378KB, 1200x591px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1200x591px

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	342 dpi
Vertical Resolution	342 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:16 15:12:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	591

>>3115226
what counts as 'good gear' ?

>>3115197
some of the very old scanners were SCSI
the Coolscan 8000 and 9000 were Firewire

>>3115167
I didn't really like Vuscan for the 8000, instead I run a partition on my imac with an old OS.
Though I wouldn't mind trying Silverfast but it costs more than I payed for the scanner

>>3115263
Good SLRs and rangefinder cameras, don't even think you'll be able to learn something from a plastic trashcam or a Russian shitty piece of metal.

I opened my camera with film inside. did I lost everything or just a couple frames?

>>3115306
Only the gods know that, develop it and keep praying in the meantime.

>>3115301
why exactly ? why not mirrorless ?

>>3115324
Because if it's manual focus you'll probably fuck everything up, if it's autofocus you won't decide what to put in focus.

File: 0062GEEDgy1fhma55vs5dj32c0340u0x.jpg (125KB, 690x920px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 690x920px

Hi /fgt/'s, I just finished a roll of Fujifilm 64T. However, since the film has expired for a little over 15 years and I was using an 85D filter to shoot it under daylight so I had to shoot it at 25 ISO. Does that mean I have to pull it to 25 ISO when developing it or should I develop the film at 50/64 ISO?

>>3115361
Develop at box speed.

>>3115361
No

>>3115364
No...what?

>>3115361
Per every ten years film has expired, increase the exposure by one stop.

File: IMG_2221.jpg (96KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x426px

Hey, just getting into film. Came across a TL-Super at a flea market for 10 bucks and figured I'd get my start there. What film/settings does /fgt/ recommend for something like pic related? Is it even possible with this camera?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	426
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_2209.jpg (115KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 640x427px

>>3115380
Here's another

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	427
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_2214.jpg (163KB, 705x704px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 705x704px

>>3115380
>>3115382
And one more

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	705
Image Height	704
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: img068.jpg (153KB, 1000x632px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1000x632px

This shows up on a couple shots from seemingly every roll I've developed lately. The horizontal bit, not my shit focusing. Something to do with developing I'm assuming, but haven't found anything when I tried to look it up.
Anyone know what it is/ how to fix or prevent?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6607
Image Height	4175
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:16 21:32:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	632

>>3115380
...what? learn how exposure works. the camera is irrelevant (don't buy a leica). he used kodachrome which can't be processed anymore.

>>3115554
google: newton's rings

>>3115377
But does that mean you also have to develop it at that speed or box speed?

>>3115555
>can't be processed anymore
Yes it can

>>3115225
Fucking rip my dude what site was it?

>>3115591

There are third parties that have made a guess at the chemicals and they come up with acceptable results sometimes. Kinda like caffenol on steroids.

But proper developing? No, it is dead.

>>3114908
I Love My 9000F

>>3115554
could be your film is touching something while developing

>>3115345
wait, so i should learn from manual focus cameras, right ? is that what you're saying ?

guys. so i want to get into photography but i'm not interested in learning photoshop or photo editing. is that why film photography is superior ? because unedited results will turn out better than digital ones ?

hey /fgt/ i am someone who has never done any photography except on my phone & w/ a shitty point & shoot when i went on a trip a few years ago

a few friends picked up cameras, and i want to go take pictures w/ them when they go out shooting. one of them runs the dark room at our college, and so i was thinking of getting a film camera.

i've done a tiny bit of research, and i have decided that i want to get a camera w/ a rangefinder. they seem to be great quality, and some of them are pretty low price.

the cameras i've been looking at are the Olympus XA, Konica Auto S2, olympus 35 sp, Minolta Hi-Matic E, & Yashica Electro 35 GSN

anything i should know about these cameras? any particular recommendations?

>>3115634
That'd be one reason people would have, yeah.

A lot of people tend to edit their digital images to have a film-like aesthetic, so by just shooting film your results tend to be quite close to a final image.

Film is also insanely inconvenient, but you probably already knew that

>>3115638
Most of the fixed lens rangefinders you listed are semi-automatic, aka you set the aperture and the cameras automatically figure out the shutter speed to correspond to it. Not a bad thing, just something to note.

If you want something with interchangeable lenses, the Canon rangefinders are very nice. The Canon P and Canon 7 can be had very cheaply, and you can use a wide variety of lenses with them.

It should be noted that while rangefinders are great to use, SLRs tend to be a little easier for beginners since the viewfinder is a more accurate representation of what your final image will look like. SLRs can be had much cheaper too. If you're looking for SLRs, pick something that comes with a 50mm lens (most do).

Also for the love of god don't buy from an eBay listing that says the camera is untested. Untested = it's broken

>>3115650
that would be the only reason i get into film, i guess. so it's positive, yeah, that film photography is better if i don't want to go into the realm of editing ?

>>3115650
>>3115656
also i'd just have to buy a negative scanner, i guess. i mean i don't want to develop physical photos or something, i just want to social media all of them

>>3115638
Konica hexar rf. Is a good quality semi cheap option.

File: beforeafter.png (2MB, 1363x795px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1363x795px

>>3115656
>>3115657
Editing is still something that you can do to film. Even back in the days before scanning, things like contrast, shadow detail etc were edited and changed in printing. I always tend to add a bit of sharpening and get exposure levels a little more natural with film scans.

For example here's a before and after of a recent slide film scan. The before image is what the scanner gave me (the film is quite old and I underexposed it given it's age) and the after is what I got as my 'final' image after a couple simple tweaks. There were better photos from this set so I didn't end up using this photo but you get the idea

>>3114942
did you ever use a Chaika 3?

>>3115662
so what do photographers do in photoshop ? i've seen some of them do stuffs like removing dots on faces, like fuck how do i do that ? seems pointlessly time consuming.

>>3115677
Do you need to do that? Working photogs often spend hours on a single image.

If you don't know why you would need to do it, chances are you really don't need to do it.

Just get lightroom if you feel the need to edit your photos, and do simple adjustments. The scans you'll get from a photolab will probably be perfectly acceptable

File: 20170716_212142.jpg (765KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 2048x1152px

>>3115673
Except for the uncoupled meter and lack of cable release (bad for long exposure bulb stuff), it's an upgrade on the previous models with a coldshoe and, most importantly - added viewfinder framelines - albeit I never got to compare them to the actual image area so I can't say how useful thry are for framing. Remember you can always unscrew the lens and sell it to some digital mirrorless faggot for four times as much as a chaika's worth.

[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
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:16 21:21:42
Exposure Time	1/83 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	40
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	5.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1152
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	E08QSGG01OE

>>3115677
>so what do photographers do in photoshop ?

make their images exactly how they want them to be

>>3115677
It's really not that hard... It's sounds like you're a technophobic desu

>>3115685
yeah i'm pretty technophobic. but the main reason is because the after process looks pretty boring and dull. unless of course it's your job.

>>3115681
true, recently got one with the Industar-69 for 5€ at a flea market, haven't tried it out yet though

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 4.01.43 AM.png (721KB, 526x709px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 526x709px

Hey all.

Just received an Epson V550 from amazon last night and started trying out scans on it. Let me know if you guys have any tips for it!

Here's one of my first scans of a shoot I did a few weeks ago.

Portra 400
Fuji GA645i

>>3115691
Could probably make the white balance a little more natural and lower the black point to a more realistic level but that's all personal preference. Scan looks good quality wise desu

What software you using?

>>3115691
did you use the flash?

File: 15002785644edit05.jpg (142KB, 526x709px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 526x709px

>>3115691
curves

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:17 11:35:02
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	526
Image Height	709

File: 1361204374867.jpg (4KB, 185x82px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 185x82px

>>3115735

>>3115735
just gotta watch your blacks/shadows, going a lil magenta there

but yeah dropping the black level and a better white balance makes a world of difference

File: 1500278564405.jpg (325KB, 526x709px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 526x709px

>>3115735
you made it worse

>>3115735
not what i was going for

i tried multiple styles of colors but i wanted it to look closer to instant film, something not refined.

