/p/ - Photography » Thread #2914134

[328 / 94 / ?]

/film/

General Thread Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:10:28 No.2914134 View View Reply Original Report

This is the Film General Thread, aka FGT.
>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you shoot CineStill
This is the place to post your film photos, without flushing them down the Recent Photo Toilet.
It's OK to ask about film gear in this thread.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1426888577218.jpg, 96KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:21:46 No.2914142 Report

Quoted By: >>2914213 >>2914221 >>2914829

>mfw getting slide film back for the first time from the lab

Holy shit, I've seen the light. Honestly, I almost cried, that's how fucking beautiful it was. It was only 6x6 even, I can't even imagine what that feeling must be if I ever shot LF. I would probably achieve transcendence

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img122j.jpg, 266KiB, 417x417

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:28:15 No.2914146 Report

Quoted By: >>2914152 >>2914167 >>2914210

Going to repost in the new thread

Slides came out rather light and washed out after developing. The film was Provia 100 that expired in '98 and I shot it at 100, would pushing development 1-2 stops help any? I have one more roll I was thinking about trying it with. I know next time I should expose it as a lower speed film due to it's age but is this even worth trying or should I just fix them in lightroom? Pic related

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:43:49 No.2914152 Report

Quoted By: >>2914158

>>2914146
It mainly just looks like your film is fucked bro.
Maybe try pulling your first developer and pushing your colour developer?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO worldstar.jpg, 124KiB, 634x632

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:46:05 No.2914154 Report

Quoted By: >>2914355

World Star pentax via the KameraCraft instagram account. Gave me a giggle, quite like those funky redressings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 17:50:46 No.2914158 Report

Quoted By: >>2914310 >>2917071

>>2914152
My kit says too light of slides might mean your first development was too long, seems counterintuitive, any idea why pulling would improve it? I understand pushing color development but maybe I just don't fully understand what's happening during the first development

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1472578095510.jpg, 388KiB, 417x417

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 18:08:17 No.2914167 Report

Quoted By: >>2914168

>>2914146

too fucked to fix in photoshop, try under exposing a good bit, might get better results

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO iig122.jpg, 570KiB, 551x551

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 18:13:49 No.2914168 Report

Quoted By: >>2914169 >>2914269

>>2914167
I got somewhat useable results in lightroom (before downsizing)

I think I'm going to push both developers a bit and see what happens. All the rest of my exposed film is in date so this is more just a lesson learned I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 18:16:42 No.2914169 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914168
yea well thats alright

just the exposure is way too high, however you can fix that

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:31:11 No.2914210 Report

Quoted By: >>2914215

>>2914146

Increase exposure 1 stop per decade expired.

EI should probably be 25, though I would test a roll with shots at 12, 25, and 50 to be sure before shooting more from the same batch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:32:58 No.2914213 Report

Quoted By: >>2914217

>>2914142
What kind of slide film are you shooting?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:48:03 No.2914215 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914210
doesn't work like that with slide

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:51:56 No.2914217 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914213
was my first roll of Velvia 50

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img312.jpg, 633KiB, 950x1150

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:53:42 No.2914218 Report

Quoted By:

Shot and dev'd two rolls over the weekend, still playing with this wide lens a bit. First few are from some Tri-X.

>inb4 borders

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img312.jpg, 633KiB, 950x1150

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:55:30 No.2914219 Report

Quoted By:

Shot and dev'd two rolls over the weekend, still playing with this wide lens a bit.

>inb4 borders

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO adox.jpg, 3MiB, 3000x1956

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 19:58:56 No.2914221 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914142

>Do you even ADOX mate?

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img314.jpg, 562KiB, 1150x950

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:00:16 No.2914222 Report

Quoted By:

It's rush week, the campus was clogged with this shit.

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img313.jpg, 684KiB, 1150x950

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:02:30 No.2914224 Report

Quoted By:

This is one of the few times I wish I was carrying some color.

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img315.jpg, 487KiB, 950x1150

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:04:01 No.2914226 Report

Quoted By:

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img001.jpg, 513KiB, 1150x950

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:06:09 No.2914229 Report

Quoted By:

Had to wait ages for people to clear out to get a clean shot.

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:07:37 No.2914231 Report

Quoted By: >>2914232

This one is Pan F, despite the rest of this roll being shitty I really like the the tones of this film. That's all for now, will be shooting more later this week probably.

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img309.jpg, 551KiB, 950x1150

_Eddward !!zHO9f1j0UYm Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:08:44 No.2914232 Report

Quoted By: >>2914252

>>2914231
Fug, forgot image.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Tue 30 Aug 2016 20:46:34 No.2914252 Report

Quoted By: >>2915357

>>2914232

Call me a pleb, but whenever I see rusty things I want colour.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 21:15:50 No.2914269 Report

Quoted By: >>2914271

>>2914168
Well, pushing first developer and color developer was certainly not the answer... got results even worse than before unfortunately. Might have another go at it tonight, pretty discouraged though this being my first attempt at color development.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 21:18:26 No.2914271 Report

Quoted By: >>2914278

>>2914269
Have you considered the problem might be using 18 year expired film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 21:38:15 No.2914278 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914271
No it definitely was, my issue was just how can I salvage them through development rather than exposing another roll differently–something I'm not able to do

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 22:04:13 No.2914294 Report

Quoted By: >>2914345 >>2914599

How overrated is Lomography on a scale of 0 to Apple?

