/p/ - Photography » Thread #2874542

[318 / 92 / ?]

/film/

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 19:29:12 No.2874542 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2874570 >>2874593 >>2874699 >>2874776 >>2875116 >>2876700 >>2880060

Film General Thread, aka /fgt/

Old one hitting post limit: >>>2869584

>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you use Caffenol

To start off, I'm trying to scan some negatives and they're extremely dark. Left side of pic related is my attempt, right side is the scan I got back from my developers. I'm using a CanoScan 8800f as its something I happened upon, but if need be I might purchase an Epson v600.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 19:46:06 No.2874570 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874542
your developers dont even take care of their scanner? I hope you didnt pay for those

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Sat 02 Jul 2016 20:04:27 No.2874593 Report

Quoted By: >>2874656

>>2874542
anon you do realise you can actually manipulate the scan that comes out of your scanner in any manner possible including making it brighter, right?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO brighten.png, 1MiB, 1000x689

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 21:17:36 No.2874656 Report

Quoted By: >>2874776 >>2875802

>>2874593
Sure, but it doesn't seem to bring out the colors properly, more so just wash things out. I don't know if its an error in my post processing or what. If someone wants, I can put the original .tiff on mega and link it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 21:56:51 No.2874699 Report

Quoted By: >>2874710 >>2874859 >>2874901

>>2874542
Do you use scanning software or just the default canon import?
Get arcsoft or silverfast
Also your film devs scanner looks broken, is that a CCD smear?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 22:07:27 No.2874710 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874699
Also keep in mind theres no need to get a second scanner, dev lab scanners usually have software that automatically processes the scans
Your scanner is fine, it'll just require some better scanning software and some touchup in PS

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00001.jpg, 548KiB, 1818x1228

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 22:10:13 No.2874716 Report

Quoted By: >>2874718 >>2874776 >>2874852 >>2874882

These are the scans I get back from my place. Kinda miffed with the lack of detail Any good places to cop a v550 in europe?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00003.jpg, 689KiB, 1818x1228

Anonymous Sat 02 Jul 2016 22:11:44 No.2874718 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874716
Another snapshit. from my mju 1

!P3141593qY

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1 click in Photoshop.jpg, 1MiB, 1000x689

!P3141593qY Sat 02 Jul 2016 22:13:08 No.2874720 Report

Quoted By: >>2874964

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 00:03:28 No.2874776 Report

Quoted By: >>2874777 >>2874859 >>2875278

>>2874542
If you're shooting 135 film, both of those scanner you have and want are shit.

>>2874716
>lack of detail
What the fuck are you talking about and what the fuck are you expecting in regards to detail?

>>2874656
Could be you are not exposing correctly in the first place. What do your negs look like? Post a photo of them backlit.
So far it seems like your lab is doing a good job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 00:07:48 No.2874777 Report

Quoted By: >>2874794 >>2874809

>>2874776
autism

they're clearly not underexposed if shitty lab scanning software managed to get that image

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 01:10:34 No.2874794 Report

Quoted By: >>2874894

>>2874777
autism for calling someone out who's trying to be helpful

it's totally possible for a lab to give a scan that looks like that from an underexposed negative. fuck off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 01:22:22 No.2874809 Report

Quoted By: >>2880181

>>2874777
I worked on a Kodak/Noritsu lab for a few years. Aside from that I hand process and scan my own film at home. <--- So that's my experience. How about you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 02:02:09 No.2874852 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874716
I got mine from eBay for pretty cheap from Germany.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160702_211615.jpg, 573KiB, 1000x936

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 02:20:07 No.2874859 Report

Quoted By: >>2874873 >>2874886

>>2874699
Default software
>>2874776
135? I'm shooting 35mm and will be shooting 120 6x4.5 soon, what scanner would you suggest?
Here's the negative backlit against my monitor. For exposure I was using aperture priority on my Olympus OM-2n.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 02:50:18 No.2874873 Report

Quoted By: >>2874901

>>2874859
135 = 35mm
120 = 60mm
FWIW

The negative looks perfect. Make sure your scanner is only detecting the image on the negative. If it includes the clear outside areas (or worse yet, the sprocket holes) it will underexpose the scan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:25:34 No.2874882 Report

Quoted By: >>2875075

>>2874716
you're not going to get detail from a v550 (if you're scanning 35mm)

t.previous owner of a v550

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:30:35 No.2874886 Report

Quoted By: >>2874890

>>2874859
Yep it looks much more like the lab scan than yours.
Would suggest looking at the scan software settings. There's usually a preset specific to the film (or close) that you are using. Or an auto detect etc setting. If that can't be found then an exposure adjustment is needed. But... The other adjusted shots you posted don't look like exposure was adjusted. Or try different software.
So.. Same thing as some others have said, but it's good to look at the neg as a starting point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:35:56 No.2874890 Report

Quoted By: >>2874901

>>2874886
Just to add.. You are adjusting the pre-scan and then doing a full scan right? Or are you trying to make adjustments in some other program after a full scan?

Ps. Optic film scanner is excellent and good value for 135 film.

Medium format.. Either stick with your flatbed scanner and sort out the software, or use a good camera with macro lens to make copies. Unless you want to spend heaps of money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:37:53 No.2874894 Report

Quoted By: >>2874899

>>2874794
>trying to be helpful
>"What the fuck are you talking about and what the fuck are you expecting in regards to detail?"
yes being condescending and autistically pretending you didn't understand what he meant... so helpful

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:48:55 No.2874899 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874894
Don't be a shitstain mate.. an offer to help is an offer to help even if there is some swearing and name calling involved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 03:53:47 No.2874901 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874699
What ArcSoft software am I looking for? I found silverfast's pretty easily.
>>2874890
The default software with this scanner doesn't allow for adjustments so I probably need to use different software.
>>2874873
Looks like they were including the clear area, I'll need to use different software to adjust that. Thanks, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 04:56:21 No.2874944 Report

Quoted By: >>2874956 >>2874986

Anyone have a Bessa R3A or similar?
How are they? Thinking of buying one + a nokton 40mm 1.4.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 05:28:05 No.2874956 Report

Quoted By: >>2874986

>>2874944
that nokton is heavy piece of glass for that body

get the rokkor f2 40mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 05:53:15 No.2874964 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874720
gg no re

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 06:11:10 No.2874986 Report

Quoted By: >>2874988

>>2874944
I have a Bessa R3M with nokton 40mm 1.4
If you're okay with shooting film, it's fucking great, m8.

Note: if you're a glasses wearer, it's just not gonna work. Get a diopter correction lens and it's all cool.

>>2874956
It's not so heavy that you shouldn't pick up that lens on account of weight. If anything, the weird positioning of the neck strap lugs makes the camera's frontside flip up. I recommend using one of them black rapid slings instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 06:14:15 No.2874988 Report

Quoted By: >>2875448

>>2874986
I don't wear glasses
I only shoot film so it's what I'm looking for
How's the 40mm 1.4? A lot of people like 35mm but something about 40 is more appealing for me. I also shoot iso 100 film so how is it wide open?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 09:20:06 No.2875075 Report

Quoted By: >>2875120

>>2874882
can you post some examples? I'm contemplating which scanner to get and I'm kind of stuck between any Epson (550-850V) or a Plustek, which has the downside that I needed to by a flatbed anyways if I wanted to get into MF

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 11:11:41 No.2875116 Report

Quoted By: >>2875298

>>2874542
cool light leak.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 11:19:56 No.2875120 Report

Quoted By: >>2875198 >>2875395

>>2875075
just use a dslr, much better quality and it has other uses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 13:28:56 No.2875198 Report

Quoted By: >>2878267

>>2875120
I only shoot film and got a Fuji for digital. Also DSLR scanning just seems needlessly tedious (setting it up, moving the film while scanning, inverting every picture in PS/Lightroom), so I am really looking for a dedicated film scanner

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 15:19:42 No.2875278 Report

Quoted By: >>2875352

>>2874776
I have a 8800f and it works perfectly you mong. OP doesn't know how to use it obv desu senpai.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 16:12:06 No.2875298 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875116
cool retardation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 17:34:33 No.2875352 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875278
what scanning software do you use with it?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img066.jpg, 435KiB, 1024x634

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 18:33:52 No.2875395 Report

Quoted By: >>2878267

>>2875120
>just use a dslr

That would end up more expensive than a top-of-the-line dedicated scanner

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 19:54:24 No.2875448 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874988
I don't own a lot of lenses to compare it with, so my opinion on it isn't exhaustive. I've only had the opportunity to shoot it in bright daylight, so I haven't actually tried it wide open yet. But from what I've heard, the quality is best around f/5.6~8 so I have just been sticking thereabout. I like it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 31izsmkQ0CL.jpg, 13KiB, 500x400

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 22:53:35 No.2875537 Report

Quoted By: >>2878557

Looking for a scanner for 135mm negatives, looking to spend as little as possible while getting decent quality, i dont need amazing DPI as the pictures will probably only see instagram

is something like the QPIX scanner any good? apparently 3600 DPI which should be more than enough and only £40

any suggestions on what to get? thanks

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO potti.jpg, 426KiB, 1000x678

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 23:21:04 No.2875548 Report

Quoted By: >>2875550 >>2875725

Olympus OM40 + Zuiko 35-70mm
Ilford Pan 400 @ Rodinal 1+50

Scanned with an old HP Photosmart S20 film scanner from '99.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kirkko.jpg, 412KiB, 669x1000

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 23:27:57 No.2875550 Report

Quoted By: >>2875552 >>2875725

>>2875548

With orange filter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO paali.jpg, 703KiB, 1000x666

Anonymous Sun 03 Jul 2016 23:31:18 No.2875552 Report

Quoted By: >>2875725 >>2875920

>>2875550

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 08:25:00 No.2875725 Report

Quoted By: >>2875766

>>2875548
>>2875550
>>2875552
Those church and hay-selfie pics are wicked.
Where you shooting? Another finnanon here, Tampere

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_9704.jpg, 369KiB, 2322x1542

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 08:35:30 No.2875735 Report

Quoted By: >>2875779 >>2875782

r8 my scan

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 09:34:47 No.2875766 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875725

Lpr/Imatra area.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 04 Jul 2016 10:17:10 No.2875779 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875735
>clipped highlights in that sun reflection
shit scan/10 try harder next time

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 04 Jul 2016 10:23:02 No.2875782 Report

Quoted By: >>2875938 >>2878267

>>2875735
>clipped highlights in that sun reflection
>blurry rims/trees

Learn to properly meter and focus before posting car snapshits. And turn your iso dial down for god's sake that shit is grainy!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1467494256472.png, 2MiB, 1000x689

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 11:15:58 No.2875802 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874656
Sure upload it please.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO filmdeveloping-7.jpg, 74KiB, 620x414

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 14:28:13 No.2875857 Report

Quoted By: >>2875858

some questions about 35mm film

How much do you guys pay per roll?

what stuff should i get? fujifilm, kodak, etc?