>>3115741
didn't want black backs

>>3115723
idk, epson scan? the shit that came on the CD

>>3115733
on camera flash.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 5.53.56 AM.png (2MB, 1015x705px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1015x705px

>>3115742
i fuck with this


my goal was to achieve the look of 90s japanese car scene

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 5.57.10 AM.png (129KB, 225x302px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 225x302px

>>3115744
inspiration image

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 5.57.37 AM.png (84KB, 244x156px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 244x156px

>>3115745
more inspo

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 5.54.16 AM.png (630KB, 481x706px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 481x706px

>>3115746
3rd image of the set

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 6.01.42 AM.png (731KB, 516x704px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 516x704px

>>3115747
still willing to take critiques and advice on what i could do to achieve "the look" i wanna get.

File: img017.jpg (5MB, 3288x2127px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 3288x2127px

just did my first 35mm scans

contax tvs
expired superia 800

>>3115753
man the 280zx is such an ugly duckling

considering it's heritage (240z) I don't know how they made it so boxy and 80s so quickly

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-17 at 6.19.10 AM.png (781KB, 438x704px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 438x704px

>>3115753

>>3115753
Potentially nice photo. Shit composition though.

>>3115765
i know. don't worry, i wasn't looking for composition in that shot.

what's the difference between the speedlite 177a and 155a? which should I get?

>>3115770
get the 155a. i have the 155 and 199. if you wanna bounce off shit like the ceiling do 199. but the 155 and 177 is basically just size /power but since ur forgoing the light angling feature just get the smaller one for functionality

>>3115770
The 177a looks like it has more features
http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/speedlite_155a.pdf
http://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/speedlite_177a.pdf

>>3115113
what's this A7 you speak of? did a quick search and nada.

>>3115781
He means a Sony A7 - a digital camera he used to scan his film negatives through the use of a macro lens

>>3115597
Where might one find such a thing? Looked up caffenol and looks interesting- apparently there's such a thing as beer developer too.

>>3115691
Curious how you like the scanner- that's by far the cheapest film scanner i've ever seen. Do you feel generally good about it?

File: 20134863_10213600732231643_1417606785_n.jpg (72KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 540x720px

>>3115796

so easy to use

produces exactly what i want it to produce

file sizes are good. 3mb to like 20mb jpegs

haven't tried tiffs or pngs yet but they are probably like 80 mb

idk maybe i need to clean better but dust gets in easily

would recommend to a friend / 10

>>3115741
>just gotta watch your blacks
>but yeah dropping the black level and a better white balance makes a world of difference
racist af

>>3115800
What do you expect from 4chan we're a bunch of wife beating white supremacists

>>3115654
It should be noted that while rangefinders are great to use, SLRs tend to be a little easier for beginners since the viewfinder is a more accurate representation of what your final image will look like. SLRs can be had much cheaper too. If you're looking for SLRs, pick something that comes with a 50mm lens (most do).
do you have any recs on partcilar SLRs to look at? should i just google around & see what looks good?

>>3115660
yeah ive been looking at that one too. right now im lookin to spend <$200, just so that if i dont like it or if i dont actually get into photography it's not a huge loss.

>>3115816
Whatever you can get. I'll list a few classics, but most SLRs are functionally the same (it's a box with film with it, essentially). Just buy what you can get, what works and with a good lens ecosystem.

Canon AE-1, A1 etc

Pentax K1000, P30, ME Super

Ricoh KR-5 Super II and any of the KR series (uses pentax K mount)

Nikon F series (notably the F2 and F3).


Just put '35mm slr' into ebay and see what looks good. Try to stay away from autofocus and plastic bodies, but a lightmeter is a plus for a beginner so if you can find one with one that's good

>>3114821
New to film here,

Got a Ricoh xr-2 from a family friend and a roll of Kodak 400, everything seems to be working fine, however when I got the roll developed, it came out completely blank? I decided to try again and then next roll also came out completely blank. What could be going on?

The shutter works fine and so does the film crank. So that's out of the equation

>>3115821
Completely blank as in you get black negatives, or completely blank as in the film you get back is just orange and transparent with no frames at all?

>>3115830
I think the first time the negatives were black or over exposed, and the second time they came back not exposed at all

File: 8200i-scanner-6-1024x683.jpg (90KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1024x683px

>>3115798
>>3115796

To continue speaking about scanners.

I have a Plustek Opticfilm 8200i.

I love it, quick and easy to use, has scratch/dust removal that works pretty damn well, and it is rather compact.

I am getting more consistent results than with my DSLR, plus it has zero set up.

The files it spits out are fucking huge though. 50 mbs for a 3600 dpi scan, and close to 200 mbs for a 7200 dpi one.

>>3115836
Lets see a comparison vs dlsr scan?

>>3115834
You should find out for sure which one it is, because they have completely different meanings.

If your photos turn out totally black or totally white it means you've no idea how to use your camera and you're using retarded settings OR your shutter is slow or otherwise broken

if your film comes out completely clear with nothing on it that means your shutter is completely fucked and just not opening the curtain at all

>>3115840

I'll try to scan some comparison shots tomorrow, my DSLR set-up is all packed away and it is a bitch to set up..

>>3115842
> your film comes out completely clear with nothing on it that means your shutter is completely fucked and just not opening the curtain at all

Either that or the film is beyond expired for being stored incorrectly. That happened to me with a camera that works perfectly fine after being tested with a fresh roll but had film loaded 10+ years ago and was forgotten in the back of a drawer in central Spain, where summers easily reach 40ºC+

File: XGMRIR4ASK06 05.jpg (560KB, 852x1280px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 852x1280px

Some recent IR snapshits. Rollei 400 IR dev'd in Foma Universal.

File: XGMRIR4ASK06 22.jpg (838KB, 1440x939px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 1440x939px

I like how this shit cuts through haze like it was nothing.

File: XGMRIR4ASK06 27.jpg (823KB, 1440x951px) Image search: [Google]

823KB, 1440x951px

Do ND filters affect IR when combined with R72, like they would when shooting with visible light? Occurred to me as I was shooting here as I couldn't get slow enough shutter speeds to have a nice smooth water effect.

File: XGMRIR4ASK06 34.jpg (775KB, 856x1280px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 856x1280px

The last one ended up being my favorite of the roll. Still got way too many shit ones, I need to up my game.

File: 4x5RolleiInfrared715.jpg (547KB, 1111x883px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1111x883px

>>3115970
>>3115981
What filter do you use? How many stops? What aperture/shutter? Or is it the developer that yields such high contrast?

Devloped mine in pyrocat-hd, 14 min

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

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

>>3116003
R72, metered in visible light as ISO 12-25. This is the first time I've used Foma Universal and I had to guesstimate the dev time, which may have had something to do with the contrast. I just wanted less coarse grain than with Rodinal and it was the only other thing I had at hand, but you can't really find dev times for it with other films than Fomapan.

>>3116013
I meter as ISO 12 as well, but I use a 715nm filter. I think ISO 10 would be more correct for both 715 and R72. Just recently got a R72 filter, but I need more film before I can test it.

I don't like rodinal with this film. Pyrocat-hd and XTOL (1+1 for 12 min) work great. HC-110 (1+31, B, 6 min) is a little high contrast.

>>3115978
Why don't you try and do it on your digital slr on manual mode with the same iso and see how it comes put

>>3114984
de duif symboliseert de huidige politieke situatie in mijn land. Ik kan nog heel veel dogmatische redeneringen gaan zitten opnoemen maar daar hebben we volgens mij allebei niks aan, daarom verdwijn ik snel via de zijdeur. Pim fortuin, lul!1

>>3116144
Speak a real language

>>3115842
>if your film comes out completely clear with nothing on it that means your shutter is completely fucked and just not opening the curtain at all

Or it means you didn't load it properly

Or it means you forgot to take the lens cap off (if not SLR)

Or it means you fixed before you deved

A completely clear roll with clear leader is a developing error. With a black leader it's a camera and/or user error.

Faggot

>>3115766
Why's that?

>>3116021
I don't have a digital SLR, let alone one modified for IR.

File: fuck.jpg (499KB, 1818x1228px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1818x1228px

hey guys, I figure this is the thread to ask

My contax g had a bit of a drop and now the lens doesnt fire when its focused to below 1m

it focuses, but when you go to hit the shutter it just doesnt shoot

I tried the lens out with another body and it still doesnt shoot, so it must be the lens

you can shoot it in continuous and wind the focus down to below 1m whilst still shooting and it'll keep firing, but wont work when you try to start the shoot from below 1m

anyone have any ideas as to whats up?

pic sorta related

Have any of you /fgt/s seen/tried the Lomography Color Negative F2/400? I'm tempted to buy a roll or two.

File: 388x576x2.jpg (98KB, 674x1000px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 674x1000px

>>3116466
pic related, from the lomo magazine

>>3116466
>We found some never-cut up Ferrania stock that sat in a warehouse for a decade
>Now we're repackaging this expired budget film into very expensive rolls and parsing this through our marketting wank specialists
>we know that even if we outright tell you this you hipster retards will still gobble it up

>>3114821

>that messy as fuck job cutting those leaders

Drivew me nuts.

>>3115035
How's it going at Amatrice? Media doesn't talk anymore about it after the earthquake

>>3116466
>>3116489
"In 2010, we bought the last ever Jumbo Roll of original 400 ASA film from some renowned Italian filmmakers. Then, ever the ones to experiment, we left the film to age like fine wine in oak casks in the Czech Republic. Thankfully, our crazy instincts were rewarded — seven years later, we went back to discover that this fantastic film still produces refined colors with a beautifully unique tone."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1406708735653.jpg (38KB, 450x311px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x311px

>>3116280
Google translate: "The dove symbolizes the current political situation in my country. I can mention a lot of dogmatic reasoning, but I think I do not think so, so I quickly disappear through the side door. Pim fortune, dick! 1"

File: IMG_20170718_180541_991.jpg (1MB, 2160x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2160x2160px

>>3116466
I'd never spend the money on it.
>paying a premium for expired film that was shitty even when fresh

Instead, I'm shooting 72 frames of Velvia 50 in a Canon Demi. The roll cost me $3, as it should being nearly 20 years expired.

File: velviasky.jpg (1MB, 1004x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1004x1500px

>>3116571
Velvia 50 is the fucking tits. Insane colours and non existent grain (which should maximize your resolution on half-frame).

Here's a shot from a roll that expired 2004. The best frames from the roll were overexposed by about 1/2 a stop, so in your case a full stop of overexposure would probably be perfect.

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

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

File: 2dd.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>be me
>looking for a new point and shoot
>sees Contax tix for $100
>looks up prices on ebay
>worth $200-$250
>great deal/10
>about to purchase it
>gets to the paypal sign in pages
>decides to look up it's specs first for some reason
>realises it takes APS film
>mfw

>>3116609
want something smaller than my L35AF, but all decent compacts are stupidly in demand now

instagram users please just vsco for muh aesthetic

File: IMG_20170704_222837_533.jpg (955KB, 2149x2687px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 2149x2687px

>>3116699
>Hurrdurr people can't like what I like

>>3116700
film on instagram is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption. instead of just taking a photo of your coffee, traveling, conventionally attractive young white woman, old cars, you can say you do it on portra because directly spending money to take a photo makes you more authentic.

>>3115181
underrated

>>3116144
ok jongen, rustig aan..

As an Australian it's annoying seeing you guys getting Epson V600's for a few hundred when they're $500AU+ here. It's cheaper to import them from eBay but even then they're nowhere near as cheap.

>>3116722
That is the sad truth. Which is why people need to bail out of instagram asap and browse some photobooks if they want to break this norm.

File: LRM_EXPORT_20170718_162023.jpg (825KB, 1985x1376px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 1985x1376px

Got this for 20 bucks at the local thrift store. All it needs is a little clean up and a new battery, otherwise everything seems good.

Oh also, which lens should i get for it? I was thinking about a 50mm since they're pretty cheap but if you there's something better for my money i'd like to know.

>>3116855
If you get just one, get a 50mm. f/1.8, or if you want to spend money, f/1.4. Just spent a couple of hours walking around shooting 50mm exclusively, never felt like reaching for the 21mm or 135mm in my bag.

>>3116855
50mm f/1.8
35-70mm f/3.5
and (optionally) a 80-200mm f/4

50mm first, it's all you'll need for a while.. and I mean a While. But damn that's a good price considering how much the AE-1/P prices have boomed the last year or two.

File: IMG_3331.jpg (691KB, 1002x1512px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1002x1512px

first time shooting analog..what did i do right and wrong?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.60.031 (160615)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1002
Image Height	1512
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_3309.jpg (649KB, 926x1512px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 926x1512px

>>3116874

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.60.031 (160615)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	926
Image Height	1512
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3116874
Took a picture at eye level, so now the top half is full of nothing. Underexposed, or your lab turned up their hipster editing for you.

>>3116874
You misspelt "analogue", and you faied to compensate your exposure for the strong backlighting and harsh reflection in each of these images, underexposing your subjects.
Then, to compensate for that, you fell for the classic digipleb processing memes of excessively crushed and raised black levels, respectively.

>>3116507
I shot a roll of '79 expiry Plus-X Pan last weekend, I was very surprised to open it and find that it came with a long Leica leader right out of the box XD uwu
>leicafags so patrician they waste a metre of film just getting their cameras loaded

>>3116895
i totally agree and have lots to learn ...now when you say i fell for the “digipleb processing memes” what do you mean? how do i change this?

File: 1425107708108.jpg (8KB, 250x245px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x245px

>shoot a roll
>dont like any of the pictures on it

File: DSC02282.jpg (681KB, 1080x1020px) Image search: [Google]

681KB, 1080x1020px

>>3116722
>film on instagram is the ultimate in conspicuous consumption
What the fuck are you talking about, moron?
It's a goddamned photo sharing platform. If I take my photos on film, and choose to share them, how is it not entirely normal and natural that I would put them on the most popular place to share pictures?

[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	2016:09:13 08:53:08
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	1080
Image Height	1020
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1361094306894.jpg (324KB, 1078x729px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1078x729px

>>3116906
Or when the film is ruined by unforeseen forces. Our out of focus.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2011:11:16 05:51:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1078
Image Height	729

File: 74630037.jpg (369KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1000x663px

[Canon Sure Shot Max, Illford HP5]

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:10 18:26:59
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	663

File: 15720005.jpg (620KB, 1270x1024px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1270x1024px

>Velvia 50

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 8.03.001 2007.04.17
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1270
Image Height	1024

File: IMG_20160901_212948.jpg (506KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1000x1000px

>>3116722
Nah, yer just a salty cunt.

>>3116906
>This happens
>Have another roll ready to be developed
>Contemplate saving money and just throwing it in the trash

>>3116895
>Corrects a variation of a certain spelling to a word
>Mispells "failed"

Other than that you're right.

File: iktf.png (29KB, 500x461px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x461px

>>3116906
imo you're doing good if you like 1-5% of your shots; rarely more than one per roll. keep going, you make it in the long run

File: img121.jpg (257KB, 1099x810px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1099x810px

mamiya m645
portra 400

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:18 21:15:17

File: img120.jpg (314KB, 809x1100px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 809x1100px

>>3117021
2/2

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:18 21:15:17

>>3117019
why are you taking shots you dont like

A lot of people recommend the v550/600, how is the v500? Found one in my price range ($220AU) will be using for 135 and 120

>>3117026
>how to take good photos: stop taking bad photos

liking every photo you take is some real hubris

>>3116906
That's photography for you bro. This feel is just emphasized for /film/ fags. Shooting an entire SD worth of trash is free, but you also have to work a lot harder with digital to get a pic you're relaly happy with (at least in my experience).

>>3116906
Nothing wrong with that. At least you're not thinking you got 36 keepers and will now spam them in all their 3k by 2k glory, straight from Walmart's autolab.

But do note that there's a phenomenon where right after scanning negatives, the photographer is immediately disappointed in the scans, photographs, or (most likely) both. Look at them tomorrow, some good shots only become apparent in second or third review. Also consider whether you're rejecting shots because of things that could be perhaps remedied with some postprocessing adjustments.

Also,
>15 roll development backlog
>25 roll scanning backlog
>5 roll postprocess backlog

>>3117033
But saying you're shooting whole rolls with nothing you like on it really just says something about your shooting style. You probably need more discipline when taking photos.

>>3117043
>taking more photos is bad

sasuga

File: Pim_Fortuyn_Speech_Leefba_C1D04D5B6F81D057C12579F6005B45C5_1.jpg (293KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1920x1080px

>>3116560
>Pim Fortune

Babes what's your best fixer reccomendation? does it even matter?

Using HC-110 for dev because thats what I did in high school lol

>>3116727
>>3116144
/p/older

Does any one of you know where I can get a Philips MF colour enlarger? I want to print my MF negatives but I don't want to buy electronics which have not been made by Philips

>>3117036
This. I've liked shots which were actually dogshit on 2nd/3rd review and found some hidden treasures in those I almost threw in the trash. That latter is more rare though, sadly

>>3117054
I don't think it matters very much, I bought some "ecopro neutral fixer" since I wanted something with less of the traditional fixer stench. it works fine after dev with hc110.

>>3117034

With digital, I kinda have an idea what will be good or bad.

EVF pretty much tells me what it will be before I shoot, and my photoshop/lightroom skills are pretty limited, so it doesn't change all that much.

Film can be a complete surprise at times. I will end up loving a random snapshit, but despising something I took a long time putting together.

When I first started shooting film I was very conscious of every frame. I am less so now (though not as free as I was before with digital), and think I have inproved a bit for it.

I have only a few complaints about switching to film, but they are minor.

>>3115590

you shot it at 25 and should push it in processing by an additional 1 stop (1 stop over box speed)

File: IMG_20170623_0032 smaller.jpg (458KB, 2248x3424px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 2248x3424px

Please comment on my contrast, exposure, Blacks, Whites, Shadows, and Highlights please...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2248
Image Height	3424
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 00:29:43
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2248
Image Height	3424

>>3117111
literally all garbage muddy and grainly literally everywhere

>>3117111
>contrast
not enough
>exposure
too low
>Blacks
not black enough
>Whites
not bright enough
>Shadows
not dark enough
>Highlights
Not light enough

By the way, does anyone have any experience pushing Kodak Gold 200 up to 400 or even 800? Just got 4 rolls of it and I want to play around.

File: 1500442300261next.jpg (489KB, 2248x3424px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2248x3424px

>>3117113
>>3117114
Is this a little better?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2248
Image Height	3424
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 01:21:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2248
Image Height	3424

>>3117137
very slightly

still completely garbage in just about every way

digitalfag here aka don't know shit about film. is developing by inspection a thing with color film? or just b&w?

File: IMG_20170623_0040.jpg (392KB, 2000x1338px) Image search: [Google]

392KB, 2000x1338px

>>3117139
I'm using Ilford HP4 400 ISO, hence the graniness.
That one...
>>3117137
>>3117111
was an over exposed negative that I tried to work with...I am using an ND filter from now on. This is getting annoying.
Granted, these are all bright daylight photos that I am having a problem with. The fastest speed on this Minolta I am using is 1000 at f22, so the 400 ISO negative is over-exposed a bit.

This one is indoors - I think it was 1/60 f1.8 or f2

Check this one out for contrast brightness, etc...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 01:53:38

File: IMG_20170623_0040-2.jpg (454KB, 2000x1338px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 2000x1338px

>>3117147
or this one...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 01:56:13

>>3117148
>>3117147

are you scanning this with a benis? looks like garbage

>>3117158
no, I got a canon 9000f mark II
original tif file is roughly 3500 x 2200
2400 dpi

I am developing it at home - if that makes a difference...

File: IMG_20170623_0040-3.jpg (255KB, 2000x1338px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 2000x1338px

>>3117158
wait a second...
I just re-did it in lightroom.
This -May- be a little different

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 02:22:37

File: IMG_20170623_0040-4.jpg (193KB, 2000x1338px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 2000x1338px

>>3117158
another different process

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	50 dpi
Vertical Resolution	50 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 02:27:55

>>3117158
See, I have been scanning my negatives in color mode, even though they are black and white. They have this weird orange tint to them after I look at them, so I go to the histogram and then play with the color levels until they disappear behind the gray. After that I adjust Blacks and Whites.

These last 2, I reset them and then just went straight over to the "Black and White" button, went to the color adjustments and made them all around +20, then adjusted for black and white.

>>3117031
>>3117031
anyone own one/used one?

File: sfmoma-hcb-07-sumatra-1950.jpg (331KB, 817x550px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 817x550px

>>3117054
Moersch Alkaline fixer in EU. Or Photographer's Formulary TF-5 if you're in the states.

Alkaine fixer > acidic fixer
>shorter fixing time (2-3 minutes for C-grain films, 4-6 minutes for T-grain films)
>shorter rinsing time
>helps reduce drying marks

File: 130702202907_1_900x600.jpg (64KB, 424x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 424x600px

What us the best way to clean a negative?

Some of these look like they were put into their sleeves by someone eating cheetos.

A microfiber cloth helps a bit, especially with the dust, but some of it is like stuck on oil.

File: v550-1.jpg (289KB, 2000x1238px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 2000x1238px

>>3117180
I have one, did two real fast scans so you can get a bit of a picture

Including crops, I have no idea why they come out like this though. Operator error?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4480
Image Height	2773
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:19 10:42:56
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1238

File: v550-1-crop.jpg (120KB, 315x315px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 315x315px

>>3117187

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4480
Image Height	2773
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	3200 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:19 10:45:52
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	315
Image Height	315

File: v550-2.jpg (408KB, 2000x1236px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 2000x1236px

>>3117187

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6704
Image Height	4143
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:19 10:43:18
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1236

File: v550-2-crop.jpg (101KB, 315x315px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 315x315px

>>3117187
>>3117189

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6704
Image Height	4143
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4800 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2017:07:19 10:45:41
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	315
Image Height	315

>>3117145
It's not even really a thing with black and white either.

You used to be able to do it (I'm talking pre 1950s here) because black and white film used to not be sensetive to certain wavelengths of light. It was usually orthochromatic or similar, meaning you could use a very dim red/brown or dark green light in your darkroom.

These days all b&w film is panchromatic (sensitive to all visible wavelengths of light).

I'm unsure what the usecase for inspection developing would be, most films anyone is using are well documented

File: IMG_9833.jpg (671KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1000x1500px

R8 my shit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:07:19 03:45:26
Exposure Time	1.3 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3117214
oh btw its shot 1/30 @ 1.4 on a yashica lynx 14
FP4+ @ ISO1000 because light and no other film

>>3117186
Naphtha

>>3117215
Is that a typo? Doesn't look like you pushed it to 1000.