What cheap piece of shit camera could I buy instead if I wanted to take pretentious retro-aesthetic hipstery shots?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 22:30:18 No.2914310 Report

Quoted By: >>2914408

>>2914158
Because it's a reversal process.
There are 2 stages of development.
Think of it like carving a block of wood. The first developer determines how thick a slab you're going to cut out of the block, the second developer forms the image you see with what's left after the first cut.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO xa-DSC_5199.jpg, 32KiB, 460x347

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 23:50:55 No.2914343 Report

Quoted By: >>2914349 >>2914360 >>2914366 >>2918004

Just bought an Olympus XA from KEH in "As-Is" condition for $15. It might not work but I'm crossing my fingers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 23:53:14 No.2914345 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914294
Xa2

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 30 Aug 2016 23:58:04 No.2914349 Report

Quoted By: >>2914350 >>2918004

>>2914343
They probably sold it as 'as is' because they had no batteries to test the camera. Don't worry, anon. The XA is a fine camera that'll make you love it.
Got mine for 12€ and its great.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:02:49 No.2914350 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914349
I've bought BGN before with good results so I'm not too worried.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:16:06 No.2914355 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914154
I saw that. I have no idea what would incline someone to even think about doing something like that.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1457697816281.gif, 508KiB, 500x383

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:16:28 No.2914356 Report

Quoted By: >>2914361

>>2914134
Does the "pad of death" on the Yashica Electro 35 affect the actual film? I bought one for $30 off ebay, and its not making the distinct "thunk" sound its supposed to make.

It looks like a bitch to repair (it took me a while to just nigger-rig the batteries up) and money is a bit tight to get it repaired here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:22:40 No.2914360 Report

Quoted By: >>2914362 >>2914602 >>2918004

>>2914343
KEH isn't retarded, they're not going to accidentally send you a perfectly good camera. If they say it's broken then it's going to be broken.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:26:45 No.2914361 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914356
Yes, as I understand it, it needs to be fixed.

http://elekm.net/pages/cameras/repair_pad_of_death.htm

I used this guide to repair mine. It's not very difficult, just fiddly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:29:40 No.2914362 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914360

Well I will report back when I get the camera.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault.jpg, 150KiB, 1440x900

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 00:46:46 No.2914366 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914343
I promise it will not work

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 01:20:14 No.2914375 Report

Quoted By: >>2914377 >>2914402

Has anybody had any experience of pushing color film? I'm thinking of pushing ektar 100 to 400 to see what'll happen

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 01:23:02 No.2914377 Report

Quoted By: >>2914379

>>2914375
pushed portra is godly

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 01:25:35 No.2914379 Report

Quoted By: >>2914380 >>2914398

>>2914377
I haven't shot a roll of portra medium format. I've shot portra 400 in 35mm and was less then amazed

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 01:27:05 No.2914380 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914379
Like most every other film, it works best if you shoot with a certain palette in mind. Portra kills with more pastel palettes...which if you're not into, fair enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 02:57:18 No.2914398 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914379
>I've shot portra 400 in 35mm and was less then amazed

thats because ur a helpless shitsnapper.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:15:54 No.2914402 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914375
>pushing Ektar
>pushing a film that's notorious for having a cast
>pushing a film that's best when overexposed
well, it's your money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:20:18 No.2914403 Report

Quoted By: >>2914406 >>2914407

I start my film class tomorrow. I have absolutely no experiance with film cameras and don't know what I need. I was thinking an easy to ise camera to use cheap film in for practice and a more higher ended camera for when I get better. any recommendations? I was thinking a kodak retina because they looknow cool and I'm trash but what would you recommend in the 500 usd range?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:30:46 No.2914406 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914403
If you have a digital ILC, get a film body that works with the same lenses. Like I shoot Canon and got an Elan 7ne (EOS 3 is also another great EF mount film body) for around $50.

You can also get more modern SLRs for a lot cheaper than the older, fully mechanical ones because hipster tax runs up the older more "classic" looking bodies prices.

Minolta has a shitton of great options that you can find for cheap...again, the more modern bodies will be the cheapest of the options (and the ones with the most features). The only downside is that often these bodies use strange batteries that might be hard to find, but in an SLR, the battery will last for at least a year in the vast majority of cases.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:37:06 No.2914407 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914403
I myself would go for;
a nikon fm for 35mm
or
a rolleiflex standard II if you want 120
or
any of the folders you can afford without light leaks for LF

do you know what film your school can process?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8mg128.jpg, 435KiB, 555x555

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:38:24 No.2914408 Report

Quoted By: >>2916327 >>2916515

>>2914310
That makes much more sense put that way, thank you. I finally managed to get a proper roll developed today after all.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LVStrip1_F100_032.jpg, 374KiB, 643x1000

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:54:12 No.2914410 Report

Quoted By: >>2914411 >>2914413 >>2915363

I recently got an F100 and blew thru two rolls of HP5 while walking around for shits and giggles but now I'm pissed. I fucked up hard somewhere. My developed film has these terrible spots on them and I don't know why. I developed 2 rolls of film and they both came out like this.

>Rodinal 1:100 for 1hr
>Ilford fixer - only maybe 6 rolls into current solution

Never had this issue before but with this batch of chemicals, I've been storing them in water bottles this time. These spots only appear within the frame if the images, not in the unexposed areas.

1 of 3

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LVStrip1_F100_003.jpg, 497KiB, 654x1000

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:55:32 No.2914411 Report

Quoted By: >>2914413 >>2915255 >>2915363

>>2914410

2 of 3

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LVStrip1_F100_035.jpg, 298KiB, 1000x647

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 03:56:41 No.2914413 Report

Quoted By: >>2914484 >>2915363

>>2914410
>>2914411

3 of 3

Fucked around with multiple exposures on this one but I noticed that the spots didnt seem to increase, so I know its from my developing procedure :/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fuck.jpg, 340KiB, 1000x571

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 06:09:13 No.2914456 Report

Quoted By: >>2914590

help me /p/. Is it my scans that are shitty? or am I doing something wrong in photoshop. This is ilford hp5 400

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 08:05:24 No.2914484 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914413
look at the film itself carefully, are there water spots? they can look a lot like that in scans/prints.

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Wed 31 Aug 2016 09:49:44 No.2914505 Report

Quoted By: >>2914570 >>2914571 >>2914600 >>2914694 >>2916516

Look what Lomography just announced as a Kickstarter project:

https://www.lomography.com

>Still no manual controls
>Still no fast aperture lens
>Still uses those cheesy conversion lenses and flash gels
>You were actually excited for this announcement, only to be unsurprisingly let down

If somebody could just put out a Instax camera that takes m39 mount lenses that would be super fucking de duper

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 09:56:57 No.2914511 Report

Quoted By: >>2914527 >>2914548 >>2914566 >>2914668

Thoughts on post-processing in lightroom/photoshop with film?
I've always been of the belief that you shouldn't edit the colours because that's that particular films character, and with too much post processing you may as well use digital.
Sometimes the highlights/shadows need to be evened out but even then I feel reluctant, it's usually not the films fault you didn't expose correctly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 10:33:13 No.2914527 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914511
I used to think like that, but I've realized that just because it was shot in an analog medium, it doesn't mean I shouldn't mess with it once digitized. For me I've embraced digital post processing as part of my film workflow.

I shoot it analog, then digitize it, process the digital file, then spit it back out as analog (the print).

When it comes to color negatives, the "purity" of film's character makes even less sense to me, since there's no way around fucking with the negative to get a positive image (inverting+color correction). So you're definitely adding your touch to it in some way and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We have the tools people back then didn't have, it's cool to combine digital and analog.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:12:51 No.2914548 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914511
I scan in flat and adjust levels as necessary, and add a bit of sharpening. Generally I find with film you don't need to post process too much. With black and white in lightroom too for whatever reason I've found the files very inflexible compared to digital. What might need +30 from a digital RAW will only tolerate +5 on a film scan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:28:51 No.2914558 Report

Quoted By: >>2916933

So how big is the fuji 690 actually? I want to get myself a medium format camera. I've had a Mamiya RB67 before. It was a bit on the heavy side.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:35:38 No.2914566 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914511
Film needs to be modified. Even doing 100% analog prints you have to add your own touches to get rid of the orange cast and dial in the colors to your liking.

Not editing your film shots due to the "inherent qualities of the film" is baseless way of thinking.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:49:39 No.2914570 Report

Quoted By: >>2914755

>>2914505
That's not bad desu, still I don't think I'd buy it. More Instax cameras is still good tho, maybe we'll be seeing Instax Wide backs and other stuff since it seems to only be growing in popularity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 12:50:11 No.2914571 Report

Quoted By: >>2914694 >>2914755

>>2914505
You realise the image circle on 35mm lenses won't be enough for even instax mini right?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160813_101750.jpg, 353KiB, 1672x1188

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:12:39 No.2914575 Report

Quoted By:

shot some old velvia, some of it turned out nice (Minolta x700)

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:54:51 No.2914586 Report

Quoted By: >>2914601

How do I get my film shots into lightroom while maintaining quality and detail? Am I doomed to spend big bucks on a good scanner and just scan the prints into LR?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 13:58:04 No.2914590 Report

Quoted By: >>2914679

>>2914456
>f1.8
May want to at least stop down your lens desu

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:17:42 No.2914596 Report

Quoted By: >>2915237

Which of these two would be the best option for landscape photo? Fuji GS645S or a Fuji GW690?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:21:28 No.2914599 Report

Quoted By: >>2914627

>>2914294
lomography deserves credit for being the only company trying to keep film cool and relevant. that being said all of their cameras are over priced. go to the thrift store and you'll find a dozen working cameras under 5 bucks. or you can get a holga online for 30ish. they'll all take great pictures. a 110 camera or a polaroid will get you the most hipsterish results

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:21:49 No.2914600 Report

Quoted By: >>2914755

>>2914505
>being excited for a lomo announcement
kys tbqh

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:22:55 No.2914601 Report

Quoted By: >>2914610

>>2914586
Surplkus hubble telescope lens on a macro extension tube.

Nah, just DSLR scan if you're a poorfag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:23:40 No.2914602 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914360
if its broken it will say so in the notes. "as is" could mean beat up but functional.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:27:52 No.2914610 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914601
I think I have a couple hubbles at my dads house.

Cheers nigga, ill study up on it

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 14:50:00 No.2914627 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914599
>the only company trying to keep film cool and relevant.

LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 15:48:51 No.2914668 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914511

No man. Post processing and manipulation has been a thing from the start. Every iconic photograph has been graded - it is an important part of photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 15:57:17 No.2914679 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914590
oh fuck I forgot about that. Ill try that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 16:15:25 No.2914688 Report

Quoted By: >>2915239

>>2914134
Yo dog... that Brownie is fucked up. All peeled n shit...

I got like 10 of those in pristine condish, nigga. Dem shits are historical artifacts, gotta keep dat shit nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 16:26:24 No.2914694 Report

Quoted By: >>2914755

>>2914505
>>2914571
this. instax mini is roughly 6x4.5. I've always thought about converting a fuji ga645zi to have an instax back, but it seems too expensive and risky to do.

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9

Tipsy R !!5FX8uX0tFQ9 Wed 31 Aug 2016 18:40:04 No.2914755 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914570
It just feels like there isn't much of a significant difference across existing models that would appeal to more serious photographers. The TL-70 is nice and all but I think I'll pass on beautiful bokeh stars.

>>2914600
:*[

>>2914571
>>2914694
Yeah, would look like shit now that it gets pointed out. One could imagine how nice that would be though.

And I'd say do it if you knew for a fact you could. Not worth rip'ing a $350 camera unless it can be done successfully or you by chance has extra parts. Still a cool idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 20:04:28 No.2914807 Report

Quoted By: >>2914809

So I just bought a Fuji GW690II. What am I in for?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 20:05:47 No.2914809 Report

Quoted By: >>2914814

>>2914807
medium format

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 20:09:17 No.2914814 Report

Quoted By: >>2914847

>>2914809
Wow, you're edgy like a katana aren't you, son.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 20:30:10 No.2914829 Report

Quoted By: >>2914837

>>2914142

You transcende to nirvana if you ever ger too se 6x6 velvia projected

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 20:38:36 No.2914837 Report

Quoted By: >>2915241

>>2914829
What happens if you see 8x10 velvia projected?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:06:51 No.2914847 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914814
Just as edgy as you asking stupid questions. So, you bought a new camera, maybe you should have asked before buying it or you did your research and just want some attention by mentioning you bought it. Either way you're a stupid faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 36230031-01.jpg, 625KiB, 995x1502

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:20:54 No.2914852 Report

Quoted By: >>2914854

So I finally decided to get a camera and dive into photography, film to specific. Anyways, posting the few pics that I felt were decent enough and would like some feedback

The B&W ones are Ilford hp5 400

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_020546.jpg, 451KiB, 1024x678

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:22:02 No.2914854 Report

Quoted By: >>2914855

>>2914852

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_141339.jpg, 867KiB, 800x1207

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:23:25 No.2914855 Report

Quoted By: >>2914856

>>2914854

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_142305.jpg, 674KiB, 1024x678

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:25:24 No.2914856 Report

Quoted By: >>2914858

>>2914855
Last B&W, moving on to Portra 400

This one would have been better in color

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_020653.jpg, 659KiB, 800x1207

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:27:43 No.2914858 Report

Quoted By: >>2914860

>>2914856

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_020432-01.jpg, 330KiB, 796x1200

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:29:15 No.2914860 Report

Quoted By: >>2914861

>>2914858

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20160831_141311.jpg, 657KiB, 800x1206

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 21:31:52 No.2914861 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914860

I feel like I was able to frame a lot of the pics pretty well, but was just missing an interesting subject. Anyways, I think I'll end here, don't want to clutter up the thread.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 23:41:31 No.2914898 Report

Quoted By:

Hey /film/ I was wondering if you could give me some help. I got done shooting my third roll about 15 minutes ago (arista edu 400 x 36). Camera is an Olympus OM-1 that my dad had in storage. In my excitement after my last shot I started winding up the film, forgetting to hit the release button. I realized something was wrong when there was no resistance as I wound. Not wanting to fuck up the film, I waited until I got home to check what was going on. I popped open the back in a pitch-black closet and saw the film hadn't been wound. I'll spare you the play by play, but basically now I have what seems to be half of my roll returned to the canister, and the other half is on the reel with a torn frame in the middle. How do I salvage this? Just pull it off and throw it in a canister (in the dark), then develop each part of the roll on a different reel in my tank? Thanks for the help as I'm a noob to film and photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 31 Aug 2016 23:45:40 No.2914901 Report

Quoted By: >>2915054 >>2915327

Hey /film/ I was wondering if you could give me some help. I got done shooting my third roll about 15 minutes ago (arista edu 400 x 36). Camera is an Olympus OM-1 that my dad had in storage. In my excitement after my last shot I started winding up the film, forgetting to hit the release button. I realized something was wrong when there was no resistance as I wound. Not wanting to fuck up the film, I waited until I got home to check what was going on. I popped open the back in a pitch-black closet and felt the edges to see the film hadn't been wound. I'll spare you the play by play, but basically now I have what seems to be half of my roll returned to the canister, and the other half is on the reel with a torn frame in the middle. How do I salvage this? Just pull it off and throw it in a canister (in the dark), then develop each part of the roll on a different reel in my tank? Thanks for the help as I'm a noob to film and photography

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 04:16:14 No.2915054 Report

Quoted By: >>2915327 >>2915442

>>2914901
easiest way to do it is put each half on a seperate reel and develop them. if you have the two reels in the tank at once make sure you put enough chemistry in the tank so that both are covered.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 09:45:38 No.2915178 Report

Quoted By: >>2915183 >>2915206 >>2915208

Found a fucking great deal on an a Pentax 6x7 MU with the wood handle and a wide & portrait lens. Gonna go pick it up Saturday.

Cant wait to get the 105mm lens as well. Cant express how exited I am to finally get one at a good price. and a perfect condition one at that.

Im trying to sell a hassy 500cm with the standard lens and accessories right now for $800 and having trouble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 10:17:39 No.2915183 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915178
Hassy prices have been slowly falling since 2012ish from what I've seen. Back then similar setups were running $1100. Be patient, $800 is a reasonable price. How long have you had it on the market?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 11:19:24 No.2915206 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915178
Damn, jelly. Still looking for one myself, hope I can find a beater for a good price. Now that I dev myself the extra price per frame of MF is pretty negligible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 11:21:47 No.2915208 Report

Quoted By: >>2915247

>>2915178
How much do the go for? I had one local with the wooden grip, 3 lenses, and some extension tubes(?) and/or teleconverters for $650. Passed on it though cause I don't need more gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 12:39:28 No.2915237 Report

Quoted By: >>2915253 >>2915258

>>2914596
>Fuji GS645S
If you want to take portrait orientation landscapes with less than half the resolution and need a meter like a little bitch, then go with that, sure.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO BrownieOrtho-08.jpg, 886KiB, 1500x2137

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 12:42:16 No.2915239 Report

Quoted By: >>2915643

>>2914688
In my country they shoot people for using ebonics.
The peeling Brownie works fine, quit your bitching.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 12:44:00 No.2915241 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914837
Well you don't see shit, unless you're projecting it inst an entirely darkened room using a dying sun as your light source

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:05:44 No.2915247 Report

Quoted By: >>2915254

>>2915208
>Passed on it though cause I don't need more gear
This is a classic cuck move.
Buy everything you that want and can secure the credit required to purchase.
Do you even know how capitalist societies function??!!!?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:27:09 No.2915253 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915237
I got the GW690 II as it seemed to be a better option. Gonna stock up on some Velvia 50, Ektar and Portra 160.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:30:12 No.2915254 Report

Quoted By: >>2915271

>>2915247
Didn't really want it, was kinda just an "oh cool, seems like a decent price" and moved on. Money wasnt an issue at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:34:17 No.2915255 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914411
I kinda like the way the spots look on this one lmao.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:39:18 No.2915258 Report

Quoted By: >>2915262 >>2915265

>>2915237
>less than half the resolution
yeah okay m8 nice b8

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 13:56:20 No.2915262 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915258
what? it's exactly half the resolution

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 14:06:40 No.2915265 Report

Quoted By: >>2915270

>>2915258
>using resolution as a determining factor between 6x4.5 and 6x9 when you know damn well no prints larger than 16" will probably ever be made

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 14:19:18 No.2915270 Report

Quoted By: >>2915332

>>2915265
They are pretty much the same cost and you could always crop to 6x4.5 if you want to. 6x9 is arguably better in that regard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 14:26:30 No.2915271 Report

Quoted By: >>2915603

>>2915254
>"oh cool, seems like a decent price" and moved on

the mindset of a cuck.

you dont "oh cool, its cheap. cya" a Pentax 67. you just grab that japanese goddess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 14:43:20 No.2915277 Report

Quoted By: >>2915287

What film is better: Kodak ColorPlus 200, or Kodak UltraMax 400?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 14:56:48 No.2915287 Report

Quoted By: >>2915397

>>2915277

both succ cock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 15:23:17 No.2915303 Report

Quoted By:

ummm... i think i dun fucked up guys
so i read online that if you're not developing right away you should store your negatives in a cooler, so i did for about a month and i've just got them developed and all of the scans have this orange/brown tint to them, negs have a purple on them too so it's not the scaner...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 16:08:51 No.2915327 Report

Quoted By: >>2915442

>>2914901
I agree with >>2915054
in a changing bag get both bits of film and put them on separate reels, making sure to double your chemistry so both bits get covered. Good luck with it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 16:15:52 No.2915332 Report

Quoted By: >>2915341

>>2915270
>They are pretty much the same cost
not when you factor in film, 6x9 takes half the amount of shots as 6x4.5, so you're paying twice as much for the same amount

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 16:25:43 No.2915341 Report

Quoted By: >>2915605

>>2915332
Quality>Quantity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 17:17:07 No.2915357 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914252

All those photos would be better in color.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 17:33:51 No.2915363 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914410
>>2914411
>>2914413

That's just dust. Wash the negatives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 18:29:06 No.2915397 Report

Quoted By: >>2915414

>>2915287
is Vista Plus 200 any better?
Am poorfag

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 18:47:15 No.2915409 Report

Quoted By: >>2915414

People who have worked with Velvia, do you find that Velvia scans are typically less sharp than black and white scans? Is this a thing or have i just fucked up

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 18:50:00 No.2915414 Report

Quoted By: >>2915437

>>2915397

vista is kinda alright.

>poorfag

man up. faggot.

>>2915409

maybe the b&w scans are coarser looking and then, apparently, sharper? velvia being virtually grainless and low iso slide is as sharp as your best lens stopped down aka. pretty fucking sharp.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fomatest1.jpg, 101KiB, 1320x813

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 19:13:55 No.2915426 Report

Quoted By:

Here is a snap I made ages ago. Recenty got around to scan it.

Made with Fomapan stock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 19:48:51 No.2915437 Report

Quoted By: >>2915623

>>2915414
I'm 18 in a 2nd world country.
You man up, your life is on easy mode.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 19:57:11 No.2915442 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915054
>>2915327
Thanks, that's what I'll do. I was a bit nervous when I made the post because this is the first roll I'll be developing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 23:38:58 No.2915595 Report

Quoted By: >>2915598

5 rolls of 120 fuji neo pan acros for 30 USD a good deal or should i keep looking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 01 Sep 2016 23:50:55 No.2915598 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915595

keep looking. its store price, no way a "deal".

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:14:25 No.2915603 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915271
Is that price cheap? I figured it was a fair price but not a deal or anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:18:09 No.2915605 Report

Quoted By: >>2915606 >>2915607

>>2915341
But the quality difference doesn't matter because you won't ever make prints big enough to render 6x4.5 insufficient. If you only outputs are 1200px web snapshits and the occasional 8x10 printed off your inkjet your a dumbass for thinking he higher resolution from a larger negative will ever come into play.

Paying 2x per frame is a hefty increase in overall cost...especially if you aren't developing yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:28:35 No.2915606 Report

Quoted By: >>2915608

>>2915605
Projecting strongly here

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:30:55 No.2915607 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915605

youre some special sort of retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:32:19 No.2915608 Report

Quoted By: >>2915609

>>2915606
Never seen anyone other than a select few talk about printing bigger than A4 on here. And those people know enough about their needs to not need to ask whether they should go for one format or the other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 00:38:41 No.2915609 Report

Quoted By: >>2915658

>>2915608
I never print smaller than 16x20, but thanks for you projection my friend :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 01:05:38 No.2915623 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915437
>yuropoor detected
Just emigrate to Britain!
>oh, wait...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Adolf-Hitler.jpg, 43KiB, 550x366

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 01:46:52 No.2915643 Report

Quoted By: >>2915661

>>2915239
>In my country they shoot people for using ebonics.

Good luck with that...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 02:21:25 No.2915658 Report

Quoted By: >>2915662

>>2915609
Are you the one asking about 6x4.5 vs 6x9? If so, and you know you never print smaller than 16x20, you're quite daft.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 02:34:20 No.2915661 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915643

Germans are good at making lenses but shit at focusing.. Hitler is so soft it makes fags look like the ubermensch,

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 02:35:47 No.2915662 Report

Quoted By: >>2915664

>>2915658
I wasn't even asking about the format to begin with. I was asking about camera specifics. I honestly don't care. I have access to a darkroom where I can do RA4 prints if I want to. So going with 6x9 makes more sense, but the fuji gs645s looked nice. Too bad it has portait orientation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 02:40:01 No.2915664 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915662
Ah, in the daft one then. Apologies.

I don't really understand the portrait orientation either. Would make sense if it was intended to be a studio camera...but I don't think it was. There's a Bronica RF that has portrait orientation too.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img-1.jpg, 298KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 08:30:59 No.2915791 Report

Quoted By: >>2915794

Recently developed this Tri-x in D-76. Turned out pretty nice.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO img-2.jpg, 301KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 08:40:47 No.2915794 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915791
Another one. I'm not satisfied with this one, the frame feels cluttered and has a lot of negative space. A friend said he liked it though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 10:36:11 No.2915810 Report

Quoted By: >>2915814

I use 200 ISO film, but it is kind of difficult to shoot at low light. Is it a good idea to buy 400 or even faster 35mm film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 10:40:52 No.2915814 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915810
Depends on the light you're working with. A 400 film only gives you one stop more. If this is enough, then yes, go get some 400 film. Otherwise you might want to consider using a flash.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pitkospuut.jpg, 239KiB, 717x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 17:51:25 No.2915949 Report

Quoted By: >>2915969

Zuiko 50/1.8 + Ilford Pan 400 in Rodinal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lehtiä.jpg, 295KiB, 1000x668

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 17:55:56 No.2915951 Report

Quoted By: >>2915969

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO joo.jpg, 305KiB, 1000x668

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:02:29 No.2915956 Report

Quoted By: >>2915969

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa.jpg, 163KiB, 1000x670

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:11:05 No.2915960 Report

Quoted By: >>2915969

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa2.jpg, 206KiB, 1000x763

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:16:05 No.2915963 Report

Quoted By: >>2915969

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa3.jpg, 147KiB, 669x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:19:29 No.2915967 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:26:00 No.2915969 Report

Quoted By: >>2915977

>>2915949
Rodinal on 400 speed film, _and_ sharpness slider maxed out? It's doing bad things to both the walkin' logs and the vegetation around it. Also, get a yellow or yellow-green filter to brighten the latter up a bit; I can hardly tell there's a fir in the frame.

Nice light, too bad about the processing. Try a slower film, or a T-grain film, the next time; 400 speed cubic usually doesn't do well on grass, firs and wood.

>>2915951
Too much stuff in one frame. Rear root is out of focus; use a tripod and a smaller aperture for stationary subjects like this. I'd refine this down to just one of those roots (the lower gaggle most likely) and try out all sorts of different angles and comps.

>>2915956
Too much empty space around the roots. Trees are cut off. Left tree is out of focus. I had no idea Zuiko 50mm f/1.8s had a bit of a swirl in their bork; mine doesn't.

>>2915960
Again, too much empty space on the upper left.

>>2915963
Good subject, poorly executed.

At least the scans are good: I can see loads of grain even at 1000px.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa4.jpg, 221KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:28:14 No.2915971 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:32:12 No.2915977 Report

Quoted By:

>>2915969

Using HP Photosmart S20 from '99.

Surprisingly sharp scanner for the time.

And yes Pan 400 is very grainy with Rodinal.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa5.jpg, 156KiB, 1000x738

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:39:02 No.2915979 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa6.jpg, 218KiB, 1000x723

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:41:25 No.2915982 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kissa7.jpg, 242KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 18:43:40 No.2915983 Report

Quoted By: >>2916327

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bus.jpg, 132KiB, 1000x665

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 19:17:22 No.2916006 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO hiekka.jpg, 251KiB, 1000x713

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 19:50:39 No.2916024 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO bus2.jpg, 132KiB, 1000x663

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 19:53:16 No.2916026 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO paivi.jpg, 317KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Fri 02 Sep 2016 20:27:31 No.2916052 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 2MiB, 3264x2448

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 10:46:46 No.2916323 Report

Quoted By: >>2916327 >>2916344 >>2916417

Dunno if this is the place fuck it.

Someone gave me an old F90x camera the other day. Thing's a tank on its own, then factor in the MB-10 it's massive.(he can't find the original battery holder so stuck on)

Anyways, camera is fully functional- metering, af, drive. However it was stored in a garage for god knows how long, and there appears to have been little ventilation. So it has a harsh musty smell that transfers to my clothes, hands, and the air a foot around. Likely mold, but when I see a few screws outside rusting, makes me wonder the condition inside.

Know any good camera cleaning services? None in my area, and I have no experience with those online "send us your camera" ones. Good camera, and I don't care if I have to spend $$$ on it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Portra-001.jpg, 236KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 10:49:10 No.2916324 Report

Quoted By: >>2916356

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Portra-002.jpg, 268KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 10:50:13 No.2916325 Report

Quoted By: >>2916356

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 10:54:13 No.2916327 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916323
Probably not worth it. You can buy that exact camera with motordrive for $69BIN on ebay.

>>2914408
NIce looking shot!

>>2915983
Rad!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 11:29:20 No.2916344 Report

Quoted By: >>2916473 >>2916480

>>2916323
You sound dumb.
USING the fucking thing is the best way to get rid of a "musty smell" you moron.
Paying some chink $100 to go over your perfectly functional black plastic camera with a toothbrush for 10 minutes is pants-on-head retarded.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Portra-007.jpg, 123KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 11:52:29 No.2916356 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916324
>>2916325
I seriously fucked up scanning the negatives. Scanning the prints is easier and looks a lot better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:09:24 No.2916417 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916323
If you just need rid of the smell put it in a bag with a bowl with f vinegar and leave it for a day or two

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO scantest.jpg, 161KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:37:04 No.2916433 Report

Quoted By: >>2916436 >>2916440 >>2916448

This is definitely going to be a stupid question but:

I have a printer-scanner with a resolution of 1200DPI.
Would investing into a standalone flatbed (ie v700) scanner be any different than the results I would get?
Pic is the scan I tried and it quite looks liek shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:39:28 No.2916436 Report

Quoted By: >>2916442

>>2916433
Yes they will be much better. Film scanners backlight the film while scanning. That said their are better 35mm dedicated scanners than the v700 for similar prices.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:41:08 No.2916440 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916433
>v700

yes, go for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:42:55 No.2916442 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916436
Is the only reason backlighting? Also which would you recommend?
I saw a used v600 for 60€ and started to wonder

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 14:46:00 No.2916448 Report

Quoted By: >>2916456

>>2916433
Use a dedicated film scanner like a plustek for 35mm. Flatbeds are a compromise with inferior quality, you can get away with using one for medium or large format because the film has enough resolution to make up for the shit scanner but with 35mm you want a good scanner so that you can get out as much as you can from the film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 15:00:48 No.2916456 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916448
how much DPI should I get to look for correct results?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 15:36:36 No.2916473 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916344
And you don't?
Moisture, fungus, and lint if the mount cover isn't on will fuck up the ribbon connections and some electronics over time if poorly stored, which looks the case. That as well as the lube for the shutter and mirror.
At a minimum if he wants to keep the camera, rather than buy a better one for less, he should get that CLA'd.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 15:43:09 No.2916480 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916344
And you don't?
Moisture, fungus, and lint if the mount cover isn't on will fuck up the ribbon connections and some electronics over time if the camera was poorly stored. That as well as the lube for the shutter and mirror.
If he wants to keep it, rather than buy a better one cheaper, he'll need to cla that thing. Overall, it's cheaper to just find a newer camera on ebay.

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:45:25 No.2916515 Report

Quoted By: >>2916579 >>2916997

>>2914408
nice shot anon

what film did you use? i'd say ektar but i have some doubts...

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:47:09 No.2916516 Report

Quoted By: >>2916518

>>2914505
>https://www.lomography.com
can they just release a RZ67 knockoff already? wanna grab something like but new and cheaper ofc.

>RRRREEEEEEEEEE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:52:17 No.2916518 Report

Quoted By: >>2916520

>>2916516
>but new and cheaper
>lomography
>cheaper

Do you know anything about this company anon? Yeah, they may eventually make one, but it'll be 4x the cost of a certified never used, mint condition RZ67

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:53:17 No.2916520 Report

Quoted By: >>2916523

>>2916518
RZ67 go on Ebay rn for around 700 bucks afaik.

I dont think Lomo is that retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:55:22 No.2916523 Report

Quoted By: >>2916527

>>2916520
>retarded
They'd still sell them...what's that one tlr they do a knockoff of that's worse build quality and far more expensive than the original?

And they charge how much for their all plastic pos bodies?

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp Sat 03 Sep 2016 16:57:39 No.2916527 Report

Quoted By: >>2916531

>>2916523
hmmm, youre not wrong

I just find the RZ67 kinda expensive man, especially when they were so popular and got used so much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:04:32 No.2916530 Report

Quoted By: >>2916534

I want to get into photography to see what kind of pictures I can take and then alter them (I.E. burning them, microwaving, etc.) to see what kind of """art""" I can make, is this a good start?
https://www.massdrop.com/buy/impossible-bundle

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:05:34 No.2916531 Report

Quoted By: >>2916532

>>2916527
Yeah, basically all of their products are priced to be premium products.

>find the rz67 kinda expensive
It's an excellent camera with great glass. You can also use it to beat to death muggers. As far as figuring in its popularity goes, recall that medium format digital hasn't been around as long as 35mm (including crops here) and isn't as fully matured ( kind of like there still isn't a "full frame" medium format sensor), so there hasn't been a giant pressure relief valve to drop the value of medium format film bodies like how happened to 35mm SLRs.

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp

rohirim !!bKGRtxf0vcp Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:09:08 No.2916532 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916531
yea, I mean, i find it pricey, but I would gladly drop the cash if I had for a nice mamiya kit.

we just gotta be patient till xmas

lmao

lmao Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:10:20 No.2916534 Report

Quoted By: >>2916541

>>2916530
what do you mean microwaving?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:13:56 No.2916541 Report

Quoted By: >>2916543

>>2916534
>take a picture on the Polaroid
>take film fresh out of Polaroid
>put in microwave to alter color scheme, or whatever would happen
>???
>profit???

lmao

lmao Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:16:16 No.2916543 Report

Quoted By: >>2916547

>>2916541
oh, i have no idea about polaroids.

GL man

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 17:24:53 No.2916547 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916543
Fuqqqq : DDD

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 18:25:18 No.2916579 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916515
read the thread genius, it's expired provia

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 20:10:26 No.2916633 Report

Quoted By: >>2917012

I have a bunch of film shit I've collected during the 2 years I've been shooting. So I've been thinking about it for a while, and decided I'll just sell the stuff I don't use much, with the intention of getting something nicer with the money. Only camera I'm on the fence about is the XA, even though I shoot my Mju I and II way more.

I like compacts and rangefinders, what would you personally get if you had around €300? I know it's not enough for a Leica, but a Contax T2 or a Bessa should fit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_ocy6f5Hz701vte48po1_1280.jpg, 246KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 21:58:43 No.2916675 Report

Quoted By: >>2916698 >>2916710

Some recent snapshits with the wonderful 'Poundland special' Agfa Vista 200.

1/4

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_ocy6meb4yk1vte48po1_r1_1280.jpg, 546KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 22:00:37 No.2916677 Report

Quoted By: >>2916741 >>2916955

How do I get rid of the weird hazing from the top of the photo?

2/4

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_ocy67rkqXK1vte48po1_1280.jpg, 394KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 22:02:15 No.2916678 Report

Quoted By:

Southbank scallies

3/4

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_ocy6rkdgQp1vte48po1_1280.jpg, 377KiB, 960x640

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 22:04:28 No.2916680 Report

Quoted By:

Pleasing tones for £1

4/4

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 22:51:45 No.2916698 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916675
Mate this is great

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 03 Sep 2016 23:45:48 No.2916710 Report

Quoted By: >>2916724 >>2916820

>>2916675
Is that doge wearing a fucking hat?

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 00:33:06 No.2916724 Report

Quoted By: >>2916730 >>2916806 >>2916820

>>2916710

No, it's playing an accordion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 00:45:28 No.2916730 Report

Quoted By: >>2916749 >>2916820

>>2916724
Oh look, here's Ambush never picking a fight, starting an argument, or otherwise being anything but a great, polite, and informative user!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 00:54:24 No.2916741 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916677
keep it, it's cool

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:21:16 No.2916749 Report

Quoted By: >>2916750

>>2916730

>overreacting to stupid joke

Why so mad?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:30:12 No.2916750 Report

Quoted By: >>2916751

>>2916749
Pot, kettle, black.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:31:06 No.2916751 Report

Quoted By: >>2916755

>>2916750

Pot, kettle, black.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:39:09 No.2916755 Report

Quoted By: >>2916757

>>2916751
I'm not the one who shits up threads because someone jokingly corrects you with the word "forest", but sure, there are definitely people here who get your great sense of humor and are so happy to have you here.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:40:45 No.2916757 Report

Quoted By: >>2916760

>>2916755

>somebody
>jokingly

[backpedaling intensifies]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 01:55:11 No.2916760 Report

Quoted By: >>2916762

>>2916757
Yes, everything everyone else says is always serious.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:04:03 No.2916762 Report

Quoted By: >>2916773

>>2916760

>is mad over a wikipedia link

>forever

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:27:30 No.2916773 Report

Quoted By: >>2916776

>>2916762
>thinks I'm mad
>thinks I don't just find pleasure in calling out his hypocrisy

You lie to yourself a lot Ambush. It might be best for you to start facing down all of those demons that cause you to be such an incompetent human.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:35:10 No.2916776 Report

Quoted By: >>2916779

>>2916773

>internet psychoanalysis

True butthurt's final form.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:43:36 No.2916779 Report

Quoted By: >>2916783

>>2916776
D E L U S I O N
E
L
U
S
I
O
N

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:51:21 No.2916783 Report

Quoted By: >>2916785

>>2916779

So incompetent I'm debt free, own my own house on my own land, and just bought another $14,000 lens last month.

I'm laughing at you, Anon.

>inb4 bragging

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:53:23 No.2916785 Report

Quoted By: >>2916786

>>2916783
The incompetence comes from the fact that you seem to think you're the only one who has managed those things.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 04 Sep 2016 02:58:12 No.2916786 Report

Quoted By: >>2916788 >>2916795 >>2916796

>>2916785

1) Never said it (you pulled it out of your ass)
2) That's not incompetence anyway

I'll just leave this discussion now that you've reached the end of your rope, as you invariably do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:01:16 No.2916788 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916786
which lens brother

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:03:37 No.2916795 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916786
if you weren't as stupid and butthurt as he was you wouldn't have kept replying. take the L you fat faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:03:39 No.2916796 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916786
>1) Never said it (you pulled it out of your ass)
You're definitely a failure at reading comprehension.

>2) That's not incompetence anyway
You can (and, in your specific case, are) be a horribly incompetent human being while managing to be financially successful. A staggeringly large number of investment bankers are flat out psychopaths, and they can buy and sell your little piece of worthless land hundreds of thousands of times over with just the interest they earn on their money. That doesn't make them competent at anything other than acquiring stuff. The fact that you equate material possessions with competently being human is further proof of how bad you are at being a human.

>I'll just leave this discussion now that you've reached the end of your rope, as you invariably do.
It's funny how when you start getting really upset, you start claiming victory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:23:24 No.2916806 Report

Quoted By: >>2916811

>>2916724
Fucking hell? You're shitting on the film threads now?

Don't you realize you're fucking cancer and kill whatever fucking threads you show up and be retarded in? It'd be something if you even somewhat funny or helpful, but you're not. