/p/ - Photography » Thread #2884862

[325 / 88 / ?]

569KiB, 1000x1000, yashica-mat.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/film/ General Thread 3

Anonymous Sun 17 Jul 2016 16:31:21 No.2884862 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

Film General Thread, aka FGT.

>Poorfaq square medium format edition

ITT Lubitel, Yashica Mat, Nettar etc. snapshits.

gliderbro

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160718_012149.jpg, 211KiB, 1200x800

gliderbro Sun 17 Jul 2016 23:33:54 No.2885131 Report

Quoted By: >>2885399

Just noticed something in one of my photos. See the light streaks coming from the lights at the top right? Also the thing that looks like a light leak in the bottom centre, which is actually coming from a sprocket hole.
Is it the fabled bromide drag? This is the first frame of the roll, the rest of the film seems to be fine.
Delta 3200 in Microphen

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Jul 2016 23:38:03 No.2885136 Report

Quoted By: >>2885138 >>2885250 >>2887335

>inb4 electronic is better than mechanical and plastic is better than metal because "more modern" even though it won't last as long and more parts can go bad or it just ends up not working period

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 17 Jul 2016 23:43:50 No.2885138 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885136
totally needed this

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO stairs are for plebs.jpg, 812KiB, 1440x532

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 00:14:57 No.2885171 Report

Quoted By: >>2887061

>trying to number the general.
"no".

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 18013031372_632b5b36b6_b.jpg, 322KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 00:26:35 No.2885183 Report

Quoted By: >>2885186 >>2885209

Best budget 6x6 SLR camera is the Bronica SQ-A. No contest. If the $300-$400 entry pricetag is too much save up for another month. If you can't save up $300-$400 in two months or less shooting film is probably not a good idea period.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 00:36:24 No.2885186 Report

Quoted By: >>2885196

>>2885183
>meme camera that won't function without batteries
>"B-b-but muh leaf shutter high sync speeds"
>Mechanical is junk because reasons

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 00:55:14 No.2885196 Report

Quoted By: >>2885201

>>2885186
I've had to change the battery twice since buying the camera in 2007...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:01:42 No.2885201 Report

Quoted By: >>2885211 >>2885253 >>2886279 >>2886890

>>2885196
That's fine, I just would rather get a camera that has the option of shooting without batteries for conditions where electronics would get fried, like cold or wet days or a really hot stint on the beach

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:10:51 No.2885209 Report

Quoted By: >>2885552

>>2885183

SG-A is a very old camera. I suspect most of them are in a need of cla.

Add that to your price.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:19:11 No.2885211 Report

Quoted By: >>2885219

>>2885201
taken my camera on multi-day hikes in the rainy PNW and 110F+ Utah desert. It's been through the deserts of Nevada and on the beaches of Florida and Eastern Canada. I shot with it for years in rainy Vancouver.

Dunno why some people think just because a camera has a battery it becomes extremely fragile. I haven't babied my camera at all and it's never given me problems. It's been soaked countless times from rain and snow. It's been as cold as 5F and as hot as 120F (all on the current battery).

Mechanical cameras are great. I just can't think of an all mechanical 6x6 camera with the robustness and optical quality of the Bronica SQ. If you know of one please post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:20:07 No.2885212 Report

Quoted By:

What are your guys' thoughts on the Rollei slx/6000 series cameras?I like that they have the motor drive and the meter built into the body but that's really all I know about them

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:32:27 No.2885219 Report

Quoted By: >>2885223

>>2885211
I can think of a few, the Rollei SL66 comes to mind

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 01:37:00 No.2885223 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885219
We're talking affordable/budget here though. Those are like 2x-3x the price of a Bronica.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 02:06:54 No.2885250 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885136
Electronic is literally better than mechanical, though. Are you really going to get a machinist to custom make you a new spring or gear or whatever when some delicate moving part breaks? No, you're going to throw it away or at best you'll find a second camera to scavenge for parts.

It would be better to just have an electronic shutter which, admittedly, can't be repaired, but also doesn't really require maintenance or adjustment to stay accurate.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 19794434900_0b5ae32459_b.jpg, 315KiB, 765x1024

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 02:12:22 No.2885253 Report

Quoted By: >>2885296 >>2885399

>>2885201
Are you from 1979? Electronic cameras have more than proven their reliability and durability for decades.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 04:26:37 No.2885296 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885253
>Are you from 1979
No but the camera's electronics are

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 05:10:19 No.2885300 Report

Quoted By: >>2885552

hey guys, i just found a kodak advantix f600 and the switch to open the film bay is stuck. the battery is dead. Is it locked on purpose to you dont accidentally ruin your film?

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Photo08_8.jpg, 190KiB, 1000x652

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Mon 18 Jul 2016 11:25:55 No.2885399 Report

Quoted By: >>2885445 >>2885449 >>2885476

>>2885253
I want an F3 now

>>2885131
Could be, but looks like a lightleak to me. Bromide drag usually looks like the "blacks are being dragged down" creating halos around sharp edges in my experience, and it's weird that it would happen to only one of the sprocket holes.

Pic related, 1 hour semi stand in Rodinal.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 18 Jul 2016 13:47:39 No.2885445 Report

Quoted By: >>2885448

>>2885399
it's not bromide drag, it's developer exhaustion on strong highlights underexposing neighbouring areas (you developed that shot the other way round) due to too little agitation.

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Mon 18 Jul 2016 13:50:46 No.2885448 Report

Quoted By: >>2885450 >>2885452

>>2885445
Oh, that could make sense. I was told by someone seeming knowledgeable that it was bromide drag.
That's what you get for trusting anons I guess.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 18 Jul 2016 13:52:24 No.2885449 Report

Quoted By: >>2885450

>>2885399
It's not bromide drag, it's highlights overdevelopment due to unused developer from the shadows diffusing over to the highlights and further developing them - an effect of too little agitation.

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Mon 18 Jul 2016 13:57:30 No.2885450 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885448
was in reply to >>2885449 that was changed.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 18 Jul 2016 13:59:09 No.2885452 Report

Quoted By: >>2885469

>>2885448
I tried writing a post and watching a yt vid at the same time and wrote gibberish, sorry, had to delete and rephrase that properly. I had the same streaks and opted for a tiny stir every 10 minutes in the hour of stand dev, enough to replenish the developer. I lose a bit of the compensating effect but if I had a strongly exposed photo adjacent to an underexposed one the highlights would exhaust all the developer in that area. Negs come out more contrasty but you save the shadows. Not as much of an issue on rolls of misty/cloudy/overcast shots.

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rpx400002.jpg, 91KiB, 1000x787

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Mon 18 Jul 2016 14:32:51 No.2885469 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885452
Aha, that sounds smart enough.
I'll try agitating more often next time I'm doing stand, at the moment it has been a bit hit or miss.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 15:01:49 No.2885476 Report

Quoted By: >>2885479

>>2885399
fix your contrast dweeb

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Mon 18 Jul 2016 15:06:21 No.2885479 Report

Quoted By: >>2887025

>>2885476
fix yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 17:59:38 No.2885552 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885209
As do most cameras. I'm not sure what your point is here.
>>2885300
May be worth your time to read a manual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 18:39:06 No.2885563 Report

Quoted By: >>2885567 >>2885579 >>2885755

honest question, what is it with people stand developing in rodinal? why do it?

>inb4 "to keep contrast and grain low"
then WHY are you using rodinal to begin with?

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Mon 18 Jul 2016 18:46:11 No.2885567 Report

Quoted By: >>2885579

>>2885563
me-solely because it's cheap, botchproof and that's the only dev I can make at home. You reliably get a useable image you can freely modify in digital post to your liking. It'd be terrible for proper darkroom wet printing. If I wasn't stingy, lazy and paranoid about shelf life I'd use a better one.

Also, fine grain and tonal range compression in contrasty scenes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 19:30:07 No.2885579 Report

Quoted By: >>2885586

>>2885563
>>2885567
D76/D-11 m80boys

shit's fantastic and works well diluted so long as you don't stand develop.

if you shoot foma make sure to agitate an extra 5% or so per minute

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 19:42:51 No.2885586 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885579
I don't stand develop or use Rodinal, but I use HC-110 which is cheap and easy to store forever and easy to mix up as needed in small amounts at any desired concentration. I think that's why a lot of people favor syrups like HC-110 or Rodinal over powders.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 20:01:22 No.2885591 Report

Quoted By:

Why is it so hard to get Acufine up here in Canada?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 20:11:22 No.2885598 Report

Quoted By: >>2885768 >>2886905

Does anybody here use Diafine? It seems really expensive and most stores won't ship it, and I find it hard to believe that it works as flawlessly as all these internet articles claim. Can you seriously take a bunch of different film stocks and throw them all into this shit and get out perfectly developed negatives as easily as people claim?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dust.jpg, 220KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 20:38:53 No.2885612 Report

Quoted By: >>2885617 >>2885680 >>2885697

Why are my negs so fucking dusty?

I dry them in my toilet and scan immediately after they are dried

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 20:47:21 No.2885617 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885612
Did you wipe it with toilet paper or something? How long do you hang it up for? Have you changed your air conditioning filters this century? That seems like a really abnormal amount of dust.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 21:57:28 No.2885672 Report

Quoted By:

>>2884794

Yeah, it's not ideal. Best I could get for the price. Less than half the price of a Linhof 617 or Shenhao 617, not including the cones with the former.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 22:08:25 No.2885680 Report

Quoted By: >>2885697

>>2885612
"I dry them in my toilet"

Elaborate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 22:22:45 No.2885697 Report

Quoted By: >>2885703 >>2885743

>>2885680
>tfw your photographs are literal snapshits

>>2885612
Do the negatives look dusty? Is the dust surface level or does it seem stuck on? Check your scanner (or whatever you're using to digitise) too. Does the dust persist even after wiping down with the sort of cloth you'd use to clean your glasses?

Toilet jokes aside mate, sorry to hear you're having trouble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 22:33:29 No.2885703 Report

Quoted By: >>2885707

>>2885697
What does this have to do with my photography?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 22:41:14 No.2885707 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885703
Nothing mate, sorry, it was just a joke. On /p/ snapshot style photography is referred to as "snapshits", or "snapshitting", in a usually facetious or dismissive way. I was playing with that and the idea of "I dry them in the toilet" being a double meaning. Meaning 1, I dry them in the room in which my toilet is located. Meaning 2, I put them into the actual toilet where shit would be.

Nothing personal, just a bit of wordplay.

gliderbro

gliderbro Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:05:49 No.2885718 Report

Quoted By: >>2885725

I ordered a Mamiya 645 from ebay yesterday. I'm gonna need a new lens for my enlarger. I was thinking about El-Nikkor 75mm, but apparently this lens is regarded as "shit" on the Internet because it only features a 4 element Tessar-like design (whereas the 50mm and the 80mm are 6 element). Will it really matter? If I buy the more expensive 80mm instead, am I going to be throwing away money for nothing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:19:18 No.2885725 Report

Quoted By: >>2885731

>>2885718
It probably won't matter much, but people are pretty much giving all enlarger lenses away for nothing so why not get something better if you have the option? Where are you looking that enlarger lenses are expensive?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:26:10 No.2885731 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885725
Just browsing ebay.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_3809-2.jpg, 646KiB, 1500x1500

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:49:24 No.2885738 Report

Quoted By: >>2886281 >>2888159

So how do you people scan medium format? I have a Plustek scanner which works decently enough for 35mm, but it won't cover medium format so I've been trying to DSLR scan instead with the negatives placed in an enlarger and the digital camera where the enlarger lens would go. I'm pretty ready to blow my brains out from all the tedium though, and the results aren't even any good. And by the time I'm done cropping to a square with all the jagged edges and stuff cut off I've lost like half my image which means less than 6 megapixels left.

I could shoot at 1:1 magnification and stitch together several photos to get more resolution, but the enlarger doesn't allow for any vertical and horizontal motion to get all the photos to stitch together.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:52:42 No.2885743 Report

Quoted By: >>2885745 >>2885750 >>2885896

>>2885697

Meant to say bathroom not toilet.

I don't have a loupe and by naked eye I can't see any dust.

My scanner is ok because I have scanned some other negatives and they are fine.

I washed the negs again and now used microfiber cloth to wipe most of the water away. I let them dry a while and scan again.

>Ib4 wiping wet emulsion with cloth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 18 Jul 2016 23:54:50 No.2885745 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885743
>used microfiber cloth to wipe most of the water away
>>Ib4 wiping wet emulsion with cloth.
If you already know it's a stupid idea then why did you do it anyway? Don't touch your negatives with anything, just fucking wash them and let them air dry, it's not hard. They're going to be covered in fibers from the cloth now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 00:08:32 No.2885750 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885743
Agree with the poster above. Stop touching your wet negatives with anything. Run the shower if you have one to steam up the air, some people say that helps keep dust down. Some photo-flo or the ilford equivalent (sold as record cleaner) may also help as it helps bring down the levels of static charge which make the film attract dust.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO New scans for p.jpg, 5MiB, 2996x2000

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 00:21:19 No.2885755 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885563
I don't use stand dev, I think it's just ultimate poorfag false economy, but I do use Rodinal as developer of first choice for my Rollei Retro 80S.
It gives great contrast and acutance, and low grain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 00:46:42 No.2885768 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885598
diafine lasts forever, I'm still using what I mixed up two years ago and I've dev'd over 100 rolls. and yeah, you develop 3 minutes in part A and 3 minutes in part B, the times don't change according to the film, since it develops to completion, part B developing all the part A that was absorbed by the film. it's just kind of a pain to get a hold of it depending on where you live. websites like macodirect ship worldwide, but it can be pretty expensive if you're outside of europe. if you're in the states, try adorama

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 02:23:15 No.2885822 Report

Quoted By: >>2885897 >>2886028

I found 6 rolls of HP5 Plus in an old camera bag in a closet, it has to be atleast 2 years old at the minimum.

Will it still be okay to shoot with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 04:10:54 No.2885888 Report

Quoted By:

Is there an app that I can scan film and invert the photo without the blue tint that comes with it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 04:33:40 No.2885896 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885743
>I don't have a loupe and by naked eye I can't see any dust.
thats a 35mm negative right? that dust should absolutely be visible to the naked eye.

are you sure its not in the scanner? or maybe on the lens of the camera itself?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 04:34:41 No.2885897 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885822
yes
pull it for good luck

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 79KiB, 380x253

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 09:51:33 No.2886019 Report

Quoted By: >>2886061 >>2886103 >>2888215

A savage dude in my village sold the Leica M3 with 50mm of his grandfather for 30$, FOR 30 FUCKING DOLLARS.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 10:38:16 No.2886028 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885822
2 years old is perfectly fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 12:14:24 No.2886049 Report

Quoted By:

Any light meter apps you guys use on Android?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 12:28:16 No.2886061 Report

Quoted By: >>2886822

>>2886019
Please tell me you bought it. If not kys

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 14:19:47 No.2886102 Report

Quoted By: >>2886105 >>2886182

In a general census, what does /p/ think is the best B&W film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 14:21:11 No.2886103 Report

Quoted By: >>2886826

>>2886019
>village

!kurwaRB7YU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO still-film-service-page3.jpg, 308KiB, 940x790

!kurwaRB7YU Tue 19 Jul 2016 14:26:27 No.2886105 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886102
the one you have on you? ;]

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 17:23:25 No.2886182 Report

Quoted By: >>2886194 >>2886250

>>2886102
adox cms20 for sharpness

foma for affordability and DEM MIDTONES

ilford delta for general professional use

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 17:51:59 No.2886194 Report

Quoted By: >>2886198

>>2886182
>adox cms20 for sharpness
are you retarded or just an adox shill

>literally just big expensive microfilm
>iso 20
>can only be developed by special and expensive process
>unless you have a $3000 zeiss lense, you're not even going to get close to the sharpness that the film can provide you

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 18:13:34 No.2886198 Report

Quoted By: >>2886232 >>2886250

>>2886194
Damn son you mad

A roll of 120 CMS20 can be gotten for £4.36 per roll. Per individual roll that's less than a roll of HP5 usually costs over here. A roll of 35mm individually can be gotten for £3.40. HP5 for example tends to go for around £4 per roll. Developer isn't that expensive. Maybe consider buying good lenses and cameras that support them.

ISO20 isn't a problem for what I do. I tend to buy Delta 100 or Fomapan 100 because I don't need huge resolution. However when someone asks "what's the best film" I'm gounna think of it technically. And for the best quality, Adox is up there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 18:19:02 No.2886199 Report

Quoted By: >>2886284

Just ordered a Voigtlander Compur Brilliant. What am I in for?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 19:43:28 No.2886232 Report

Quoted By: >>2886257

>>2886198
>adotech
>cheap

I don't know what weird bongstate you live in, but here adox is always more expensive than kodak or ilford

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO mynolta.jpg, 132KiB, 960x720

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 19:55:31 No.2886241 Report

Quoted By: >>2886263

found this camera from my parents basement, when I get paid I think I buy some film and new batteries and test if it works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 20:25:56 No.2886250 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886182
>>2886198
dumb option, just use rollei 80s or rollei atp with a regular low contrast developer if you really do need fine grain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 20:45:31 No.2886257 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886232
I live in a bongcountry where adox film is, roll for roll (and thus in bulk even moreso) substantially cheaper than lower resolving and more expensive films by Ilford and kodak. The developing costs, negligent as they are in comparison, don't offset this cost in any meaningful way

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 20:52:38 No.2886263 Report

Quoted By: >>2886270

>>2886241
You are aware that it uses APS film, I presume?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 20:59:16 No.2886270 Report

Quoted By: >>2886277

>>2886263
>You are aware that it uses APS film, I presume?
Why would you presume that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 21:08:21 No.2886277 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886270
Just trying to be polite, m8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 21:13:22 No.2886279 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885201
for any of that to apply your camera would have to become cold enough for the aperture blades to stiffen up, the camera too hot to touch, or enough water to get into the camera to fuck the film and lens elements.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 21:16:43 No.2886281 Report

Quoted By: >>2886345

>>2885738
flatbed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO girls_und_panzer_movie_teramoto_03.jpg, 29KiB, 358x363

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 21:24:08 No.2886284 Report

Quoted By: >>2886551

>>2886199
you're in for some cute anime times

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 22:57:00 No.2886345 Report

Quoted By: >>2886347 >>2886356

>>2886281
I was actually just about to ask about the V600. Should I get one? I didn't really want to have to buy more shit but if that can give me decent results at least for web resolution with less hassle then that's great. The V800 seems a bit better, not a huge difference but enough to be sort of noticeable but I don't want to pay that much. I'm open to buying an older V700 or something used but ebay didn't seem to have any for much cheaper.

Should I just go ahead and get a Better Scanning film holder too? It's another $70 but they seem pretty highly recommended.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 23:02:51 No.2886347 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886345
no matter what, images will look bad on flatbed, but they are the cheapest solution

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 23:08:02 No.2886356 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886345
V550 if it's cheaper than the V600. The others are only really worth it if you're shooting LF or need to digitize more strips at once.

The better scanning film holders are okay if you can get one locally. If you're in Europe that may depend entirely for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 23:23:48 No.2886367 Report

Quoted By: >>2886369 >>2887421

Looking to get into developing my own negatives at home.

I had a Pentax k1000 with a whole bunch of different lenses but it got lost in my love and I've been out of the game for a few years.

Use to get my stuff developed at the store but I'm looking to start developing my own b&w shots. Got a 35mm Minolta off of Amazon and aside from reels what other chemicals and supplies so I need? How much should I expect to pay? Will probably scan negatives for the time being because poor but eventually wouldn't mind upgrading to a projector.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 19 Jul 2016 23:25:13 No.2886369 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886367
Love = move

Damnit

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 03:23:07 No.2886479 Report

Quoted By: >>2886569

All I have is Gimp to edit any photos I DSLR scan myself. Is there an easier way to fix a blue color cast without doing the whole Equalize thing? The results are too grainy at 200 daylight when I do this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 05:19:54 No.2886551 Report

Quoted By: >>2886555

>>2886284
Just as planned

That said though, my camera is a TLR

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 20 Jul 2016 05:30:03 No.2886555 Report

Quoted By: >>2888420

>>2886551
It's a pseudo-tlr with no focusing aid. The viewfinder is solely for composing the shot and making the cheap rolleiflex lookalike seem better than the slightly more versatile nox camera it is.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO detail.jpg, 5MiB, 2400x1600

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 06:16:04 No.2886569 Report

Quoted By: >>2886589 >>2886687

>>2886479
These are my results when DSLR scanning 200ISO colour negatives.
Learn to suck less dick.
Don't use auto adjustments.
When converting your RAW scans to jpegs, choose a custom white balance that gets the colours as close to neutral as possible once they're inverted.
After inverting, use curves to adjust your colours and contrast.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 07:03:11 No.2886589 Report

Quoted By: >>2886606 >>2886608

>>2886569
What are your presets generally at so I could work from there? I'm using a Rabal to scan as well along with a soft white fluorescent bulb for backlighting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSLRScanning.jpg, 455KiB, 2138x795

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 08:14:29 No.2886606 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886589
>presets
What?
I remove all RAW sharpening, I desaturate black and whites.
For colour I do what I said before.
Take a photo of an empty frame, use it to set a custom white balance.
Then in RAW conversion, use curves to invert the negative, and move your white balance colour shifter around until it looks OK.
Then set back to a neg, export JPEGS, and invert those using the invert command in Gimp Batch Image Manipulator (you need to download it).
If you don't know what "use curves" means, you're too new to bother teaching any of this and I can't help you. Do your own research.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 09:01:15 No.2886608 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886589
lol, presets.

wb off empty film
crop in so it's just image (no border, no sprockets, this is important for your histogram, youc an change it back later)
min higlights, max shadows, set your white and black point using alt.
invert RGB curve
Top and tail the r, g and b curves so the histogram peaks and troughs line up
congratulations, your image is now adequate and comparable to a raw out of camera

If there's anything there you don't understand, go learn lightroom some more, gimp is a waste of everyone's time - no-one is going to advise on the intricacies of shit software, by using shit software you acknowledge that you can read the instructions for popular similar software and "translate" them into your product.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO gif.jpg, 60KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 09:03:18 No.2886610 Report

Quoted By:

You all will die by the power of lord Satan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 13:17:12 No.2886687 Report

Quoted By: >>2886689

>>2886569
This image actually looks like shit and I kept waiting for it to load correctly. I hope this is a massive crop of a much bigger frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 13:25:36 No.2886689 Report

Quoted By: >>2886990

>>2886687
>I hope this is a massive crop of a much bigger frame
>35mm superia 200 scanned one shot with a rabal
I hope that future you will feel bad about how dumb and ignorant present day you was.

rick

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160720_161124.jpg, 1MiB, 1597x1064

rick Wed 20 Jul 2016 14:12:24 No.2886702 Report

Quoted By: >>2886710

Why don't you guys just make a dslr scan general? These threads have become so boring.
Here is a picture of my cat.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1469023944427.jpg, 47KiB, 427x315

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 14:21:42 No.2886710 Report

Quoted By: >>2886833

>>2886702
Hey, why don't you make a plustek general too?
Someone might post your missing dmax/min/rows of pixels/credibility.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO saimaa.jpg, 333KiB, 1000x617

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 17:53:57 No.2886796 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2016-07-20-0001.jpg, 436KiB, 1000x679

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 18:07:15 No.2886799 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2016-07-20-0002.jpg, 469KiB, 668x1000

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 18:16:12 No.2886806 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled-1.jpg, 288KiB, 1000x563

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 18:17:33 No.2886809 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 33KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 18:39:59 No.2886822 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886061
No, I think it's time to....

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 18:50:54 No.2886826 Report

Quoted By: >>2886829

>>2886103
Yeah village, what is wrong with it?
Btw film completely dead in Pakistan and Americucks bought almost all of the classic/iconic film cameras for very fucking very few bucks.
Now you can find cameras like
Mamiya 645 for 150$
Rb 67 for 80$
Yashica mat 124 for 40$
Rolliefliex for 200$
In good condition

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 19:03:02 No.2886829 Report

Quoted By: >>2887121

>>2886826
how do I buy cameras out of Pakistan?

rick

rick Wed 20 Jul 2016 19:15:18 No.2886833 Report

Quoted By: >>2886873

>>2886710
You have no idea what you're talking about. Hurrdurr dmax blablablub.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 21:27:47 No.2886873 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886833
There's a massive pixel shift right through the middle of your image. I showed a crop of it.
I presume it's either fucked, and does that to every scan, or you bumped it mid-scan.
But also, from the scan you posted, the shadows and highlights are both massively blocked up as well.
And I know you gave it a soft as shit negative to work with, but the resolution is pretty bad too, while we're at it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 21:47:47 No.2886880 Report

Quoted By:

getting my 6x7 Pro SD with 127mm and 65mm in the mail next week.

giannis

giannis Wed 20 Jul 2016 22:01:47 No.2886890 Report

Quoted By: >>2886946

>>2885201
>conditions where electronics would get fried
These are conditions where films get "fried" too.
I think you're a bit confused.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20160720_235403.jpg, 170KiB, 1200x900

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 22:05:26 No.2886894 Report

Quoted By: >>2886954 >>2886993 >>2887019

I recently acquired a 30m bulk roll of Ilford HP5+ - very cheap, I have to say. However after developing the film, I've noticed that the film is marked differently than the regular HP5+ sold in casettes.
See picture - "Safety film" marking apparently hasn't been used for quite some time, the font is different etc. Also the film seems to be much more grainier than what I usually get from HP5+, but that might be because it was the first roll I shot with a new dark red filter and being inexperienced with how much I have to compensate, I might have overexposed it.

Did I buy a fake HP5+? Or some very old stock?

giannis

giannis Wed 20 Jul 2016 22:12:54 No.2886905 Report

Quoted By: >>2886946

>>2885598
>throw them all into this shit and get out perfectly developed negatives as easily as people claim?
Diafine is a special purpose developer.

It's true you mix and match films without worrying for dev times or temperature too much.

But you don't control contrast. The reaction is done to completion, you can't alter contrast through dev times or dilution. And contrast could be too flat sometimes.

Also, you need to be careful and because if you somehow manage to use the 2 developers in the wrong order, you'll have destroyed not just your film, but also the first developer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 22:57:18 No.2886946 Report

Quoted By: >>2886949

>>2886890
>>2886905
Nice to see you around again.
I doubt you'll stay, though; you're too good for this shithole.

giannis

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.png, 141KiB, 500x366

giannis Wed 20 Jul 2016 23:05:44 No.2886949 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886946
:*

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 20 Jul 2016 23:13:04 No.2886954 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886894
Just check the box/tin. No-one is selling "fake HP5". Tho I may start reselling Foma400 as HP5 now to trick innocent goys like you.

IG@35mmBandit !!0F23mPxBpKU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO jjhj.jpg, 887KiB, 2048x2048

IG@35mmBandit !!0F23mPxBpKU Wed 20 Jul 2016 23:19:49 No.2886962 Report

Quoted By: >>2887030 >>2888234

MAMIYA 6 REVIEW
>bought a Mamiya 6 2 weeks ago
>used it on a trip to Uluru

Good:
>meter is accurate, even in difficult lighting situations
>camera feels a lot more solid than people say

Bad:
>I enjoy using my Hasselblad waaaaay more
>its extremely difficult to see the selected shutter speed in the RF

>Sold Mamiya 6 yesterday

On a good note, I have another Hasselblad on the way and a 150/4. Probs sound like a gearfag, but I need a backup camera. A couple road trips ago I had to turn around and come home because my only camera (Hasselblad) jammed. The Mam6 was supposed to be my redundancy, but I didn't like it - so I'm just getting another Hassy.

Also looking at purchasing a Hasselblad Flextight scanner because I'm sick of paying out the ass for shitty scans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 00:05:57 No.2886990 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886689
>>2886689
Nowhere did you say it was scanned with one shot.

If I were you I'd just get a flatbed. You'd get better results than that rabal shit.

giannis

giannis Thu 21 Jul 2016 00:12:15 No.2886993 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886894
HP5+ in bulk has exactly these markings, nothing to worry

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 01:27:32 No.2887019 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886894
>tfw all film is safety film now and nobody makes nitrate based film anymore
I wish I had violently flammable film so I could light my shitty photos on fire.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 01:35:49 No.2887025 Report

Quoted By: >>2887193

>>2885479
Did you ever shoot that roll of purple?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 01:40:26 No.2887030 Report

Quoted By: >>2887034

>>2886962
>its extremely difficult to see the selected shutter speed in the RF

I feel like that may have been an issue in particular to yours. I don't remember mine having that problem.

>I enjoy using my Hasselblad waaaaay more
Once you go WLF there's no going back. Same reason I sold my 6 as well. Hope you at least broke even selling it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KeysBridgeBoat.jpg, 680KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 01:47:51 No.2887034 Report

Quoted By: >>2889434

>>2887030
But damn, were the images great from that thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 03:24:24 No.2887061 Report

Quoted By: >>2887441

>>2885171
what camera, what lens???

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 05:22:58 No.2887121 Report

Quoted By: >>2887340

>>2886829
You have to go to the market.
There is no PayPal in Pakistan. That's why sellers are not in the stuff like eBay.

Palt

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o4_500.jpg, 120KiB, 500x750

Palt Thu 21 Jul 2016 06:20:04 No.2887137 Report

Quoted By: >>2887138

hey babes! have some recent images:

Palt

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o2_500.jpg, 125KiB, 500x750

Palt Thu 21 Jul 2016 06:21:08 No.2887138 Report

Quoted By: >>2887139

>>2887137

Palt

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o5_500.jpg, 111KiB, 500x750

Palt Thu 21 Jul 2016 06:22:14 No.2887139 Report

Quoted By: >>2887140

>>2887138

Palt

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_oamiv77NaP1s08d72o3_500.jpg, 141KiB, 500x750

Palt Thu 21 Jul 2016 06:23:21 No.2887140 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887139

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Thu 21 Jul 2016 09:49:06 No.2887193 Report

Quoted By: >>2887891

>>2887025
Not yet Choppy, I'll post results when I do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 10:39:04 No.2887209 Report

Quoted By: >>2887297

What's the best method for cleaning my negatives? Got them back from the developers with dust and finger prints on some, is this normal or should better care be taken?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO final.jpg, 4MiB, 4796x2112

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 14:31:18 No.2887295 Report

Quoted By: >>2887305 >>2887316 >>2887330

attempting to scan my negatives today, scan goes okay, then when i invert in photoshop, i am left with an almost pure white image,

what am i doing wrong?

i used an epson scanner fist then tried a dslr backlit with my phone screen, same results for both

i have included a sample from the dslr, i know it looks like shit but it was quick just to show you guys

thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 14:33:15 No.2887297 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887209
Use a high % alc rub, apply with a fine qtip and let evaporate. Also that shouldn't be happening from any half decent lab.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit.jpg, 3MiB, 1991x1319

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 14:43:19 No.2887305 Report

Quoted By: >>2887330

>>2887295

okay so i messed around with levels and ended up with this, but as you can see it is terrible, is my camera over exposing the photos in the first place? or is it shit scanning technique?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 15:11:14 No.2887316 Report

Quoted By: >>2887364

>>2887295
Scan looks far too dark. What model Epson is it? Are you sure you have it all set up right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 15:53:21 No.2887330 Report

Quoted By: >>2887364

>>2887305
>>2887295
its a horrible scan, not the film

i don't know much about scanners but it looks like whenever i accidentally set my scanner to "reflective mode", like for scanning opaque prints and documents

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 15:57:16 No.2887335 Report

Quoted By:

>>2885136
>no because best is Macrotus digital Agamemnon RX995 with Imperator class 4 sensory input and Zebulon Kudu lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 16:20:22 No.2887340 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887121
no thanks Mr. Taliban recruiter sir

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 16:32:10 No.2887350 Report

Quoted By: >>2887363

What's a somewhat decent MF TLR I could get for something like 200-300$?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 17:18:00 No.2887363 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887350
Look around I got my mamiya c330 for 500$ Canadian with 4 lenses and a hardcase. There's also the yashica mat, c220, all the rolleicords ect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 17:23:22 No.2887364 Report

Quoted By: >>2887372

>>2887316
Its an Epson rx640, I just scanned it in from Photoshop as the scanner function isnt working because no ink

>>2887330
Maybe I should put some ink in the printer so it lets me use it properly, however I downloaded silver light and it wouldn't recognise my scanner

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 17:40:59 No.2887372 Report

Quoted By: >>2887386

>>2887364
Wrong type of scanner mate, you need one that can backlight your film. There are some very modest Epsons, some reasonably priced ones that can do other film formats than 35mm, and some nice dedicated film scanners. Do a bit more research and try again.

If you're already trying to DSLR scan that might be a better bet. Just get a nice soft, bright light source (a lightbox/tracing table, a difused flash) and something to hold your negs flat. If you're using a smartphone you'll get the pixels from that screen in the final photo and it'll look nasty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 18:58:43 No.2887386 Report

Quoted By: >>2887387 >>2887462

>>2887372
it has a dedicated film scanning function though and negative holders stored in the lid

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 19:05:13 No.2887387 Report

Quoted By: >>2887546

>>2887386
Ah yeah, okay! Googled it and you're right. If the scans are all turning out like that it'll be one of three problems.

1) Your negatives are exposed badly.
2) The scanner is physically set up incorrectly (like a shroud or whatever not removed to let the backlight shine through).
3) The scanner software is not set up correctly. Make sure it knows you want to scan film, and try everything on "auto" and see how that works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 20:40:47 No.2887421 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886367
a tank, fixer and a watch. use coffenol c its cheap and easy to make

!P3141593qY

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bosna-hot-dog_mala.jpg, 308KiB, 1000x662

!P3141593qY Thu 21 Jul 2016 20:43:10 No.2887424 Report

Quoted By: >>2887429 >>2887686 >>2887702

LCD backlight scanning is such a meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 20:54:56 No.2887429 Report

Quoted By: >>2887686

>>2887424
youre not the first one to recognize this. looks much worse in color tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 21:16:41 No.2887441 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887061
X P A N, 45mm, Agfa Vista 200.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 21:49:52 No.2887462 Report

Quoted By: >>2887546

>>2887386
take off the white reflector m8

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 21 Jul 2016 23:46:21 No.2887546 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887387
thanks man, ill give it a go in the morning, i think im just gonna have to get ink for it though for it to work properly as it doesnt let me past the "get more ink" screen

>>2887462
i took the white reflector off but there is a smaller white one on the inside lid right above the negative strip

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 01:09:44 No.2887573 Report

Quoted By: >>2887576 >>2887577 >>2887605

I'm curious, what are situations where you guys would shoot medium format instead of 35mm film?

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Fri 22 Jul 2016 01:19:53 No.2887576 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887573
When I can afford the extra time and effort needed to take the image, and think the image will be worth it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CrowsChillinGoatMountain.jpg, 385KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 01:20:41 No.2887577 Report

Quoted By: >>2887583

>>2887573
If I've already made the decision to shoot film it comes down to whether I want to carry a camera around or not.

If yes, I'll take my medium format camera
If no, I'll take my 35mm p&s that fits in my pocket.

Usually if I'm going on a hike or somewhere cool and already taking a backpack the medium format camera will join. If I'm going out for a couple of hours or doing something where having a backpack isn't necessary I'll just take my point and shoot.

Personally, I fail to see the point of using a big camera (SLR, big rangefinder, etc) to shoot 35mm...which is why I don't own one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 01:27:36 No.2887583 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887577
Even though I personally own a large non-pocketable rangefinder, I prefer your setup and rationale for it. (Though I carry mine on a simple blackrapid strap)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO comfy.webm, 730KiB, 960x540

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 01:55:19 No.2887589 Report

Quoted By: >>2887637 >>2887847 >>2888084

comfy af tbqh

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 03:04:09 No.2887605 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887573
When you're willing to trade convenience for image quality. Every increase in film size means bigger heavier cameras with fewer photos per roll (or even a single shot for a sheet) and also the bigger you go the less convenience features the cameras tend to have. You can get a 35mm autofocus SLR with basically all the high tech features of a DSLR if you want to, but if you're doing medium format it'll almost certainly mean manual focus and little if any automation, and large format is even more basic and clunky.

So I'll grab my medium format camera when I feel like seriously going out to take photos and I'm willing to stop and think carefully about every shot I take. It'll often require using a tripod too, which is even more of a pain in the ass.

If I'm just going for a casual photowalk or something where I still want to shoot film but don't want to carry around a load of shit then I'll stick to 35mm.

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Fri 22 Jul 2016 04:59:37 No.2887637 Report

Quoted By: >>2888019

>>2887589
I'm sorry for your parkinsons

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 07:09:28 No.2887686 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887424
You're not supposed to lie the film on the screen you moron.

Get some opal acrylic, and spacers, and a way of holding your film flat, off the surface.

>>2887429
No it doesn't, the difference between using flash and lcd are non existent when done correctly.

Anonymous

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

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 07:45:48 No.2887702 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887424
You need to put white acrylic between the screen and film dummy. I have no problems using an LCD screen for back-lighting scans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 10:26:49 No.2887744 Report

Quoted By: >>2887745 >>2887752

Probably a stupid question. But if I'm using exposure compensation on my camera I have to use the same settings for the entire roll of film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 10:29:04 No.2887745 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887744
It's a very stupid question.
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 11:33:23 No.2887752 Report

Quoted By: >>2887832

>>2887744
Depends what you're using it for. If you're using it because you're shooting in snow or on a sandy beach or shooting something backlit, then no.

If you're using it as a weird way to push/pull the film instead of simply changing the ISO to whatever you're pushing/pulling to, then yes.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 124KiB, 1200x489

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 15:43:30 No.2887832 Report

Quoted By: >>2887834 >>2887848 >>2887851

>>2887752
How do I exposure comp on a Nikon FE? It the same dial as the ASA

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 15:45:39 No.2887834 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887832
>It the same dial as the ASA
Yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 16:28:30 No.2887847 Report

Quoted By: >>2887856 >>2888019

>>2887589
developing chrome prints?
can we see the results anon

always wanted to do this but the process seems so long and drawn out that I can't imagine getting any creative printing work done. B&W works for me because I can see the results almost immediately

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 16:29:48 No.2887848 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887832
its just a different method of doing the same thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 16:40:20 No.2887851 Report

Quoted By: >>2887854

>>2887832
lift the ring

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 16:45:09 No.2887854 Report

Quoted By: >>2888092

>>2887851
Oh god I'm so stupid. Thanks. I was turning it without lifting wondering what the fuck it actually does as it just adjusts the ASA.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 16:53:45 No.2887856 Report

Quoted By: >>2887860

>>2887847
cibachrome doesn't exist anymore anon. that tank is made for developing film, he's just using the roller for a constant agitation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 17:12:48 No.2887860 Report

Quoted By: >>2888019

>>2887856
>he's just using the roller for a constant agitation
what garbage

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0007.jpg, 1MiB, 5141x4000

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 17:36:23 No.2887866 Report

Quoted By:

buch of pretty clips including my first timelapse. just starting to get into film.

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

Feedback is appreciated

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 18:17:13 No.2887891 Report

Quoted By: >>2888017

>>2887193
I'll be eating a bag of dicks like you recommended in the meantime.
Kinda curious to see if it looks just as terrible when you shoot it, though.
I feel like it should at least not be so grainy.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO untouched.jpg, 308KiB, 850x561

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 19:22:37 No.2887926 Report

Quoted By: >>2887927 >>2887981 >>2887982 >>2888004 >>2888445

How does a noob get gooder colors? I have this scan, and I'll post an edit in a sec.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img090-2.jpg, 424KiB, 850x593

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 19:23:54 No.2887927 Report

Quoted By: >>2887951 >>2887982 >>2887998 >>2888004

>>2887926
I got this out of it, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the way it looks yet.

Can anyone recommend me some reading or tips about what adjustments to make?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 20:02:58 No.2887951 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887927
the original's better but they both have a green cast. you gotta use color adjustments to reduce it. slightly warmer and more contrast

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1469215357301 copy.jpg, 376KiB, 850x561

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 21:16:29 No.2887981 Report

Quoted By: >>2887998 >>2888004

>>2887926

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1469215357301.jpg, 415KiB, 850x561

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 21:16:34 No.2887982 Report

Quoted By: >>2887998 >>2888004 >>2888044

>>2887926
>>2887927
Learn to use curves. Image->Adjustments->Curves in photoshop. This took a few seconds, literally.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1469215357301.jpg, 296KiB, 850x561

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:12:01 No.2887998 Report

Quoted By: >>2888004

>>2887927
>>2887981
>>2887982
git good faggits

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:23:57 No.2888004 Report

Quoted By: >>2888041

>>2887998
>>2887982
>>2887981
>>2887927
>>2887926
There is literally nothing about this photograph worth wasting your time editing it for. Its a badly focused shot of a teenager smoking. Move along.

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6

Catsby !RqPRxvq4p6 Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:38:38 No.2888017 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887891
Nice, bon appétit. I'll try to shoot it at 100 speed and see what happens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:39:39 No.2888019 Report

Quoted By: >>2888080

>>2887860
>>2887847
Nothing wrong with using the motor for constant agitation. Saves a bit of time and is easy for C-41.
>>2887637
You're not far off.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 127KiB, 640x640

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:57:01 No.2888034 Report

Quoted By: >>2888278

Bought some opal acrylic today, going to do some test scans tonight. Will post results in the morning.

I'm using a Yungnou flash at 1/128 and shooting with a 50mm + extension tubes at 1/125, f8, ISO100 and white balance set to the warmest setting.

That's all the correct settings right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 22:59:49 No.2888041 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888004
It's just an example dude. I found it worth playing with as an educational experience. It doesn't have to be high art...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 23:01:59 No.2888044 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887982
Lol, you took the time to remove some dust?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 22 Jul 2016 23:56:10 No.2888075 Report

Quoted By: >>2888229

I got a rz67 mk ii along with all of the backs and a flash for free. The problem I have is that it looks like the shutter button was locked in the on position, and it's very hard to fix it. Should I send it to Keh or just ignore it? I have to use thr battery to act as the shutter trigger

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:01:14 No.2888080 Report

Quoted By: >>2888169

>>2888019
>constant agitation
>C-41

oh, well yeah. for some reason I thought that post implied that it was black and white, my bad

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:06:14 No.2888084 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887589
How much do those things cost? I really want some for constant agitation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:10:34 No.2888088 Report

Quoted By: >>2888094 >>2888096 >>2888097 >>2888098 >>2888121 >>2888154 >>2888221

I got out of digital photography last week because I honestly can't stand the workflow of it anymore and I have WAAAAY more fun in the darkroom than I do in lightroom.

So right now my main camera is a Ricoh GR1V and I want to get into a film system. I am comfortable with Rangefinders and SLRs in 35mm. I wear glasses and already know what viewfinders do and don't work for glasses.

I have around $1500 to spend, here are the systems I am considering

Fuji TX1/Hasselblad Xpan - Entire budget would be for camera + 45mm F4. My only beef with this camera is slow lenses. I do shoot at night sometimes.

Canon 7s + 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f2 - This seems like a fun camera and I hear the viewfinder, despite being 0.8x, has usable 35mm framelines for glasses wearers. My only beef is the meter stops at ASA400 and I often push tri-x to 1600

Nikon F3 + 28mm, 50mm, 85mm AIS nikkors

Konica Hexar RF + 50mm M-Hexanon + 35mm f1.4 Nokton MC - Probably the best overall rangefinder for left-eyed glasses shooters.

I am open to suggestions. If you had $1500 to spend on a 135 setup, what would you do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:19:11 No.2888092 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887854
normally it is the other way around, twist for comp, lift for ASA

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:22:03 No.2888094 Report

Quoted By: >>2888099

>>2888088
Contax T3 and spend the rest of the money on film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:24:32 No.2888096 Report

Quoted By: >>2888102

>>2888088
$1500 will go a long way if you stick to 35mm SLRs. Personally I'd get an F3, 28mm f/2.8 AI-S, 50mm f/1.4 AI-S, 105mm f/2.5 AI-S. That leaves a whole lot left over if you want any particular special purpose or exotic lens, whatever extra darkroom gear may make your life easier, lots of film and paper and chemicals, maybe a quality tripod.

Are you sure you want manual focus? You could also get an F100 instead and switch those lenses for their AF-D and AF-S equivalents. Maybe you could even afford an F6 instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:25:17 No.2888097 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888088
Coming from a canon fd shooter, get an f3

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:25:21 No.2888098 Report

Quoted By: >>2888105

>>2888088
Personally I'd go for two cheaper, different kinds of camera rather than one expensive camera. An SLR and a rangefinder, a TLR and a point and shoot. Any kind of combo because no camera is totally perfect, and because realistically film cameras are old already and more likely to break/be unable to be repaired for non-extortionate prices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:25:28 No.2888099 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888094
I already have a GR1V though. I feel like a T3 would be kinda redundant

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:28:57 No.2888102 Report

Quoted By: >>2888109 >>2888116

>>2888096
I think the F3 is definitely the front runner right now. I want a manual focus camera to offset my AF point and shoots (aside from the Ricoh I like to collect cheap point and shoots).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:31:56 No.2888105 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888098

I still play to shoot the GR1V because the lens is fucking absurdly good so I figured a less automated camera would be a good 2nd camera. I figured an SLR works best since it lets me look through the lens and the GR is a viewfinder.

Thanks for all the help so far from everyone!

The xpan keeps coming back to mind because it offers something fairly unique. I just wish I could get fast lenses for the damn thing. Maybe I will get a Yashica Lynx 14E to fulfill my night shooting needs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:38:39 No.2888109 Report

Quoted By: >>2888110

>>2888102
PS make sure you get the HP prism since you mentioned glasses. Also look at all the accessory focusing screen options besides the stock split prism/microprism one. I have a screen which is all matte with no focusing aids shitting up the view and it's great. There's neat little options and accessories for everything you could think of with the F3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:42:36 No.2888110 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888109

Oh for sure. I actually used to own a Pentax LX (basically the Pentax version of the F3) and a bunch of accessories/screens and glass but a fellow Pentaxian offered me entirely too much money for my setup so I sold it to him.

I actually think the LX is a better camera than the F3 but I want to try something new and the F3 seems logical to me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 139KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:48:13 No.2888116 Report

Quoted By: >>2888125

>>2888102
why does it have to be so handsome

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:52:43 No.2888121 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888088
I'd get an EOS 30V, 11-24L, 35/2 IS, 50L, 85L, 100-400L.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 00:56:51 No.2888125 Report

Quoted By: >>2888132 >>2888175

>>2888116
Why the shitty e series 50mm? That probably feels like garbage on the f3.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 01:04:10 No.2888132 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888125

I didn't even notice the lens, my bad. Just some shit off google

How do yall feel about the micro nikkors?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l1600.jpg, 267KiB, 1600x968

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 01:13:52 No.2888135 Report

Quoted By: >>2888140

Saw this pic in an ebay page for ferrania 100.
Sadly that film was long discontinued and hard to find.

Is there any other film out there that can achieve results like this? Personally, it looks like grainy, overexposed Provia or Portra. However, those films aren't really cheap.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 12711055_675630495872715_2604228 (...).jpg, 130KiB, 1200x630

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 01:33:11 No.2888140 Report

Quoted By: >>2888144

>>2888135
>ferrania
Lel. This made me check on the latest excuse to come out of the vapourware factory

http://www.filmferrania.it/news/2016/lessons-of-a-naive-new-father

>I am feeling like a father of a two year old child - but with all them sweet kickstarter monies and nothing but vapour to show for it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 01:46:50 No.2888144 Report

Quoted By: >>2888149

>>2888140
so basically kickstarter gave them a shitton of money and they didn't even really think through how to get the plant working again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:08:11 No.2888149 Report

Quoted By: >>2888150

>>2888144
>so basically every kickstarter ever

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:09:39 No.2888150 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888149
sounds about right. I kickstarted 6 things in 2013 and I have received 2 of them so far lmao

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 12939358_10156841007500201_47585 (...).jpg, 138KiB, 627x960

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:20:20 No.2888153 Report

Quoted By: >>2888157

Pentax PC35-AF + Tri-X 400

Scanned with Epson V600

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:20:28 No.2888154 Report

Quoted By: >>2888158

>>2888088
XPAN and Bronica owner here. Don't do it unless you REALLY, REALLY enjoy shooting pano.

I'd go for the Konica/F3 and pick up some sort of MF rig. Probably an RB67.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 13482904_1181291808555827_233924 (...).jpg, 348KiB, 1196x800

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:28:37 No.2888157 Report

Quoted By: >>2888163

>>2888153
>Pentax PC35-AF
Hey hey, someone else using one of these.
Mine's a PC-555, but same shit.
They're the best, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:29:02 No.2888158 Report

Quoted By: >>2888172

>>2888154
I am not a huge MF fan, desu. I had a Bronica ETRSi and it was awesome I just strongly prefer 35mm.

The Konica is such a good camera, I am really tempted by it. 1/4000 max shutter speed, smart metering, good viewfinder for glasses, no rewind crank so I can keep my left eye up to the camera, and a very agreeable price.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2016-07-22-0002.jpg, 251KiB, 1200x1225

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:30:15 No.2888159 Report

Quoted By: >>2888164 >>2888170 >>2888349 >>2888365

>>2885738
I gave up and bought a V550. Holy shit vuescan is up there with the worst goddamn computer programs I have ever used.

Finally got a half decent result though, this is before processing too. Now I just need to take photos that are actually worth scanning. I'm also kind of disappointed in how weak this yellow filter is, I should've just bought an orange instead. Or should I just skip straight to red?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:34:34 No.2888163 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888157
They are excellent little cameras. I own 2 and keep them in my non-camera bags since I don't particular care if they get banged up. I have captured some of my favorite images on them.

something something the camera you have with you

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:36:09 No.2888164 Report

Quoted By: >>2888182

>>2888159

that skyline looks familiar but I cant quite place it...

Houston?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:43:55 No.2888169 Report

Quoted By: >>2888190 >>2888204

>>2888080
There something wrong with constant agitation on black and white?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:46:20 No.2888170 Report

Quoted By: >>2888182 >>2888267

>>2888159
>I gave up and bought a V550
>Finally got a half decent result though

*keks visibly*
Retards gonna retard I guess.
On the bright side, the bigger the film format you waste, the more you feed the volume required to sustain production.

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 133KiB, 800x800

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:49:35 No.2888172 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888158
Hexar owner here. It's excellent and I can't recommend it enough. It's comfortable to use and has great metering and ergonomics. The body feels solid without being heavy. The view finder is large and bright, with a contrasty RF patch. If you are on the fence, just do it man.

I use a 35-50 combo as well. I've heard lots of good things about that 35/1.4, but I've also heard it has focus shift from 2.8-5.6. I use the 35/2.5, and a Canon 50/1.4

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 02:53:37 No.2888175 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888125
The metal version of the 50 Series E actually feels pretty good. Like AI quality, except for the shitastic aperture ring. That's still a rattly plastic piece of shit.

>i love you, 50 series e

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 03:05:31 No.2888182 Report

Quoted By: >>2888267 >>2888273

>>2888164
Yes

>>2888170
So what do you suggest, smartass? Because I think it looks decent enough for web sizes. I won't be printing from scans anyway, I do wet prints.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 03:51:20 No.2888190 Report

Quoted By: >>2888198 >>2888204

>>2888169
yes
garbage false economy technique

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO f3 price.png, 159KiB, 1172x937

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 03:57:41 No.2888197 Report

Quoted By: >>2888202 >>2888203

damn you can get a nice f3 system for super cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 03:59:05 No.2888198 Report

Quoted By: >>2888204 >>2888390

>>2888190
oh I just thought the only purpose of it was to speed up development time.

My agfa rondinax calls for constant agitation and I can't tell a different from that tanks results vs agitating my patterson every minute.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 13482904_1181291808555827_233924 (...).jpg, 65KiB, 878x675

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:11:08 No.2888202 Report

Quoted By: >>2888366

>>2888197
It's more fun to spend the whole budget though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:12:03 No.2888203 Report

Quoted By: >>2888212 >>2888214

>>2888197
>buying a 35 and a 50
That's useless, get a 28 and a 50 or a 24 and a 50 or something. Also the 105mm Nikons from that era are pretty legendary, I'd probably pick one over an 85. Also FUCK ebay buy from KEH instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:12:22 No.2888204 Report

Quoted By: >>2888209

>>2888169
>>2888190
>>2888198
It will give you garbage low-contrast results with plenty of film-dev combos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:19:19 No.2888209 Report

Quoted By: >>2888390

>>2888204
interesting. Everything I develop in the rondinax is massively pushed tri-x so I might not have noticed the low contrast because of that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:24:37 No.2888212 Report

Quoted By: >>2888271

>>2888203
if you notice, I got everything from Roberts Cameras instead of the japanese sellers who rate everything as [EXCELLENT+++++] and claim the lenses have no haze when they are hazy AF.

I guess I could just go get it from Roberts website directly but you get 10% if you buy it from his ebay store.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:27:18 No.2888214 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888203
also, yea, I will look for a 105mm.

I have the GR1V for 28mm, I wanted a cheap, wide, fast lens for cheap so the 35mm f2 makes sense.

More than likely I am going to go through the cart again and buy nicer versions of everything, just assembling some test carts to price the systems out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:28:26 No.2888215 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886019
>village
>dollars

are you a bong or a burg?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:37:02 No.2888221 Report

Quoted By: >>2888224

>>2888088
The Hexar is a great body but a little overpriced

I wouldn't recommended the hexanon lens though, it's a little cheap feeling and the focus barrel tends to get loose.
The ziess planar m mount 50/2 is better choice for that price range
I might skip the nokton and go for the 35 2.5 skopar instead, it's hard to catch focus at 1.4 with a rangefinder and the nokton is heavy as shit

Everyones gonna tell you to get something different, just go to a good store and try some stuff out

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:42:55 No.2888224 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888221
Thanks for the advice. Other people have recommended the zeiss stuff to me. I have also seen other people saying the hexanons are great, I figure I can't exactly go wrong but I think I trust zeiss a bit more since the hexs are just copycat lenses.

The nokton didn't strike me as heavy when I used it but I will go try one out again. My local camera store has some nice rangefinder stuff to try.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 04:57:32 No.2888229 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888075
send it to keh you stupid fuck you're so fucking stupid

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 05:09:44 No.2888234 Report

Quoted By:

>>2886962
>35mmBandit
>cant stop buying MF cameras

uh, okay?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1360979066860.png, 9KiB, 162x147

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 07:02:28 No.2888264 Report

Quoted By:

when I shoot film, nobody knows I'm shooting garbage-like photos

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 07:24:52 No.2888267 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888182
>>2888170
inb4 dslr scan

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 07:51:54 No.2888271 Report

Quoted By: >>2888272

>>2888212
Best situation to be in.
If an items not as described the seller has to pay for return postage, and it has to be signed for, so they baulk at the £80 postage costs as they don't want to spend that much to get trash back so you get your refund and keep the lens.

Then you can try taking it apart for cleaning, its not lime the lens cost you anything but time.

Ime though jap stuff is in infinitely better condition than eu stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 07:54:10 No.2888272 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888271
I actually did exactly this with a $300 lens. The jap dude sent me it in the wrong mount and just told me to keep it. Flipped it up on CL for $350 and the jap guy refunded me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 07:55:20 No.2888273 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888182
Dslr scan, a good enlarger lens, bellows and some opal acrylic can be had for under £50. Will smash anything short of drum scans, and then the dslr still has much more potential

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _DSC5523.jpg, 447KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 08:20:03 No.2888278 Report

Quoted By: >>2888279 >>2888281 >>2888449 >>2888495

>>2888034 here

This is one that I've scanned/edited. I'll be posting the hi-res shot and a RAW file.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CNV00019.jpg, 1MiB, 1840x1232

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 08:21:46 No.2888279 Report

Quoted By: >>2888281 >>2888282 >>2888449 >>2888469 >>2888495

>>2888278
Here is the original unedited file I got back from Max Spielmann. I think their machine just applies a preset contrast curve/auto sharpening which looks like shit.

This is apparently the biggest they can scan film as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 08:25:48 No.2888281 Report

Quoted By: >>2888283

>>2888279
>>2888278
Their colours are so much better than yours.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 08:28:36 No.2888282 Report

Quoted By: >>2888439 >>2888469 >>2888493

>>2888279
Here's a link to the hi-res JPG and RAW file. Did I expose the scan right? This is the first time scanning film so any advice would be great.

I think there might be too much blue in the scanned image, on a closer look the bricks look slightly green.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B59aznf4J5UhUHJyR2FEZjVFS1U

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 08:30:49 No.2888283 Report

Quoted By: >>2888305

>>2888281
I think that's probably my shitty editing. I'm fairly new to photoshop. I can probably re-create the tones of their scan but with better quality from mine?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 09:45:11 No.2888305 Report

Quoted By: >>2888328

>>2888283
>editing
>photoshop
Shit nigger what are you doing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 09:53:25 No.2888308 Report

Quoted By: >>2888327 >>2888343

What does everyone think about ONA bags?

I just ordered a Prince Street for my XT1, XT10, a 56mm lens, and a water bottle. Will I be disappointed?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 10:19:01 No.2888314 Report

Quoted By: >>2888324 >>2888411

Opinions on the Bronica ETRS? I have the option to purchase one for $100 with 75 2.8, waist level viewfinder and 120 film back, although the lens does have a bit of fungus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 11:14:13 No.2888324 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888314
good price, get it, great entry into MF.
check the seals, check the back doesn't pop open at the slightest nudge

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 11:20:26 No.2888327 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888308
They are nice bags but a bit overpriced. You are basically paying to know you will be getting a perfect bag. If there is even ONE STITCH out of place I recommend asking for replacement bag.

personally I bought this bag: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ZFH1WKK/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

and put in this insert : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016BL6FBE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

since the included insert was kinda ass. I have gotten a lot of compliments on it, I'm sure your ONA will do the same for you.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.png, 304KiB, 768x576

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 11:21:51 No.2888328 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888305
Lightroom is a meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 12:24:35 No.2888343 Report

Quoted By: >>2888345

>>2888308
I think that if you bought 2 identical cameras, paid $1000 for a lense that every other maker sells for $300, and posted this question in the film thread, you're too fucking ignorant to think anything other than what the ONA marketers tell you about the bag, so you will probably love it.
Fuck off.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.gif, 281KiB, 200x200

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 12:47:46 No.2888345 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888343

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 13:15:26 No.2888349 Report

Quoted By: >>2888371

>>2888159

>Vuescan
>Bad

You are supposed to scan your images flat with it and adjust to your liking in photoshop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 14:20:27 No.2888365 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888159
Vuescan is pretty poor. The software that comes with the scanner is just fine. Look up Ted Forbes's video on scanning from The Art of Photography, he shows you through it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 14:24:38 No.2888366 Report

Quoted By: >>2888556

>>2888202
>falling for the wide aperture meme

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 14:35:42 No.2888371 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888349
nah, vuescan has it's flaws, the raw interpreter is pretty awful.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 15:46:51 No.2888390 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888198
>>2888209
if your developer specifically tells you that you need constant agitation, then go ahead and do it

I was saying its garbage when silly folk do it because they think they can get away with using less developer and saving money, because it will negatively affect your film with standard developers

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ektarcolor.jpg, 428KiB, 732x1024

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 15:56:44 No.2888395 Report

Quoted By: >>2888399 >>2888407

I got me a pic related from a flea market camera. I have no damn idea how old it is, but it's for C-22 process. I really want to see what's on it, but I'm not paying 50 yuropoors plus postage to the UK to have it properly developed. So I was thinking of just including it in the package to my usual lab and have them try process it in B&W. Does this result in any sort of viewable images? What kind of instructions should I write down for the lab? Also it seems that some say it's doable in C-41 but with color shifts while some other sources say this will ruin the emulsion, which one is true? I'm not particular about the colors, I just want to know the easiest and cheapest way of processing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:03:00 No.2888399 Report

Quoted By: >>2888416

>>2888395
>So I was thinking of just including it in the package to my usual lab and have them try process it in B&W.
genuine question, why do retards do this
why do you want to pay to buy and pay to develop a roll of 99% likely ruined and 100% likely shitty shots?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:09:13 No.2888407 Report

Quoted By: >>2888416

>>2888395
Doubt you'll find the next Vivian Maier in that roll.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:17:49 No.2888411 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888314
Absolutely don't buy any gear with fungus unless you want to risk getting fungus on all of your other lenses.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 12657800_10153905786841880_49923 (...).jpg, 217KiB, 1632x920

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:25:00 No.2888416 Report

Quoted By: >>2888418 >>2888462

>>2888399
>>2888407
I'm very interested in old city sceneries and local history. The shift from agricultural communities to heavy industry towns from the 20's to the 70's is fascinating. I hoard post card collections, photo albums, and books on local history. The roll could contain something very interesting, like shots from this town from 50 years ago. Or it might be just uninteresting crap, but I consider the cost of a regular development worth it to find out.

Pic related, old aerial photographs are the best.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:28:10 No.2888418 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888416
yeah, ignore my deleted post
I didn't realize that the roll had already been exposed, I thought you were going to try to shoot it.

post results here if you find anything interesting, anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 16:32:08 No.2888420 Report

Quoted By: >>2888451

>>2886555
hmm gonna try it out tomorrow. The thing I wonder about however: Is the viewfinder the same focal length as the lens? (7.5cm)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _DSC5523.jpg, 932KiB, 1000x660

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 17:24:22 No.2888439 Report

Quoted By: >>2888449 >>2888493

>>2888282
Scan is ok but you edit is too overcooked. My variant is picrelated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 17:28:09 No.2888445 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887926
Bad scan dude

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _DSC5523.jpg, 820KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 17:44:32 No.2888449 Report

Quoted By: >>2888493

>>2888278
>>2888279
>>2888439
stick with shooting in-camera jpeg digishit, nerds

!kurwaRB7YU

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2522_P8243128_1_1.jpg, 62KiB, 565x425

!kurwaRB7YU Sat 23 Jul 2016 17:45:28 No.2888451 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888420
Yes, that's the sole point of a viewfinder after all. You'll have to guesstimate the focus distance or use zone focusing/hyperfocal with a higher aperture, the viewfinder will always show everything sharp.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:14:19 No.2888458 Report

Quoted By: >>2888459 >>2888460

Hey guys I'm new to film photography and I have a question about my negatives. I've developed 2 rolls so far, and each time, they haven't really "cleared." Even around the edges, it's kind of a milky gray rather than transparent/translucent. I've seen other negatives and they are much more transparent around the edges and even within the images. Granted, I can still see my pictures, but I think I'm losing clarity and contrast due to this.

Does anyone know what might be causing the problem? I suspect it's due to over developing because I can't get my developer to 68degrees Fahrenheit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:15:13 No.2888459 Report

Quoted By: >>2888464

>>2888458
can you post pictures?
it sounds like not fixing long enough, or film sticking to itself

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO umbrella2.jpg, 863KiB, 1000x950

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:20:03 No.2888460 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888458
PS heres a picture I took and "scanned" with my phone

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1b5.png, 93KiB, 331x429

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:20:31 No.2888462 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888416

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:21:28 No.2888464 Report

Quoted By: >>2888466

>>2888459
is the fixer what makes the negatives clear after developing? that could also be the problem because i think i messed up the ratio when mixing my fix so it might not be strong enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:25:18 No.2888466 Report

Quoted By: >>2888480

>>2888464
either that or the whole thing was fogged?
how am I supposed to know with your vague ass information? what ratio did you use to mix? what fixer? did you dilute it? how long did you fix? what film is it? did you presoak? did you agitate? did it stick to the reel? did it stick to itself?

or you could fucking post a picture and make everything easier

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CP.jpg, 208KiB, 962x638

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:27:11 No.2888469 Report

Quoted By: >>2888471 >>2888493

>>2888279
>>2888282
CP 4u

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO curvy CP.jpg, 221KiB, 962x638

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:30:22 No.2888471 Report

Quoted By: >>2888493

>>2888469
CP with some curves

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 423KiB, 2448x1975

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:37:14 No.2888480 Report

Quoted By: >>2888484

>>2888466
I used Kodak d-67 at full strength at 75* for 6min which was recommended based on a chart I found. My fixer was kind of a crap shoot and I'll probably re mix it. It was probably roughly 1:4 which was recommended but I can't be exactly sure. Fixed for maybe 5-6 min. Also I used no stop bath just a water rinse

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO neg.jpg, 377KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:41:50 No.2888484 Report

Quoted By: >>2888487

>>2888480
heres a pic of the negatives. as you can see its kind of cloudy. it shouldnt have fogged as i was pretty careful. however i noticed that the hole in the top of the developing canister i use seems to let a small amount of light in, but wouldnt that just make it darker or black rather than greyish?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:46:07 No.2888487 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888484
its been exposed to light at some point

check your changing bag for holes, check your tank lid, etc. or it could have been the camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 18:52:13 No.2888493 Report

Quoted By: >>2888508

>>2888282
Scan looks a bit underexposed, try the flash at 1/64

>>2888439
Shit

>>2888449
Awful

>>2888469
No

>>2888471
Okay

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 19:00:17 No.2888495 Report

Quoted By: >>2888508

>>2888279
>>2888278
Also, your scan isn't flat. Close but not quite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 19:27:20 No.2888508 Report

Quoted By: >>2888510

>>2888493
Okay I'll try it at a higher power.

>>2888495
Should I buy a negative holder and use that? I've just made a makeshift thing out of cardboard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 19:30:19 No.2888510 Report

Quoted By: >>2888525

>>2888508
Check your histogram and balance aperture and flash power to get it right.

I use a piece of plastic I cut a frame sized hole out of to act as a light mask/film flattener. Cardboard would work too I guess, if you can put some weight on it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.png, 282KiB, 640x1136

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:14:01 No.2888525 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888510
Gonna order one of these. It's only £4, then shoot through opal acrylic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:39:51 No.2888538 Report

Quoted By: >>2888546 >>2888552

Stupid question but I really want to shot my MF camera tomorrow but I don't have an empty 120 film spool. Can I just "sacrifice" a roll of film by pulling out all the film and then use the spool of that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:45:09 No.2888543 Report

Quoted By: >>2888566

anyone have luck dodging duty? i live in canadididaidanidaia and recently bought a PO box about an hour away from me on the other side of the border. I figure that if I cross with a camera in the backpack the first time, and then return with an extra lens or two, they aren't counting. Anyone have experience with this>?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:49:08 No.2888546 Report

Quoted By: >>2888549

>>2888538
Yes, of course. I'm guessing there's probably no nearby photo labs that develop 120, but if there are you could just go ask them for an empty spool to save yourself a roll of film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:53:06 No.2888549 Report

Quoted By: >>2888550

>>2888546
>I'm guessing there's probably no nearby photo labs that develop 120

there are but all are closed tomorrow and I'm an impatient Millennial bastard. Still have plenty of 120 film though so I can take a lost roll thanks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:55:26 No.2888550 Report

Quoted By: >>2888551

>>2888549

how much of a sheltered bastard can you be that you dont have a friend that shoots film or a fb group with film shooters in your area that could give you one for free?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 20:59:28 No.2888551 Report

Quoted By: >>2888619

>>2888550
not sheltered, but I prefer to keep photography to myself mostly

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:00:49 No.2888552 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888538
If you work out some way to store it light tight it could only be a temporary sacrifice right? Take the spool off in total darkness or a dark bag, then store it in some kind of light tight container, then when you want to shoot it again just respool.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_9119.jpg, 240KiB, 1178x800

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:15:30 No.2888556 Report

Quoted By: >>2888560

>>2888366
I fell for it real hard, my dude.
These are two of the best 35mm lenses ever made.
>I would have given him an FD 24/1.4L too, just for keks, but they didn't have one for sale

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:28:31 No.2888560 Report

Quoted By: >>2888563 >>2888599

>>2888556
>photo of f/1.2 lenses
>shot wide open, nothing in focus, horrible chromatic abberation
nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:34:06 No.2888563 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888560
no grasshopper, I got the only thing that matters in focus
>dat red ring

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:41:25 No.2888566 Report

Quoted By: >>2888576

>>2888543
Depends. The lads at Pt. Roberts give zero fucks about anything under $300. No idea about you. Also if it looks used, then you'd simply pass it off as something you already owned. Best if you bring back something small, like SD cards or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 21:57:22 No.2888576 Report

Quoted By: >>2888578

>>2888566
I'm looking at film equipment, so - three lenses, one large format and two medium format, and a mamiya 6x7 camera. I live close enough to the border that it's a nice five hour ride there. I hope that, as an American citizen, they'll give me the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 22:04:58 No.2888578 Report

Quoted By: >>2888579

>>2888576
Can you do it a bit at a time?

>5 hour drive
jesus man

>american citizen
and this has what to do with the CBSA giving any fucks?

If you really want to do it, I'd say your best bet is to buy a couple small items, and declare those. Load some film in the MF cameras, maybe fire off a frame or two (gotta check them anyways), and bring your slides for the LF camera. Bring your tripod and have it all mounted up ready to go. Just say you were around for some landscape snapshitting, and had to pick up something else too. Throw away all the boxes and tuck the receipts somewhere like your wallet. Rough up some bits of gaff tape and put them around the back so it looks like you're trying to cover up a light leak, and the tape's been there for several rolls now.

Or just bring it across and see what happens. Used film gear, got it from an estate sale, total worth, $500 or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 22:07:00 No.2888579 Report

Quoted By: >>2888685

>>2888578
I should qualify that- It's a five hour ride by bicycle. I'm crossing my fingers they are less scrutinous about the fine details, i.e., they'll note I have a camera going across the first time, and not notice the additional equipment on the way back.

Yeah, I'm looking at 1300$ dollars of equipment here. Looking to get another LF camera too.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160718_0003.jpg, 1MiB, 2350x3550

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 22:56:57 No.2888597 Report

Quoted By:

I found an old camera, Olympus OM1, the telemeter do not work anymore, so I have to do all the setting by myself.
Shot on XP2 and Superia

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 22:58:02 No.2888599 Report

Quoted By: >>2888617

>>2888560
>best 2 35mm lenses ever made
>has never shot a version 5 summicron
>thinks SLR lenses are even in the same ballpark with rangefinder lenses

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bahouimonsauce.jpg, 325KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:01:06 No.2888601 Report

Quoted By:

woops sorry for the size

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO jesuce.jpg, 377KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:02:32 No.2888603 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO jtebaise.jpg, 801KiB, 1200x1797

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:06:06 No.2888604 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160723_191432564.jpg, 4MiB, 3006x5344

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:32:15 No.2888614 Report

Quoted By: >>2888633

Just finished first short film. Bought one of those neewer rigs off amazon and drilled holes in it to make this finished rig. Shooting on a simple GF30 and was asked to show a permit more than one time.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Olympus-OM-System-Zuiko-MC-Auto- (...).png, 141KiB, 449x300

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:39:33 No.2888616 Report

Quoted By: >>2888617 >>2888633

Why isn't Olympus more popular? Most Zuikos shit on Canon and Nikon lenses.

Canikon is pleb tier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:41:30 No.2888617 Report

Quoted By: >>2888620 >>2888680 >>2888686

>>2888599
>>2888616
>caring this much about lens performance on 35mm film
fucking autism. if you want high quality, shoot mf. 35mm is justified by the aesthetic and the ergonomics

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:44:50 No.2888619 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888551
>I prefer to keep photography to myself mostly

t. anime dolls "photographer".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:47:06 No.2888620 Report

Quoted By: >>2888633

>>2888617

Also size. Zuikos are so tiny and sexy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Jul 2016 23:49:59 No.2888621 Report

Quoted By: >>2888647

When scanning film with a DSLR is it normal for your photographs to have low contrast? I find myself having to apply strong contrast curves after inverting.

Everything looks quite pale and washed out. My histograms are all fairly in the middle and nothing is blown. It's almost like the black needs turning up by 200%

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 00:12:55 No.2888633 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888614
Nice, what emulsion did you shoot on?
>>2888620
>>2888616
but the lens mount isn't.

samson

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 13697245_1108987095813892_172471 (...).jpg, 64KiB, 500x500

samson Sun 24 Jul 2016 00:21:19 No.2888637 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rawscans.jpg, 473KiB, 1600x900

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 00:40:19 No.2888647 Report

Quoted By: >>2888663

>>2888621
>is it normal to have to edit film scans
Yes.
If you find you're not getting much contrast on your black and white negs, you can also experiment with different films, exposure and development regimes too, to get more latitude out of them.

Pic related is a very contrasty film, with a blown out/blocked up section of sky.
Left is the raw scan, which I reduce contrast and lift shadows on, to get as flat an output as possible, and right is the plain exported jpeg after inverting, and the slight curve I added to it to get the blacks closer to black.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 00:45:33 No.2888650 Report

Quoted By:

Been shooting film a long time but only recently got access to a darkroom. I'm a bit of a dev noobie. Can anyone give me a summary/rundown of different developers? Mostly I've been developing in Rodinal because I read in a forum that it brings out good contrast. I even tried pushing with it, to be mixed results.

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img270.jpg, 714KiB, 1250x1010

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG Sun 24 Jul 2016 01:09:35 No.2888662 Report

Quoted By: >>2888664

Been pretty inactive lately, around here in the summer it rains everyday around the exact time I like to shoot. This is from a pretty boring roll of Acros.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rawscans2.jpg, 366KiB, 1704x899

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 01:10:46 No.2888663 Report

Quoted By: >>2888801

>>2888647
And this is the same deal with an underexposed shot, on lower contrast film.
I've also shown the histogram of the exported RAW.
As you can see, I've used a very aggressive curve to get the still-quite-low-contrast result on the left.
Most of the time though, the moral of the story will be to maximise the contrast of the scan in-camera. This is so that you don't "waste" the camera's dynamic range; when you add a strong curve to a scan, you're also boosting the camera's shot noise, on top of whatever grain the film has.
This means
>use the sharpest lense possible at the sharpest aperture - diffraction lowers contrast
>use the lowest ISO
>use the hardest light source you can, whilst still maintaining even illumination across the frame - a collimated laser would be great, but I make do with a flash
>eliminate as much room light as possible
>expose to -just- under clipping the frame border

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO HDMHP534a.jpg, 151KiB, 569x800

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 01:16:23 No.2888664 Report

Quoted By: >>2888667

>>2888662
>maximum dadbike
I'm looking to invest in some kind of cop/dad bike soon, so I can load up bitches and photogear for adventures.
Is this yours? Any advice?
Beemers are nice handling, but they're slow and expensive, I'll probably end up with a Kwaka GTR/Concourse...
>current bike, v. inappropriate, tripod has scratched tail section that I strap it to, pillions v. uncomfy

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG

_Eddward !!I5vCqtr9aKG Sun 24 Jul 2016 01:20:08 No.2888667 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888664
>is it yours
Unfortunately not, I just love motorcycles. I stop to take a picture pretty much every time I see one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 01:47:20 No.2888680 Report

Quoted By: >>2888692

>>2888617
talk to the guy proclaiming his lenses the best. It isn't important but canon-cuck over there started it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 02:13:12 No.2888685 Report

Quoted By: >>2888698

>>2888579
They won't notice anything, because US CBP and CBSA aren't sharing notes on everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 02:14:16 No.2888686 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888617
>and yet people complain m43 is an unusable system because small sensor

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cat.png, 343KiB, 557x800

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 02:21:40 No.2888692 Report

Quoted By: >>2888741

>>2888680
There there honey, just think, if everyone could afford fast, sharp lenses there'd be nothing special about them, would there?
>but also, what part of "two OF the best" did you not get?
[email protected] on hp5, btw

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 02:30:19 No.2888698 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888685
And is that really what they're looking for? I figure even if I cross twice within a few hours, it's not notable to them and they wouldn't keep notes on something as mundane as lenses.

I'm in Montreal, too, so I figure that it's believable someone would do a bike tour to see the beautiful lakes in Vermont and then come back before day's end. It's right around the average for a decent-length bike tour.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 04:06:02 No.2888741 Report

Quoted By: >>2888742

>>2888692

Do these meter okay at f1.2? I have had some SLRs in a few systems struggle with lenses this fast

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 04:07:41 No.2888742 Report

Quoted By: >>2888743

>>2888741
I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think it matters to the metering system what intensity of light hits the diodes, does it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 04:11:03 No.2888743 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888742

Well different cameras meter different ways. My Pentax LX's IDM metering had no problem since it measured off the entire shutter curtain but I have had spot meter cameras and cameras with less sophisticated meters spazz out with f1.2 glass. Maybe it has something to do with the position of the rear element.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 07:54:40 No.2888801 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888663
Okay cheers. So I should always exposure to the right? Should I keep the camera settings the same for each negative? Or tweak them for each scan I do?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 745KiB, 2048x1389

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 10:17:12 No.2888834 Report

Quoted By: >>2888838 >>2888877

some recent pictures
1/2

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 641KiB, 2048x1348

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 10:19:43 No.2888838 Report

Quoted By: >>2888877

>>2888834
2/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 13:01:44 No.2888877 Report

Quoted By: >>2888884

>>2888834
>>2888838
>some recent pictures
>2/2

you had to have shot and develop at least one roll of film, and you only got two pictures out of it?

looks good though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 13:23:14 No.2888884 Report

Quoted By: >>2888944

>>2888877
i'm never really happy with my pics :( i could make a thread with my last rolls though

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 16:08:14 No.2888944 Report

Quoted By: >>2889022 >>2889112

>>2888884
sure, link me to it if you do

mind if I ask what film and processing? the colors are great

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 18:48:35 No.2889022 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888944
those 2 were shot on portra 400 i think , sent to a local lab the be developped then scanned at home With a plustek 7200

i'll make a thread when i'll be in the mood i'll use one of two i posted as threae pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Jul 2016 20:52:43 No.2889112 Report

Quoted By:

>>2888944

here is the thread
>>2889059

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO mf515.jpg, 875KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Mon 25 Jul 2016 04:55:14 No.2889434 Report

Quoted By:

>>2887034
Which lens was this?
Nice shots here is one of mine

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/ General Thread 3