Surely 100 ISO gives best quality so why does it seem to be norm to shoot in 200 or 400? are there any drawbacks to ISO100? And i am talking about daylight shooting, i know i will need higher ISO for night

Thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 14:36:17 No.2875858 Report

Quoted By: >>2875900

>>2875857
>How much do you guys pay per roll?

Depends on the roll

>what stuff should i get? fujifilm, kodak, etc?

Depends on the film from each manufacturer

>Surely 100 ISO gives best quality so why does it seem to be norm to shoot in 200 or 400?

It doesn't give the least quality but it'll give the least amount of grain

>are there any drawbacks to ISO100?

Not if you have the right lighting conditions

My favorite film to shoot is portra 160 or 400 ektar 100, and for slide film agfa presica and velvia 50 but there's quite a lot of nice cheap film like superia

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 15:46:40 No.2875900 Report

Quoted By: >>2875905

>>2875858
i just bought some superia 200 for my first few rolls of film

why is ISO 100 film more expensive and harder to find?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 15:53:48 No.2875905 Report

Quoted By: >>2875911 >>2875930

>>2875900
>i just bought some superia 200 for my first few rolls of film

You really cant go wrong. Fantastic performance from a nice cheap consumer grade film

>why is ISO 100 film more expensive and harder to find?

I cannot really speak from the technical side as far as whether the emulsion is more difficult to manufacture but it's mostly because there's less demand for really low iso film since you need closer to ideal conditions to use it

That being said ektar 100 is fairly cheap and fantastic but I'd still rather shoot portra 160 because if I need to I can push it further if needed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pushed.jpg, 840KiB, 1901x1107

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:05:32 No.2875911 Report

Quoted By: >>2875928 >>2875930 >>2875937 >>2875981

>>2875905
I probably should specify that you can also push superia as needed and I think superia looks particularly good at 800 like in this picture I saw a while back

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Roll1_C462694-R1-09-9 small.jpg, 734KiB, 1200x811

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:17:12 No.2875918 Report

Quoted By:

fujica half shot with some ilford400 test roll

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sulku.jpg, 354KiB, 1000x649

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:17:52 No.2875920 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875552

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 92972E1-R01-005e.jpg, 819KiB, 1000x652

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:41:59 No.2875928 Report

Quoted By: >>2875931 >>2875937 >>2875981

>>2875911
Reminds me of this picture I took a while back.

This is Provia 100F.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:44:32 No.2875930 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875905
cool thanks, looking forward to some shooting

>>2875911
that looks real nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 16:46:23 No.2875931 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875928
good job

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Portra30V15.jpg, 514KiB, 1203x800

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 17:13:00 No.2875937 Report

Quoted By: >>2875941 >>2875957 >>2875981

>>2875928
>>2875911
Leaf snapshits?
Leaf snapshits.
Portra 400.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 17:13:26 No.2875938 Report

Quoted By: >>2875961

>>2875782
>clipped highlights in the sun reflection
like anybody gives a shit
>blurry rims and trees
It's called panning, try taking a car shot for once.
>grain
Color perfect likes to bring it all out

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2015-05-8-8490-Gold400-26.jpg, 196KiB, 996x1500

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 17:15:55 No.2875941 Report

Quoted By: >>2875957 >>2875981

>>2875937
Snapshits? I can do snapshits.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO leafsnapshits.jpg, 175KiB, 1191x768

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 18:28:19 No.2875957 Report

Quoted By: >>2875981

>>2875937
>>2875941
leaf snapshits!

Ilford Pan 400, Polaroid 170BV.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 04 Jul 2016 18:37:33 No.2875961 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875938
Amazing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 04 Jul 2016 19:29:27 No.2875981 Report

Quoted By: >>2876124

>>2875911
>>2875928
>>2875937
>>2875941
>>2875957
We /leaf/ now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO OlyMiniTriX01.jpg, 251KiB, 712x1000

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 00:17:25 No.2876124 Report

Quoted By: >>2876177

>>2875981
you got a problem, cunt?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 02:29:06 No.2876177 Report

Quoted By:

>>2876124
You should have a model sit in that. Then it would be a great picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 05 Jul 2016 19:24:48 No.2876700 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874542
Page 4 and 60 replies after 3 days is what happens when fucking moron newfags try and make generals.
2 unprocessed RPT tier snapshits next to one another does not qualify as an appropriate OP image.
You didn't even copy all of the OP text.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 727KiB, 2048x2048

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 17:34:20 No.2877618 Report

Quoted By: >>2877644 >>2877651

I have tried looking on google but there's no answers.

My shutter button gets stuck and won't depress until I advance the film lever. What could be causing this?

I'm using a Yashica Electro 35. The Pad of Death issues comes up a lot but that's more to do with a dodgy advanced lever rather than a sticky shutter.

Any suggestions/remedies?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:12:49 No.2877644 Report

Quoted By: >>2877651 >>2877702

>>2877618
>My shutter button gets stuck and won't depress until I advance the film lever. What could be causing this?
did you just word this weirdly... ?
you know that the shutter has to be cocked for it to fire right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:20:45 No.2877651 Report

Quoted By: >>2877702

>>2877618
What >>2877644 said. With most old manual film cameras the advance lever also cocks the shutter instead of just advancing the film.

How does it feel being this stupid?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:22:06 No.2877653 Report

Quoted By:

Also I'm thinking of saving up and getting another medium format camera, I'm thinking of getting something more mechanical so I'm eyeing up something like a Bronica s2a or a Hasselblad 1000f, has anybody had experience with either of them?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO t3i_18-55_1_xl.jpg, 146KiB, 675x450

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:36:10 No.2877660 Report

Quoted By: >>2877662 >>2877842 >>2878267

So, about scanning with DSLRs. I only have a t3i rabal with the kit lens, and the scans come out in a very mediocre quality and are hard to post-process.

However I've read/heard people saying that even a rabal with a kit lens is enough to get a flatbed quality scan. How much of this is true? Should I put more effort in how I scan my pictures? Maybe fabricating a makeshift light diffuser rather than using light from my tablet as I've been doing now.

Of course ideally I'd get a macro lens, but since I've seen people talking about doing it with a kit lens, it got me curious.

Also, how would a rabal+macro lens compare to a flatbed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:38:04 No.2877662 Report

Quoted By: >>2877669

>>2877660
Reverse your kit lens and you'll get a macro lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 18:49:10 No.2877669 Report

Quoted By:

>>2877662
How about the quality of it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 19:22:38 No.2877702 Report

Quoted By: >>2877840

>>2877644
>>2877651
No. It's only just started doing it.

Normally the shutter button should press in and then pop back up once the picture has been taken.

What's happening is the shutter button isn't popping back up until I advanced the film. It's getting stuck once I remove my finger from the shutter. It should just instantly pop back up. It always has for the 6 months I've owned the camera.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07727resize.jpg, 709KiB, 999x989

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 21:16:48 No.2877815 Report

Quoted By: >>2877816

just started playing with medium format

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07734resize.jpg, 709KiB, 999x986

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 21:18:12 No.2877816 Report

Quoted By: >>2877824

>>2877815

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07674resize.jpg, 834KiB, 999x996

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 21:25:07 No.2877824 Report

Quoted By:

>>2877816

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 21:40:08 No.2877840 Report

Quoted By:

>>2877702
ah, I understand now.

why is this a big deal though? what practical difference does it make?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 06 Jul 2016 21:41:26 No.2877842 Report

Quoted By:

>>2877660
if your main problem is with the post processing, the problem is probably the lighting. use a strong and even light source. other scanning tips
>keep the film flat, ideally with a rigid frame or anti-newton glass. this glass works ok too
>use a macro lens ideally, but any lens with low barrel distortion and high sharpness across the frame, (most [email protected] work well) with extension tubes.
>make sure the camera is stable and well aligned with the film plane
>use the lowest iso available, aperture at its sharpest (depends on the lens, between f4 and f8). with a good lighting source, with iso 200, f5.6, you should be around 1/125 with well exposed film
>edit the raw negative scan in photoshop, I follow the method described on http://4nalog.blogspot.ch/2015/09/working-with-c41-linear-flat-scans.html, his b&w tutorial is cool too.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 1MiB, 2448x2448

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 07:41:35 No.2878196 Report

Quoted By: >>2878270 >>2878389 >>2878533

Thoughts on this poorfag film? I just copped the last they had from Poundland.

Is it comparable to Fuji Superia?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 07:57:46 No.2878213 Report

Quoted By: >>2878251

I don't know if this is better suited in the stupid questions thread but ironically its usually full of greenhorns, not to mention Sugar.

For anyone that develops their own film, what was the best book/website/collection of articles/whatever that best helped you get your feet off the ground and actually do it? There's so many people on this board who think they know what they're doing (I know many of them do) but i don't want to get confused in the process of doing so. If there's a go to book that really helped you get a grasp of the basics, I would love to hear some recommendations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 08:30:14 No.2878239 Report

Quoted By: >>2878522

Guys... I just found out after some extensive research how to read characteristic curves from film specification sheets, and it's ridiculously useful.

I was surprised I had to dig sooo deep to find consistent and practical information about it. Why isn't it more readily available?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 08:45:59 No.2878251 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878213
Massive dev chart (google it), not being a moron.
If you can find the TimeLife book series on photography from the 70's, that's reasonably useful too.
I think you can buy all 20 books for like $4 on Amazon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 09:13:53 No.2878267 Report

Quoted By: >>2878647

>>2875198
I moved from scanner to dslr because scanners are slow, picky, noisy, give bad quality files, take up loads of space and frequently shit the bed.

A second hand nex c3 or xa1 and manual focus legacy macro would set you back abput £150 and be useful. You can use raw files on vuescan to do all your colour corrections if you have no adobe-fu

>>2875395
No, coolscans are overpriced as fuck, mediocre quality and a one trick pony.

>>2875782
Looks good to me, except the image feels very flat, don't be afraid to play with contrast, dodging and burning, they're vital tools in the darkroom, no reason not to emulate them on film.

>>2875782
You're a moron, this is film, not digital.

>>2877660
Your kit lens won't focus close enough for "good" results, a cheapo 50mm and extension rings would be better (about £50), a cheap macro capable of 1:1 would be better yet (sigma 50 2.8 is often under £100)

For a light diffuser i use my phone on white screen with a piece of opal acrylic spaced slightly in front, it is more than adequate.

Another issue is light exclusion, if you can you don't want any stray light. A couple of pringles tubes and matte black paint make for a quick, adjustable fix.

Colour correction can be tricky to get to grips with in adobe, download vuescan to see if your source images are "good enough" for colour correction. If they are, go into adobe, wb off blank film, invert rgb curve, top and tail r, g and b curves so that you match peaks and troughs on your histogram, edit to taste.

The rabal is fine for scanning, properly setup the quality can be far superior and faster.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Comparison.jpg, 553KiB, 1000x1308

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 09:21:34 No.2878270 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878196
I use it sometimes, pic related is a comparison (albeit a bad one due to the different subjects). It's not even a bad film and it's really cheap so you could use it for practicing purposes. I started with it as it's the only kind of film they sell in town here. It's not really Agfa though, somebody just bought the rights to the name.

Superia gives a crisper image and a nicer contrast, but the Agfa has some nice colours for such a bargain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 12:09:56 No.2878338 Report

Quoted By: >>2878375

I use nex and 50mm lens with macro rings for scanning. But I'm thinking of getting some mid-tier enlarger lens since I'm gonna get enlarger anyway. It's crazy cheap compared to a good macro lens and I think it would be perfect for scanning negatives. Thoughts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 13:27:26 No.2878375 Report

Quoted By: >>2878383

>>2878338
If you want to use an enlarger lense, remember that they don't focus on their own, so you'll need to get a bellows and an L39 adapter, or an L39 helicoid adapter. Either option will probably cost you more than the lense itself, however the bellows will be more versatile.
Also, you'll need to tape over the aperture ring to stop light leaking in through the side of the lense.
Also, remember that enlarger lense are practically worthless these days, so don't bother fucking around with trash lenses; 6-element and multicoated all the way.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 06resize.jpg, 766KiB, 999x671

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 13:36:57 No.2878383 Report

Quoted By: >>2880238

>>2878375
I only use manual lenses anyway, I don't have money to blow on decent modern lens, unfortunately. And adapter from L39 to Sony E is cheap, I already own macro rings. Instead of using belows I just adjust height of a tripod (I lay negative above a tablet). Getting pretty decent results with a 50mm/1.7 rokkor, I think that a enlarger lens that has less distortion will simply be an improvement over what I already have. Pic related - one of my recent scans, natively it's around 3000px wide, I don't use the full frame to avoid heavier distortion nearer the edges.

rick

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO b5104f0e-0de8-41c1-aea2-f0aaea38 (...).jpg, 453KiB, 1280x875

rick Thu 07 Jul 2016 13:42:44 No.2878389 Report

Quoted By: >>2878422

>>2878196
Agfa does not produce film anymore. Agfa Vista is rebranded Fuji, probably C200, maybe superia 200. So yeah vista 200 and 400 are bargain films that can give you really nice results.

Puc related. Vista400

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 14:35:15 No.2878422 Report

Quoted By: >>2878429 >>2878536

>>2878389

is 400 not real shit quality, fair enough for bad lighting, but if you are taking landscapes in broad daylight then 200 is as high as you wanna go?

this photo lacks so much colour and detail

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 15:01:08 No.2878429 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878422
>landscapes in broad daylight

velvia 50

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 17:38:43 No.2878515 Report

Quoted By:

What's an inexpensive film SLR compatible with the Nikon 50mm AF-D?

Preferably something not bulky and heavy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 18:09:28 No.2878522 Report

Quoted By: >>2878938 >>2878939

>>2878239
>I was surprised I had to dig sooo deep to find consistent and practical information about it. Why isn't it more readily available?

what are you talking about...?
spec sheets from kodak are literally available in PDF form in the first results from a google search

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 18:33:06 No.2878533 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878196
Martin parr shot only agfa if i recall correctly
Expired consumer films are kind of sought after, you'll get cool results from those

rick

rick Thu 07 Jul 2016 18:35:08 No.2878536 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878422
My landscape is bomb you fag. Your mom lacks detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 19:28:32 No.2878557 Report

Quoted By:

>>2875537
DSLR ghetto rig

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Film031.jpg, 968KiB, 633x1000

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 21:42:49 No.2878647 Report

Quoted By: >>2878655 >>2878869

>>2878267
>I moved from scanner to dslr because scanners are slow, picky, noisy, give bad quality files, take up loads of space and frequently shit the bed.

I ended up getting a V600. Quite satisfied with the results, 30 minutes for a 35mm film is not too bad since I don't shoot and develop film that often and the color correction is pretty good with the standard Epson software

Pic related is Kodak Gold 200 as far as I recall

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 21:54:04 No.2878650 Report

Quoted By:

So can expired (2010) Fujicolor 100 ASA stored at presumably room temperature be shot at ASA 80?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ITNtestroll06.jpg, 291KiB, 1192x800

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 22:01:29 No.2878655 Report

Quoted By: >>2878661 >>2878739

>>2878647
>30 minutes for a 35mm film
Fuck me. I DSLR scanned 7 films in an hour yesterday. including 2 that my mate had somehow fucked by tearing the sprocket holes off of one side, which could never have fitted in a dedicated scanner or a shatbed frame.
>srsly tho, wat do you shatbedders do about damaged/nonstandard sized films?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 07 Jul 2016 22:12:20 No.2878661 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878655
well 7 rolls is what I shot in the last 4 months or so, so speed doesn't really matter that much to me. Also, the scanning process takes up 90% of that time anyways, in which I can do other things.
>>srsly tho, wat do you shatbedders do about damaged/nonstandard sized films?
no idea honestly, I only shoot and develop my own 35mm films which I normally don't fuck up and might get into MF in the near future

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 00:09:29 No.2878739 Report

Quoted By: >>2878753

>>2878655
I place them in the frame. If I don't feel like placing them in the frame, I place them under ANR glass.

What do you DSLR shitters do when you're not shitposting about flatbeds?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 00:13:02 No.2878741 Report

Quoted By:

>go test new shitbox
>feeling it, one of those days you know they are looking good
>the fucking thing breaks the roll
Well, at least the other camera didn't break it, film should be out on saturday, hopefully the camera meter worked right.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ITNtestroll12.jpg, 528KiB, 1206x800

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 00:24:43 No.2878753 Report

Quoted By: >>2878799

>>2878739
>What do you DSLR shitters do when you're not shitposting about flatbeds?
kek
In other news, I shot and dev'd a short strip of the bulk roll of Fuji IT-N I got for $10.
1995 expired.
ISO 6 seems about right, 2 stops under is a little thin, 2 stops over is also OK though.
Colour balance is a little weird, as you might expect, being a tungsten film.
Looking forward to shooting wide open day for night with an orange gelled flash...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ITNtestroll11.jpg, 485KiB, 1196x800

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 02:22:43 No.2878799 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878753
Actually, I prefer the 2 stops over file.
ISO 1.5
I believe this was 1/15th @ f/2.8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 02:23:29 No.2878800 Report

Quoted By: >>2878817

Using film makes your pictures be even shittier than they already are.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ITNtestroll01.jpg, 457KiB, 1202x800

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 02:52:54 No.2878817 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878800
nah brus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 04:57:51 No.2878869 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878647
30 minutes for high contrast jpegs, pretty brutal. Using my dslr rig i can scan a whole roll of 36 shots in about 3 minutes, the first shot will take 10 mins to dial in the colours, but then those settings can be pasted onto the rest of the roll. And i have permanent raw copies for the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 06:46:56 No.2878938 Report

Quoted By: >>2878939 >>2879066

>>2878522
Yeah, but to actually interpret information from it. Normally people's questions about dynamic range from a specific film stock is "just try it out and see what works for you!"

Pic related, there's not much info on how to read these.

The curves for ColorPlus explained why I had such drastically better results rating it at EI 160 rather than 200.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 103KiB, 702x662

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 06:48:03 No.2878939 Report

Quoted By: >>2879066

>>2878522
>>2878938
forgot pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 07:18:12 No.2878951 Report

Quoted By: >>2879067

What's a good compact point and shoot? Something like the Contax T2 but affordable if that exists.

The cheaper the better.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cock sucker.jpg, 745KiB, 2048x1536

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 08:32:17 No.2879010 Report

Quoted By: >>2879028

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFaq5DlvePM
my film xd short

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ^F899BFE6633A08DE1560302998ECD12 (...).jpg, 13KiB, 230x164

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 08:33:41 No.2879013 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieO2oZ6w2WI

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 08:47:14 No.2879028 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879010
Wrong kind of film you dumb faggot, also reported for underage, also the 7 seconds i watched made me want to kill myself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 10:29:46 No.2879066 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878938
>>2878939
Care to explain, and maybe a link to the "guides" or whatever where you learned this? I'm not sure what am I supposed to see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 10:30:59 No.2879067 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878951
There's a ton, mju still remains cheap and it's a common recommendation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 18:54:55 No.2879246 Report

Quoted By: >>2879371

Okay I need some clarification just to be sure. I feel like a noob.

My film tank says 290ml for 35mm. Does this mean I need 580 for 2 reels? And when developing one roll, do I need to add the second empty reel?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 22:56:27 No.2879371 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879246
It also says 500ml for two reels, you fucking moron.
Follow the instructions on the box...
And yes, when developing one, you should put the empty reel on top, so that the loaded one doesn't slide up the shaft and sit out of the chemicals.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 23:10:55 No.2879383 Report

Quoted By: >>2879418 >>2879450

I'm thinking of saving up and getting back into 35mm photography and I'm wondering which camera I should get. Should I get the Olympus OM4 or the Leica R4? What are the pros and cons of each body? Has anyone here had experience using either of them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 08 Jul 2016 23:21:49 No.2879387 Report

Quoted By: >>2879450

What are the filters that make your indoors photos not yellow called? My google fu is failing me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 00:02:03 No.2879418 Report

Quoted By: >>2879422 >>2879450

>>2879383
I wouldn't go for the Leica R4, it's solid and everything, but it didn't convince me.
The Olympus is great as a system, but fuck expensive, good luck finding glass for a fair price now that everyone is buying zuikos for their mirrorless.
Also the OM is tiny, which helps a lot, but if size and budget is something to consider, why not go the Pentax route?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 00:08:26 No.2879422 Report

Quoted By: >>2879432

>>2879418
>why not go the Pentax route
It's mainly because I don't get a lot of listings for their stuff where I live and their film bodies don't seem all that special. If I were to get a Pentax that had the features I wanted I would have to get an LX which is crazy expensive but I don't want to spend $400 on a film body and would rather spend around $200 at the most

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 00:37:48 No.2879432 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879422
Though lately I use mostly a Nikon F80 (because my digital is a Nikon), I have an OM with three primes: 50, 35, and 28.
That said, the OM is my homeboy and it's amazing with that pristine and huge as fuck magnification through the viewfinder. Had it before the Nikon, and if I had to slim down, I'd keep it over the rest, but I'm biased.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 01:29:53 No.2879450 Report

Quoted By: >>2879453 >>2879457

>>2879387
Blue? 80A, 80B.
>>2879383
Olympus all day every day. Aside from the R-series cameras being basically just plush meneltas, OM glass is quite good and reasonably affordable, whereas R glass is actually pretty middle of the road (again, plenty of it is menelta), and ludicrously overpriced.
>>2879418
>why not go the Pentax route?
kek
Maybe if literally all you wanted to shoot was 50mm, and only on an LX.
Anything more exotic than that glasswise is stupidly expensive and hard to find as well, and pretty mediocre most of the time.
The 85mm Quartz Apo is probably the only Pentacks lense I'd go out of my way to own.
Even the FA-Limited primes, which are admittedly sexy to look at, are just soft, abberrated garbage on full-frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 01:39:12 No.2879453 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879450
>whereas R glass is actually pretty middle of the road (again, plenty of it is menelta), and ludicrously overpriced.
I'm not sure about the lenses all being rebadged Minolta glass, I think Leica really only used the basic body frames for the r-series, and even then that only lasted through the R3 to the R7. The only time I think they rebadged Minolta glass was the 40mm f/2 for the CL and CLE cameras

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 227747110_14f268a8-e277-4230-9fa (...).jpg, 55KiB, 1024x576

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 02:09:15 No.2879457 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879450
>80A
Heh, I googled it without adding 'filter' first and got pic related.

Thanks for the help.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 285KiB, 1024x680

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:36:24 No.2879578 Report

Quoted By: >>2879580 >>2879584

Just bought a Nikon FE for my first film SLR. I've got a couple of AF D lenses from my DSLR setup which I think are compatible.

Was it a good choice?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:48:34 No.2879580 Report

Quoted By: >>2879582

>>2879578
Well, how much did you pay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:49:21 No.2879581 Report

Quoted By: >>2879585 >>2879940

What's the best/easiest setup for scanning film with a DSLR?

I've seen the peta pixel one but it's a bit long winded and he's built some crazy laser cut box.

Will this work as well? http://nonphotography.com/blog/creative-photography-2/experimental/if-you-don´t-have-a-film-scanner-then-diy/

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:50:28 No.2879582 Report

Quoted By: >>2879585

>>2879580
£50 which don't think was too bad considering they're going for 60-100 on eBay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:55:51 No.2879584 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879578
You did good. I have an FE2 and it's lovely to use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 08:57:21 No.2879585 Report

Quoted By: >>2879597

>>2879581
Depends on what you have at hand.
It comes down to creativity in the end but common set ups include a film holder of some sort, cardboard for example, a mount which would be the tripod, and some diffused light which can be a very bright computer screen (but don't put the film directly on it, it'll show pixels, bands, and other shit), a bounced in camera flash (from behind, make sure it doesn't leak above or in front), if you have a speedlight that can be triggered wirelessly then that works great too (plus your exposure won't need to be long).

>>2879582
Sounds good. I also want an FE, but haven't found one for a good price and I'm currently spending on glass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 09:26:55 No.2879597 Report

Quoted By: >>2879601 >>2879608

>>2879585
Yeah I've got a Yungnou flash so I'll probably just diffuse that through some paper or something. Should I just blast it at full power with a shorter exposure?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 09:42:51 No.2879601 Report

Quoted By: >>2879604

>>2879597
Well, first try exposure set to flash, then go up as needed depending on how hard you diffuse the light.
I wouldn't use white paper, it's not great imo.
Use wax paper (the one sold in craft stores) or parchment paper (the one used for baking, get it white obviously, so supermarkets should have it), if you can get ground glass (like from a local store nearby, or a piece of glass around the house) that works great too.
If you can't get any of that, white paper but don't shine through it but rather bounce of it, you'll need to keep the flash a bit far from it otherwise you'll notice a bright spot instead of properly diffused.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 10:19:04 No.2879603 Report

Quoted By: >>2879609

Recommendations for light meter apps? on android.
Had a cheap one but the needle went kaput.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 10:33:14 No.2879604 Report

Quoted By: >>2879611

>>2879601
Okay I'll get some wax paper. Is tracing paper basically the same thing? I might have a piece of Perspex I could use actually from an old light box.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 10:46:09 No.2879608 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879597
Paper has too much texture. Opal acrylic is a couple of bucks and the correct product.

No, dont blast at full power, set to iso 100, f7ish, shutter speed half a stop down from max flash sync (prevents misfires), flash about 8" from your acrylic, start at the weakest and work your way up until your histogram is mainly populated in the centre and there's no blown areas in the r, g or b channels (be careful of every channel. Not just white)

Make sure your film is flat and not touching anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 10:47:17 No.2879609 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879603
Light meter tools pro, its worth the £2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 10:51:27 No.2879611 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879604
>Is tracing paper basically the same thing?
Yeah, with wax paper I just mean some sort of translucent kind of paper.
>Perspex
Might work, might not work, because it's acrylic.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00016.jpg, 483KiB, 1818x1228

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 15:13:24 No.2879699 Report

Quoted By:

Im new to the whole photography and started with film because that's i have, what do you think any critiques. im using a nikon n6006 with nikon nikkor 28-85mm 1:3.5-4.5 with fuji film superia 400 . i made the mistake just after i got the processed film that i used matrix metering for portraits instead of spot for this picture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 17:48:22 No.2879766 Report

Quoted By: >>2880026 >>2880549

I've been doing a lot of C41 developing recently, but now would like to try out some B&W as well.

Got some, what I think is the equivalent of Rodinal Developer and some fixer from the same company. The film I want to develop is some Illford Delta 3200 shot on a shitty compact.

I heard that I should only dilute the chemicals as I need them (as opposed to c41 where I just keep them stored in bottles) is this true? Are there any other things I should keep in mind, temperature and time wise? Thanks!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 19:10:33 No.2879803 Report

Quoted By: >>2879814 >>2879829

noob here but when i am removing my 35mm film from the canister i read its good to use a bottle opener?

also does this all have to be done in the dark? like scanning and all, or does it not matter once the pics have already been exposed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 19:41:43 No.2879814 Report

Quoted By: >>2879825

>>2879803
What?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 19:54:05 No.2879825 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879814
are those not pretty straight forward questions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 19:58:32 No.2879829 Report

Quoted By: >>2879832

>>2879803
>noob here but when i am removing my 35mm film from the canister i read its good to use a bottle opener?
yes
>also does this all have to be done in the dark?
no, only placing the film in the developing tank has to be done in the dark, once the negatives are developed you can expose them to light normally

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:03:50 No.2879832 Report

Quoted By: >>2879835 >>2879838

>>2879829
thanks

i just opened my first roll of 35mm film and its completely blank, the film was definitely advancing as the rewind lever was turning each time, also the shutter is opening as i checked with no film and the back open, and the lens cap was definitely not on

i just shot through a whole film to check the new camera but have got nothing

any solutions?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:11:57 No.2879835 Report

Quoted By: >>2879845

>>2879832
Post a photo of the negs please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:16:10 No.2879838 Report

Quoted By: >>2879845

>>2879832
did you develop it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:21:52 No.2879845 Report

Quoted By: >>2879849

>>2879835
2 secs

>>2879838
no, maybe im retarded, do they need developed before i am able to scan them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:24:27 No.2879849 Report

Quoted By: >>2879851

>>2879845
>no, maybe im retarded, do they need developed before i am able to scan them?

umm..yes. You need to develop film first before you can do anything with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 20:26:16 No.2879851 Report

Quoted By: >>2879884 >>2879902

>>2879849
fuck that was retarded, so can i do this myself easily? or do most people send theirs away and then get negatives back?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 21:03:08 No.2879884 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879851
well that film roll is dead, you killed it with light

It depends upon if you have a local place and if they're decent. I have my film developed locally, some people who aren't as lucky send it out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 21:44:18 No.2879902 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879851
Jesus Christ. You opened up a canister without developing it and expect to scan it?

What do you think they do at photolabs?

You have to develop the film (in the dark). Then once the film is developed it isn't light sensitive so you can scan/enlarge it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO scan-test.jpg, 582KiB, 1887x1270

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 23:05:14 No.2879940 Report

Quoted By: >>2879943 >>2879946 >>2879974 >>2879998

>>2879581 here

Right I've just tried scanning a test film with a DSLR/flash. I'm diffusing it through a sheet of faded perspex (from an old lightbox).

The settings I'm using are:
Flash at 1/128 about 30cm from the negative
1/125, ISO 100 and f/16 + f/22

f22 is on the left and f16 is on the right. I tried f8 at first but everything was completely blown. The tutorial I followed said to set your WB to the warmest it goes. Is everything looking correct?

Slightly unsure of how I turn that super-blue inverted version into a usable photograph.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00017.jpg, 659KiB, 1840x1232

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 23:07:21 No.2879943 Report

Quoted By: >>2879967 >>2880097

>>2879940
For reference here's the one that came from the lab scans. The detail in my DSLR scan is certain better. I just don't know how I go from the super blue inverted shot to something usable. Any tips?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 23:10:42 No.2879946 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879940
Sorry that's meant to be f16 on the left, f22 on the right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 09 Jul 2016 23:53:16 No.2879967 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879943
Learn how to fix the levels in Photoshop, colour management shit, loads of tuts on YouTube

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO where da reds at.jpg, 203KiB, 1103x766

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 00:00:42 No.2879974 Report

Quoted By: >>2880052 >>2880130

>>2879940
Well, to start with you can always speed up the shutter if it's blown out, obviously mang.
But if you don't see any chromatic aberration or whatever from a high f number then no biggie.
That said, it comes out blue because this is what your red channel looks like.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 00:44:07 No.2879998 Report

Quoted By: >>2880130

>>2879940
You're going to lose detail from diffraction shooting with that high of an f-stop. Is 1/125 your max sync speed? Maybe try more diffusion material to get back down to f/8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 01:43:57 No.2880026 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879766
>I heard that I should only dilute the chemicals as I need them (as opposed to c41 where I just keep them stored in bottles)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, since I've never devved C41, but generally you mix a "stock solution" which is stronger, and then dilute a little bit with water each time you develop film ("working solution"). but it depends on the developer; some developers don't have to be diluted after mixing at all (e.g. Xtol) while other need to be diluted SO much that you need a syringe to properly measure it (e.g. HC-110 which has asshat dilutions like 1:60)

for temperature, its not a big deal. you can use it room temp, or hotter, as long as you adjust development times. just DON'T freeze it, which causes the chemicals to precipitate and its very hard to mix back up.

time-- depends on the developer. you can google it

but the most important thing is to keep your developer safe from oxygen. keep the bottle tightly closed, or use a tank with a floating lid. if the bottle is halfway or less empty, I recommend using a can of inert gas (like dust-off) and spraying it in the bottle to replace the oxygen before you close the lid.

also, your water will affect the results (not usually won't ruin it). things like mineral content, pH, etc. I use distilled water just to be safe, but that might be overkill

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 01:59:31 No.2880032 Report

Quoted By: >>2880092

Can't seem to find anything about this on google so I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.

I know you can make photograms by leaving photo paper in the sun, or exposing it to light for a long time, without development, then scanning the image before it eventually disappears. Can this same principal be applied to film as well? If I was to lock open the shutter of a camera and let it sit pointing at something for a few hours, or days, would an image appear on the film without development? Then I could scan it quickly before it disappeared.

Also, anyone have experience with pinhole cameras? Is it possible to mount a lens from a 35mm camera into a cardboard box, instead of a pinhole?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 03:12:56 No.2880052 Report

Quoted By: >>2880130

>>2879974
>Well, to start with you can always speed up the shutter if it's blown out, obviously mang.

>doesn't understand that shutterspeed has no effect on light output by a flash.

The only way changing shutter speed would help is if he got it slow enough to where it started allowing ambient light in...which would then completely negate the point of using a flash in the first place.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fine.jpg, 210KiB, 451x320

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 03:32:13 No.2880060 Report

Quoted By:

>>2874542
ur scans fine, pump up those numbas

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:18:21 No.2880092 Report

Quoted By: >>2880098 >>2880107

>>2880032
>Can this same principal be applied to film as well?
theoretically you could make photograms on sheet film, but you are going to have a very hard time finding film with a low enough sensitivity to be able to scan it (ISO 25 perhaps, but something more 5 would be ideal)

>If I was to lock open the shutter of a camera ... would an image appear on the film without development?
no! that wouldn't be a photogram. your film would reach its maximum density very quickly, without time to even see a latent image. look at your film leader, sticking out of the roll

>Is it possible to mount a lens from a 35mm camera into a cardboard box, instead of a pinhole
theoretically... sure. it would be extremely difficult and take a lot of calculations and precise measurements to get anything even remotely useful-- no idea why anyone would want to do this. you're just trying to build your own (shitty to the point of being useless) camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:32:41 No.2880097 Report

Quoted By: >>2880130

>>2879943
I gave a guide to colour correction earlier in this thread.
Sboot in raw
Set wb off border
Crop to just the image (no sprockets, no border)
Min highlights, max shadows, hold alt to set white and black points
Invert rgb curve
Top and tail r, g and b curves so your histogram lines up its troughs and peaks
(histograms are much more useful than the photo itself for this process, this is usually the first point i look at the image, if you're not very familiar with curves, you will be after a month of conversions)
Tweak

If you fail continually, try vuescan, just be aware it sucks for raw conversion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:33:59 No.2880098 Report

Quoted By: >>2880102

>>2880092
>look at your film leader, sticking out of the roll
You will see a colour change on unexposed film if you pull some out of the roll in bright light, but it is far too faint to ever be used for picture taking purposes.

There ARE, however, certain B&W films that will give a weird, solarised half-positive image if overexposed long enough. Try taking an overexposed image of the sun with a tele lense, for an example.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:37:10 No.2880100 Report

Quoted By:

how is the flash being used when scanning with dslr? ive just been using a lightbox

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:44:50 No.2880102 Report

Quoted By: >>2880104 >>2880107

>>2880098
>Try taking an overexposed image of the sun with a tele lense
Are you trying to make me set fire to my camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 05:49:25 No.2880104 Report

Quoted By: >>2880107

>>2880102
<:^)
I would kek significantly if you did, but also I'm being legit.
You can often see the phenomenon in larger overexposed light sources.
I'm not 100% about the mechanics/physics/chemistry behind it, so I haven't been able to find documentation or articles about using it for creative purposes, but it's real.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 06:05:00 No.2880107 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880102
>>2880092
I swear I saw a link on here once with a ton of info about this, specifically the black and white.

I'll just stick with a pinhole for now, the end goal isnt to make a quality camera, but to experiment with light painting and photo grams on paper, not for direct replication like a camera would.
>>2880104
Looking specifically for this with color film (since I have a bunch of expired shit I got for free) Maybe I'll just shoot it and see what happens . Not looking to develop the film, just see if an image eventually forms, could take hours

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 08:32:18 No.2880130 Report

Quoted By: >>2880146 >>2880147

>>2879974
>>2879998
>>2880052
>>2880097
Thanks for the advice.

I'm using a cheap Yungnou flash so I'm limited in terms of sync speeds. I think probably the only thing I can do is diffuse the flash some more if I definitely need to shoot at f8. I've got a clip on diffuser which can use as well as the Perspex sheet.

I'm also using a 50 1.8 prime lens with extension tubes. Should I stick with this or trying the 18-55 kit lens instead?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 09:23:27 No.2880146 Report

Quoted By: >>2880179

>>2880130
Stick to the 50mm will be sharper than the kit lens. You could as someone previously said use a couple of layers of wax paper to help diffuse it more.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 09:26:54 No.2880147 Report

Quoted By: >>2880179

>>2880130
Light drops one stop for every doubling of distance.

Focus on getting sharp, even results that can be colour corrected before worrying over your lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 11:28:38 No.2880179 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880146
>>2880147
Okay thanks. Going to try again tonight with more diffusion on the light and at f8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 11:54:52 No.2880181 Report

Quoted By: >>2880182

>>2874809
I fuck way more girls than you bro, shut the fuck up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 12:03:10 No.2880182 Report

Quoted By: >>2880207

>>2880181
>I fuck girls
pleb

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07132.jpg, 431KiB, 800x600

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 12:12:57 No.2880183 Report

Quoted By: >>2880184 >>2880225 >>2880226 >>2881451 >>2881962

Hey guys, finally got the Canon 50mm 3.5 Macro for my A7 so I can start digitizing my photos! What's the most cost effective way to backlight the film? I don't want to buy flashes. I'm thinking getting some sort of white acrylic and using my computer screen. Think that would work?

Crap scan with artifcacts from my phone screen making things ugly. I'm really excited to finally have found this lens locally. I have over a dozen developed rolls that I haven't even been able to make proofs of yet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 12:16:31 No.2880184 Report

Quoted By: >>2880619

>>2880183
Opal acrylic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 13:27:55 No.2880207 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880182
yeha, i bet you yuo rb hand bro fuck oi could fight you in real life in an day in a camera competition bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 14:36:11 No.2880225 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880183
Why do you keep fagging about this lense?
What makes it so special for you?
Pic related, it was the taking lense.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia42.jpg, 464KiB, 1206x800

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 14:37:48 No.2880226 Report

Quoted By: >>2880475 >>2880528 >>2880619 >>2881293

>>2880183
Why do you keep fagging about this lense?
What makes it so special for you?
Pic related, it was the taking lense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 14:55:38 No.2880234 Report

Quoted By:

I developed my first roll 2 days ago and it came out perfect. After the fix I checked a few pics and they were all grainy so I thought I fucked up, but after washing it was all good. A few overexposed pics but this was a test roll anyway.

But I've had a few "empty" photos? Not sure why. Gotta test the shutter again, I thought all shutterspeeds worked. It is a Ricoh 35 ZF, got it for 1 euro so it might have its flaws.

Now off to "scanning" them with my DSLR I guess. Anyone have a simple good DIY link?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 15:00:07 No.2880238 Report

Quoted By:

>>2878383

I recently used portra 400 for my 35mm rangefinder. Does that look like portra to you? Is it worth spending so much for portra for 35mm? Wondering if any of you actually use it for smaller formats.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 16:33:16 No.2880282 Report

Quoted By: >>2880284

This might be a stupid question.

Is there any point in spending more money on expensive film when you can just get the nice colours you want in post? Other than finer/smoother grain of stuff like Portra does it really matter about colours when I fix them with curves?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 16:39:46 No.2880284 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880282
nah not a stupid question, you're right
the money you spend on film at this point isn't about colour quality but you should be concerned about things like grain, latitude, how easily its processed, detail, sharpness, and how easily it scans (!)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 669KiB, 2048x2048

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 17:25:46 No.2880303 Report

Quoted By:

Popped to my local craft store today and got some 5mm opal acrylic.

Here's my super ghetto scanning unit made from an old shoe box. Hole in the back is for the flash and the hole in the top is for a lamp to illuminate the negatives so I can correctly focus.

Will give a shot this week and post results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 17:35:42 No.2880307 Report

Quoted By: >>2880309 >>2880332 >>2880408

anyone in the uk recommend an online place to get my photos developed? or do most of you do it locally?

i also got some afga vista plus 200 from the pound shop today, couldnt resist at that price, is it any good or cheap rubbish?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 17:37:54 No.2880309 Report

Quoted By: >>2880321

>>2880307
agfa vista plus is just rebranded fuji superia, no?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 17:57:31 No.2880321 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880309
from what ive heard, fuji superia gets good reviews, so if thats the case then great, maybe someone else can confirm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 18:13:41 No.2880332 Report

Quoted By: >>2880335 >>2880443

>>2880307
It's absolutely fine. It's rebranded fujifilm.

If you've got an asda close to you, they'll probably be about the cheapest. £2.50 per roll for process only.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 18:16:30 No.2880335 Report

Quoted By: >>2880338

>>2880332
might have to get some more while they have it instock then

do they do it instore?

do they do it instore?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 18:17:27 No.2880338 Report

Quoted By: >>2880341

>>2880335
Stores with a photo counter, I know other stores used to send it away.

You can use the store locator to find your nearest photo store iirc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 18:19:11 No.2880341 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880338
just looked it up and the closest is quite far, is it possible to send it to them?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 350KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:37:08 No.2880408 Report

Quoted By: >>2881416

>>2880307
It's alright, actually got a roll developed today. Will post a few now. I just got it developed/scanned at Max Spielmann, £6.50 for an hour service. They only scan in at 1800x1200px which is fine for web. Any that I really like I'll do a proper DSLR scan.

1/5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 353KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:38:28 No.2880409 Report

Quoted By: >>2880421 >>2881416

Sat in a deck chair, with an umbrella, eating an ice cream. Typical British Summer.

2/5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 232KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:39:39 No.2880412 Report

Quoted By: >>2881416

Grain is pretty shitty in the shadows for a 200 film. Might be partly due to bad scanning. Have tried to tidy it is as best I can in post.

3/5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00021.jpg, 382KiB, 640x960

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:42:16 No.2880414 Report

Quoted By: >>2881416

Shortly after I took this he asked why I was taking pictures of bins.

4/5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 241KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:47:13 No.2880415 Report

Quoted By: >>2880426 >>2881416

I'd probably say it is comparable to Superia 200 but slightly grainier in shadows. Can't go wrong at £1 a roll though. I just wish they did it as 36 exposures.

5/5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO femi-otedola_416x416.jpg, 31KiB, 416x416

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:48:44 No.2880418 Report

Quoted By:

Is this kino??

https://vimeo.com/173037414

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 20:55:30 No.2880421 Report

Quoted By: >>2880442

>>2880409
not enough rain for an english summer, although the fucking depressing back drop definitely is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 21:17:50 No.2880426 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880415
looks nice enough, cant complain for £1 a roll

will have to find somewhere tomorrow to process my first roll i shot today

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 21:38:53 No.2880430 Report

Quoted By: >>2880523

anyone ever used a kodak express shopto develop 35mm film?

seems to be the only place in my town to get it done

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 21:56:33 No.2880442 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880421
It was drizzling lightly when I shot this and then absolutely pissed it down so everyone ran inside.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 21:57:38 No.2880443 Report

Quoted By: >>2880523

>>2880332
How much is it to get scanned as well? Cheapest I've found is my local photolab which is £6 for develop + scan of a 36 roll sameday.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 22:01:46 No.2880447 Report

Quoted By: >>2880453 >>2880489 >>2880523 >>2880822

How many 'keepers' do you guys get on average from a roll of film? I've only been shooting for the past four months and about a quarter of my shots I'll probably use, the rest are usually shit.

So that's usually about 5-6 for a 24 exposure roll or 7-9 for a 36 exposure.

I guess the more I shoot the less wasted shots I'll have?

I'm also shooting with a rangefinder which has taken a bit of getting used to as I've only used SLR's in the past...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 22:06:19 No.2880453 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880447
dont take a shot if its not worth taking, then most of your film will be keepers

i usually just think is this photo actually gonna be any good or is it a waste of time and film

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia35.jpg, 477KiB, 536x800

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 22:54:39 No.2880475 Report

Quoted By: >>2880526

>>2880226
And another.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:12:19 No.2880489 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880447
Well, even if you take care and plan shots, good pictures still come out being very few.
36 aren't that many, if you bracket a lot in difficult settings you're getting something like 12 actual shots.
Taking pictures will give you experience of course so take as many as possible. But do think about them, don't just point and shoot (well, obviously not a rule, point and shoot all you want, it's also a whole style by itself), part of the "magic" of film for a lot of people is that they stop and think more if it's worth it or not.

newguy !!muY6fXWVMf7

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 00_12.jpg, 372KiB, 900x900

newguy !!muY6fXWVMf7 Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:38:06 No.2880503 Report

Quoted By: >>2880515 >>2880523

scans have very inconsistent quality lately. i dunno if it's a processing or scanning issue but i'm seeing a lot of grain and unusually high contrast. throwaway shot attached for reference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:49:43 No.2880515 Report

Quoted By: >>2880539

>>2880503
oh god MOAR

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:52:47 No.2880523 Report

Quoted By: >>2880533 >>2880539

>>2880503
>attached for reference
Keep your reference tbqh. It only matters if you're telling us how you're digitising (how much control you have) or any potential change in negative density.
>>2880430
I use Kodak for my E6 or C41 120 whenever I'm lazy, they're not too bad but they are slow where I am.
>>2880443
Like £1.50 or something. I don't get them to scan mine though.
>>2880447
Depends on the day or what I'm shooting but generally I have about a 70% hit rate. Though some of that is me feeling the need to finish a roll because I want to process it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia34.jpg, 417KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:54:46 No.2880526 Report

Quoted By: >>2880528

>>2880475
And another.
>ok it's not that bad a lense

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 10 Jul 2016 23:56:30 No.2880528 Report

Quoted By: >>2880538

>>2880526
>>2880226
lens, dude

lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:00:32 No.2880533 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880523
what sort of prices do they charge, for c41?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO HDMLomo10064.jpg, 694KiB, 1240x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:06:25 No.2880538 Report

Quoted By: >>2880552

>>2880528
This is the Fuji HD-M. Also an excellent lense. An 38/2.8 Fujinon.

newguy !!muY6fXWVMf7

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 36A_0037.jpg, 516KiB, 900x600

newguy !!muY6fXWVMf7 Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:08:41 No.2880539 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880515
sure

>>2880523
i have zero control as a lab scans it for me. film is tri-x 400. usually it comes out with much lower contrast, almost grey and white. no noise, also much, uh, crisper, if that's the right word. recent ones look comparatively blurry. i'm just not sure if its development or scanner that's doing this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:24:26 No.2880549 Report

Quoted By:

>>2879766
In my experience the developing times found in the official data sheet for Delta 3200 are a little bit undersetimated. The sheet says 9min in Microphen, I usually do 11.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:27:28 No.2880552 Report

Quoted By: >>2880569

>>2880538
LENS

WITHOUT AN E

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO SuperiaP55523.jpg, 363KiB, 1193x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:47:37 No.2880569 Report

Quoted By: >>2880571

>>2880552
The lense on the Pentacks PC-555 is not quite as sharp and has a little lateral chromatic abberation, but still very good for a 50 cent compact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 00:49:08 No.2880571 Report

Quoted By: >>2880607 >>2881042

>>2880569
Oh you're just pretending to be retarded

You sure got me, anon. Congrats on another conquest

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia20.jpg, 210KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 02:13:26 No.2880607 Report

Quoted By: >>2880792

>>2880571
Pay attention niqqa, all /p/ros use the patrician spelling.
This is another with the FD 50 Macro.
I shot these on the T70, which is about as nice to use as a barbed wire dildo, however all of the exposure were spot on using the Program mode. And the option to program shift between wide normal and tele was neat too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 03:05:21 No.2880619 Report

Quoted By: >>2880658

>>2880184
Cool thanks!

>>2880226
It's a not well known lens with fantastic optics that were designed for flat field reproductions. Basically the exact type of macro lens you'd want for scanning film. It gives 1:1 magnification with the FD 25 extension tube, a sub $100 bundle.

I'm just excited I found one locally. Not exactly the most common lens to find. I think I've mentioned this lens twice on /p/ in the past ~4 mobths btw. Not exactly "fagging about it".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:02:27 No.2880658 Report

Quoted By: >>2880716

>>2880619
Well that would be 2 more times than anybody else has, including myself who already owns one, and congrats you just described every single manual focus 50mm macro lense ever.
It just seems a strange thing to specifically seek out.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO for_printing (8 of 16).jpg, 674KiB, 1532x1024

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:43:53 No.2880680 Report

Quoted By: >>2880684 >>2881045

Got back my first roll of T-Max 400. It's rather lovely. Shot most of it on a weekend away in the country, worked quite well.

I'll post a few of my snapshits for you faggots to look at

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO for_printing (4 of 16).jpg, 781KiB, 1527x1021

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:45:28 No.2880684 Report

Quoted By: >>2880686 >>2880837 >>2881045

>>2880680

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO for_printing (14 of 16).jpg, 741KiB, 1532x1024

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 04:47:18 No.2880686 Report

Quoted By: >>2881045

>>2880684

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 05:11:05 No.2880716 Report

Quoted By: >>2880725 >>2880816

>>2880658
I only shoot FD on my A7 so it was an obvious choice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 05:18:44 No.2880725 Report

Quoted By: >>2880746

>>2880716
>I only shoot FD on my A7 so it was an obvious choice.

Garbage goes with garbage. You're absolutely right about how obvious it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 06:01:08 No.2880746 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880725
nice b8 m8

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO worthit.jpg, 459KiB, 1069x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 08:03:51 No.2880792 Report

Quoted By: >>2880821

>>2880607
And then there are times when I struggle to see the worth of it.
Spending an hour to process scan A into snapshit B really just seems like a waste of time and energy.
Does anyone feel like improving on my efforts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 09:07:47 No.2880816 Report

Quoted By: >>2880821 >>2880832

>>2880716
I got an FD nex adapter as I had some FD glass, however the adapter won't let me open up the aperture completely, it stops about 2 stops from being fully open regardless of the lens native aperture.

Have you seen this problem? Have you resolved it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 09:27:11 No.2880821 Report

Quoted By: >>2880832

>>2880792
Don't bother editing snapshits. Shoot them for the enjoyment of shooting anon.

I personally wouldn't bother editing that photo.

>>2880816
That's strange anon, never had that issue. My adapter has a lock/unlock mechanism and I'm pretty sure that's necessary for FD lenses, otherwise they stay stopped down a few stops from wide open.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 09:29:31 No.2880822 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880447
I consider it a real success if I get 6 pictures worth printing

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia32neg.jpg, 695KiB, 1194x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 09:57:14 No.2880832 Report

Quoted By: >>2880842

>>2880821
I mainly prefered the look of the negative too.
>>2880816
Check the lense is mounted all the way on the adapter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 10:21:15 No.2880837 Report

Quoted By: >>2880913

>>2880684
Did you use a filter for this one or not? yellow or uv?
I'm asking since I'd like to know the effect of uv filter for long distance shots (landscapes) where UV light might wash out the scene.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 10:44:49 No.2880842 Report

Quoted By: >>2880874

>>2880832
>lense

It's lens, anon. There is no word called 'lense'. There's only the plural of a lens which is 'lenses'.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO OlyMiniSuper20015.jpg, 163KiB, 632x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 12:14:15 No.2880874 Report

Quoted By: >>2880916

>>2880842
Look at it more objectively; when I use the word lense, my meaning is clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense
Were I to use the term "lens", it may be construed as the plural form of "len", or indeed many other synonyms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens
For the sake of clarity, I'll stick with the less conventional, but equally correct, and more abundantly clear, lense :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 13:38:28 No.2880913 Report

Quoted By: >>2880934

>>2880837
No filter on this shot. Realistically I probably should have, but the light was just right for the shot.

I can't really be fucked carrying a filter set with me so I rarely shoot with them

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 14:03:24 No.2880916 Report

Quoted By: >>2880919

>>2880874
No you dumb faggot.
Even wiktionary lists it as an incorrect spelling
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lense

Worse than misspelling lens, is pretending you're intellectually superior and have more knowledge than others, Isi has fulfilled our dunning-kruger quota thankyou very much.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia41.jpg, 496KiB, 1191x800

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 14:18:31 No.2880919 Report

Quoted By: >>2880920

>>2880916
>it never gets old
>unlike the Canon 50/3.5 Macro lense I used for this shot, which may be anywhere between 30 and 40 years old

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 14:27:16 No.2880920 Report

Quoted By: >>2880922 >>2880954 >>2881241 >>2881322

>>2880919

>go to kodak express shop today
>"do you guys develop film?"
>"yea, we do"
>"£10.80 for 24 hours or £8.50 for 2-3 days"
>leave shop

wheres good online in the uk to send my films to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 14:31:27 No.2880922 Report

Quoted By: >>2880925

>>2880920
Peak imaging is industry standard pretty much. Im in bristol and can get dev and scan for £3 in a camera store in town run by an old boy that tells me when he puts fresh chems in and shit, will even do hand processed b&w for a fiver.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 14:44:59 No.2880925 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880922
no where near me develops film anymore, went to a few this morning and kodak where the only ones but not for that price

anyone used photo hippo?
http://www.photofilmprocessing.co.uk/

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:30:39 No.2880934 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880913
I'm gonna do a day where I do landscapes in B&W using an UV and Red/Yellow on and off for the same shot to see how it works... I think the filters should enhance the contrast from far away subjects, given how they tend to have this blue haze and probably the washed out look in B&W.
We'll see though, I haven't landscaping in a while.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1283.jpg, 200KiB, 671x1000

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:41:49 No.2880937 Report

Quoted By: >>2880938 >>2880957

Badly DSLR scanned photos incoming. Tripod is broken so the usual set up can't be used, I did super shitty one right now with carton and the computer screen but it was too close anyways so it's still somewhat visible.

Used an expired BW400CN, then let it sit in the room without developing for a while and just had it done during the weekend because I'm lazy. I didn't know it was taken out of production until today.
I was just testing an F80, turned out ok I guess.
Also tried my hand at tagwhoring, I feel dirty, tomorrow I'll use even more community tags to see what's up.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1285.jpg, 272KiB, 672x1000

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:43:38 No.2880938 Report

Quoted By: >>2880939

>>2880937
I thought the flowers and concrete would shine better with b&w contrast but I should have gone closer for more detail maybe.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1288.jpg, 312KiB, 1000x674

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:47:28 No.2880939 Report

Quoted By: >>2880943 >>2881148

>>2880938
Should have bracketed for the inside. Maybe I'll expose the same one for the inside and HDR it if the interior isn't too boring.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1289.jpg, 240KiB, 681x1000

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:54:53 No.2880943 Report

Quoted By: >>2880945

>>2880939
Another detail of the berliner philharmoniker.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1292.jpg, 224KiB, 1000x671

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:56:06 No.2880945 Report

Quoted By: >>2880947

>>2880943
I was taking a friend of a friend on a casual tour around town, hence the touristy spots.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1298.jpg, 170KiB, 1000x675

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 15:59:18 No.2880947 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880945
Said friend.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 16:35:48 No.2880954 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880920
Boots, Asda, Max Spielmann

There's loads of places unless you live in a remote area.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 168KiB, 671x1000

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 16:38:39 No.2880957 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880937
This is the only one I like. Needs more contrast though. Looks a bit washed out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 19:09:30 No.2881042 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880571
this fuckin guy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 19:12:43 No.2881045 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880680
>>2880684
>>2880686
I like these, especially the fire

I'm going to suggest you used Tmax 100 if you're doing daylight work like this, you'll be surprised how much of a difference it makes

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468252048961.jpg, 339KiB, 979x652

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 22:40:49 No.2881148 Report

Quoted By: >>2881152

>>2880939
Apply yourself, slacker.
If you don't care about your images, why should anyone else?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 22:49:55 No.2881152 Report

Quoted By: >>2881160

>>2881148
They were just quick scans, sort of like a contact sheet.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_49041.jpg, 1MiB, 1270x2000

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 23:00:19 No.2881160 Report

Quoted By: >>2881164

>>2881152
And yet you put them on a photo sharing website, kind of like publishing work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 23:10:06 No.2881164 Report

Quoted By: >>2881169

>>2881160
Sorry senpai, I didn't put that much thought into it.
Sort of like taking your contact sheet to your m8s/professor and then having maybe a quick review and see what's worth to work on or not.
Plus, this is four chang, not some sort of professional folder.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Jul 2016 23:15:40 No.2881169 Report

Quoted By: >>2881236

>>2881164
>a quick review and see what's worth to work on or not.
Well none of these then.
Come back when you take some photos YOU care about, and maybe we can muster some interest as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 01:40:17 No.2881236 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881169
Thanks, will do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 02:18:59 No.2881241 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880920
>go to my local kodak express
>3.50 for 2 day process only
The important thing is to state that it's only processing you need. These paki fucks make their living off of selling you prints and shitty scans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 03:45:17 No.2881293 Report

Quoted By: >>2881360

>>2880226
What film is that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 04:16:39 No.2881319 Report

Quoted By: >>2881327

Is film much more important than lens in regards to photo quality?
Like if I shoot a Leica with an expired colorplus vs. shooting a Canon AE1 with a Kodak portra?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 04:20:35 No.2881322 Report

Quoted By:

>>2880920
>live in a 3rd world country
>$1/roll developing
>$1.25/roll to put in a cd
>tfw $250/month minimum wage though

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 04:29:18 No.2881327 Report

Quoted By: >>2881330 >>2881361

>>2881319
they're both important? if you shoot great film with a crappy lense, it will look crappy. if you shoot crappy film with a great lense, it will look crappy. and none of it matters if your scanner is crappy

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 04:31:13 No.2881330 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881327
>and none of it matters if your scanner is crappy

maybe some (or a lot) of us shoot film and never digitize that. photography doesn't just have to be grist for your internet ego, you know.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia37.jpg, 572KiB, 1207x800

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 05:24:12 No.2881360 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881293
>filename
It's Superia 200.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 05:26:07 No.2881361 Report

Quoted By: >>2881416 >>2881754

>>2881327
So how crappy is for example a Nikon Ai lens or an Olympus OM lens as compared to a leica or zeiss which cost many times more?
What about a cheap film like colorplus vs a portra?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 05:41:10 No.2881375 Report

Quoted By:

I normally shoot Fomapan and that's not fantastic.

I've managed to get my costs down to 50p a sheet. However I'm looking at colour. Ektar specifically.

Can it handle days where the sun isn't beautiful or will it just look shite and give everything a yellow cast? Currently I'm finding it'd cost me £1.10 per neg with this including processing - anyone know a good dealer for the stuff UK or US? I'll buy bulk to cancel some of the costs...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 209KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 06:34:22 No.2881416 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881361
Look at these photos as an example. They were shot on a 40+ year old inexpensive rangefinder (Yashica Electro 35) with film that cost £1 a roll and developed at Max Spielmann.

>>2880408
>>2880409
>>2880412
>>2880414
>>2880415

It doesn't matter all that much unless you're intending to blow up them up really big.

Composition, subject, lighting, all matter more than a good camera or film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07149edited.jpg, 849KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 07:55:41 No.2881451 Report

Quoted By: >>2881452 >>2881520

>>2880183
Again...

Got some acrylic today. Holy fuck is DSLR scanning so much faster and more enjoyable than using a flatbed. Quality is easily on par from what I can tell.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:05:40 No.2881452 Report

Quoted By: >>2881453

>>2881451
Just wait until you need a high res scan.

You can probably get away with it with 35mm if you've got 16MP and a good lens.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07143edit.jpg, 737KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:09:38 No.2881453 Report

Quoted By: >>2881456 >>2881459

>>2881452
I could easily print 12"x12" files from these 6x6 scans. The few times I've printed bigger than that I've opted for a single frame drum scan anyway.

These files are definitely sharper and nicer looking than anything I got out of a V600/V700 now that I look at them a bit more.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07158edit.jpg, 846KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:20:58 No.2881456 Report

Quoted By: >>2881467 >>2881580 >>2881871

>>2881453
Last one. Based Ektar with a grad ND.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:30:23 No.2881459 Report

Quoted By: >>2881463 >>2881465

>>2881453
I use a V700 on the regular and it can give very nice scans if you treat it right. With respect I don't know what you're doing to it to have a DSLR produce better scans, and I can't say that that resize looks even close to the detail you should be getting from a rollfilm scan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:36:57 No.2881463 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881459
actually I take it back, done a little research and you may well be right. My apologies.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07171edit.jpg, 457KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:42:31 No.2881465 Report

Quoted By: >>2881466 >>2881475

>>2881459
Totally could be me and the scanner. I found my scans turned out quite a bit more grainy than they should have.

That second photo I posted missed the focus a little bit scanning. I could definitely improve my scanning technique and setup. I'm just using magnets to hold the film and stacking books under my cellphone until it gets to the right focusing distance. It would have taken me just as long to scan the files on my old Epson. They would have needed a ton more post production work though.

Totally could have been user error with the scanner. I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy the camera scanning technique a lot more though.

Here's one of the sharper files.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07171crop.jpg, 361KiB, 896x896

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:44:45 No.2881466 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881465
100% crop

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468311658701.jpg, 584KiB, 1160x716

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 08:48:52 No.2881467 Report

Quoted By: >>2881896 >>2881921

>>2881456
Too magenta in highlights, too red in shadows, too blue overall. Pic related (+ some saturation).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 09:38:56 No.2881475 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881465
I'm not so sure now, I have done some more research - it seems that for most purposes, a V700 won't do negatives justice (google canon vs V700 or something like that). I tend to use it for 5x4 negatives and get (what are basically) 110MP scans from it. Seems that I should be getting more. Likely it's the film size that compensated for it. Not that it's hugely important.

Problem seems to be that the detail IS there, but the second optical system reduces the extreme detail down in MF + LF negs.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0dWgXIG.jpg, 739KiB, 7200x4800

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 09:52:41 No.2881481 Report

Quoted By:

Thats the scan of a print because reasons.
But I'm impressed how detailed the fur is

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 11:28:03 No.2881520 Report

Quoted By: >>2881896

>>2881451
>Holy fuck is DSLR scanning so much faster and more enjoyable than using a flatbed.

What's you setup?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468311658701.jpg, 1004KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 14:02:48 No.2881580 Report

Quoted By: >>2881823 >>2881871 >>2881896

>>2881456
Would process it like this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 20:19:23 No.2881754 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881361
there are large disparities in quality between the worst and best lenses, and the worst and best films

just google "X vs. Y" and surely many results from photo forums will appear which compare lenses and films

I will say that colorplus is really shitty and I've never got a crisp image from it, even with my sharpest and cleanest lenses (or maybe my drugstore sells expired shit, who knows)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 21:55:53 No.2881820 Report

Quoted By: >>2881823 >>2881915

what can you do with medium format film that you can't, or its harder to do on 35mm?

besides the obvious fact that you can make bigger enlargements

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 22:02:33 No.2881823 Report

Quoted By: >>2881825

>>2881580
Nice piss filter. Looks horrible.

>>2881820
shallow dof, better tones, sharper subjects, less grain, and the ability to use google.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 22:05:57 No.2881825 Report

Quoted By: >>2881829 >>2881830

>>2881823
>shallow dof
thats the aperture
>better tones
thats the film
>sharper subjects, less grain
"besides the fact that you can make bigger enlargements"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 22:09:27 No.2881829 Report

Quoted By: >>2882015

>>2881825
>>shallow dof
>thats the aperture
Nope. That's the combination of focal length and film size.

Feel free to use your 24mm f1.4 EF all you want ,':^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 22:10:58 No.2881830 Report

Quoted By: >>2882015 >>2882028

>>2881825
You don't know shit. All of those things are also functions of neg area, which MF has considerably more of. But go ahead, tell me all about MF since you got "into" film last week.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468311658701.jpg, 936KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 12 Jul 2016 23:36:41 No.2881871 Report

Quoted By: >>2881896 >>2881921

>>2881456
>>2881580

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:00:14 No.2881896 Report

Quoted By: >>2881902 >>2881903 >>2881921

>>2881467
>>2881580
Man, these both look worse than my original edit...

>>2881871
Nice! What'd you do to drop the blue levels? Curves?

>>2881520
Sony A7 + Canon FD 50mm Macro
My setup is really ghetto. Piece of white acrylic, some magnets to hold the film down, and my phone for backlight. I'm basically scanning for web and not planning on printing from any of these files. If I were I'd be trying a lot harder to ensure perfect focus/flatness. Once I move back to Canada and have lasercutter access again I'll whip up some nice film holders and stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:04:50 No.2881902 Report

Quoted By: >>2881962

>>2881896
bit of levels
colour balance to bring the yellows and reds out of the blues a bit
then overall curves for a bit better contrast

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:06:06 No.2881903 Report

Quoted By: >>2881962

>>2881896
where does the white acrylic come into scanning the pics?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468358650478.jpg, 225KiB, 2456x2040

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:27:57 No.2881915 Report

Quoted By: >>2882028

>>2881820
I'm going to remake my point from the last thread, and hopefully it will push this shit tier /fgt/ over the bump limit.
With 35mm consumer colour negative film, you can barely make good looking 8x10's most of the time.
With a 6x6 and up MF camera, you can get a clean, crisp, publication quality image on almost any film stock, in any picture orientation.
Here, I made a terribly simplified example of what "tonality" is and why bigger formats do it better. Film sizes on the left, theoretical enlargement to 8x10 on the right.
A plain greyscale with some colour noise on each format, then blown up to the required amount, vertically, at least.
It's not an exact analogy, because you're blowing up pixels, not film grain, but it's the same idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:29:41 No.2881916 Report

Quoted By: >>2881922 >>2882016

Are there m42 bodies that have those foxus helps on the winder. When you focus you need to line up the images in the finder to get proper focus?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:33:11 No.2881921 Report

Quoted By: >>2881962

>>2881896
>>2881871
I reckon this is still too magenta overall.
I'm >>2881467, I didn't want to increase the midtone contrast as much as that either, it's harsh enough already.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 00:35:35 No.2881922 Report

Quoted By: >>2882016

>>2881916
Yep, look for Fuji M42 bodies, they're the best.
>inb4 some slavshit recommends a praktica

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 01:02:23 No.2881934 Report

Quoted By: >>2881946 >>2881951

What do you guys think of the Contax 35mm SLRs like the RTS line or the RX?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 01:19:27 No.2881946 Report

Quoted By: >>2881950 >>2881951

>>2881934
Waste of money.
The bodies aren't as nice to use as top flight Canon, or Nikons, yet the lenses are still so expensive that you're better off just buying superior modern designs, and getting things like AF and IS into the bargain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 01:29:11 No.2881950 Report

Quoted By: >>2882025

>>2881946
That's in comparison to the AF cameras though. How are they in comparison to other manual focus cameras? And the lenses aren't that expensive. They use the same mount as Yashicas so you can use Yashica glass on the Contax body instead of having to go out and get Zeiss glass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 01:30:13 No.2881951 Report

Quoted By: >>2882025

>>2881934
>>2881946
I also find it odd how you say that a Contax is a waste of money and getting something like a Leica isn't? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 01:51:22 No.2881962 Report

Quoted By:

>>2881902
Cool, cheers!

>>2881903
I lay the film strip over the white acrylic which I then lay over my phone's screen. It's necessary otherwise you end up seeing the dots (no clue what they're called) that make up the screen like in this shot >>2880183

>>2881921
Yeah, pretty much dead noon in that part of the US will do that to the contrast. Ektar handled it better than I expected actually.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:22:52 No.2882015 Report

Quoted By: >>2882028

>>2881829
you know what I mean
I can get a shallow dof with 35mm film, not that I ever need it that often

>>2881830
>tones are a function of negative area
we're reaching amazing new levels of retardation

!kurwaRB7YU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KLin_Praktica.jpg, 11KiB, 500x165

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:24:20 No.2882016 Report

Quoted By: >>2882028

>>2881916
>>2881922
I recommend a Praktica MTL5B.

Split prism focusing is a function of the groundglass viewfinder, many higher end slr systems had interchangeable ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:37:15 No.2882025 Report

Quoted By: >>2882036

>>2881951
>I also find it odd how you say that a Contax is a waste of money and getting something like a Leica isn't?
I find it odd how you completely imagined Leica's presence in my comment?
But seeing as you mention it, "No" a Leica doesn't make any financial sense. It does however give you access to Leica glass, and represents a level of mechanical craftsmanship and quality that is arguably unmatched by other makes. So in that instance I say you spend your money and you take your choice.

>>2881950
Use a Canon New F-1 or a Nikon F3 and then tell me the Contax is better.
Conversely, use a Yashica body back-to-back with its comparable Contax and tell me it's appreciably worse. They're the fucking same cameras.
Also, buying trash glass to use on a top tier film body is pants-on-head retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:38:37 No.2882028 Report

Quoted By: >>2882031

>>2882015
>>>2881830
>>tones are a function of negative area
>we're reaching amazing new levels of retardation
See
>>2881915
They are absolutely a function of negativre area, dipshit.

>>2882016
like clockwork

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:41:14 No.2882031 Report

Quoted By: >>2882041 >>2882050

>>2882028
never heard of that. got any sources on that broscience?
or is this another case of technicalfags sperging out about minute differences in grain so small that the human eye can't even see

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 04:47:55 No.2882036 Report

Quoted By: >>2882040

>>2882025
>Use a Canon New F-1 or a Nikon F3
I'm actually considering getting a Nikon F3, though I would prefer something mechanical like the F2 or the older Canon F-1 or even a Minolta XK

>inb4 Menelta

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:01:16 No.2882040 Report

Quoted By:

>>2882036
dude, menelta lmao
But seriously F-1 to New F-1 is no comparison.
I creamed my jeans the first time I felt the wind and shutter release on a New F-1. Every time I pick mine up again after using other cams for a while it's a revelation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:04:52 No.2882041 Report

Quoted By: >>2882042

>>2882031

it's just common sense, homegirl. think about it for a few minutes. why wouldn't tonality be smoother with less magnification?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:10:03 No.2882042 Report

Quoted By: >>2882044

>>2882041
because 135 or 120, its the same fucking emulsion. literally the same silver grains, cut from the same sheet of film

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:11:39 No.2882044 Report

Quoted By: >>2882051

>>2882042

And the 120 has more silver grains. What's hard to understand about that?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KonicaPro160002-6mini.jpg, 270KiB, 1093x800

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:16:53 No.2882050 Report

Quoted By: >>2882055

>>2882031
M8, if you can't see the fucking difference in apparent grain between small format and medium format, I can't help you.
Pic related is Konica 160 colour neg on the left, with a mid-90's expiry date. The foreground is probably between 2 and 4 stops underexposed?
On the right is some fresh Fuji 400 exposed for the sky.
Even comparing fucked film to good film, correctly exposed to underexposed, there is no comparison.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:17:00 No.2882051 Report

Quoted By: >>2882052

>>2882044
am I being trolled? trolls aren't usually this subtle on /p/

it has more silver because its a bigger slice of the film, that doesn't mean it has "better tones". all that means is that you can enlarge it to a larger size before seeing big grains

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:19:39 No.2882052 Report

Quoted By: >>2882056 >>2882057

>>2882051

dude literally covered exactly that in the post you replied to with your retarded "hurr durr broscience"

Enlargement size being the same, the larger film will have better tonality.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:23:07 No.2882055 Report

Quoted By:

>>2882050
first of all, that's not even what I was asking about, I don't give a shit that you can enlarge MF bigger and see less grain. that's obvious. I was arguing with the dumbass who thinks there's some considerable difference in "tonality" and that MF is somehow superior

secondly your comparison is bullshit, you're comparing a 200 speed film to a shitty 400 speed one at an enlargement that shouldnt have any grain with any decent 135 film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:24:38 No.2882056 Report

Quoted By: >>2882058

>>2882052
so I'm not being trolled, just arguing with a braindead person. okay

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:26:34 No.2882057 Report

Quoted By:

>>2882052
>tonality.
but dude, it's the tones. the skin tones and emulsion tones xD

Just accept the fact that some people are fucking retarded. Often because they have no experience with a certain platform.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 05:27:06 No.2882058 Report

Quoted By:

>>2882056

okay :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 13 Jul 2016 07:12:54 No.2882095 Report

Quoted By:

>dat sweet bump limit

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

/film/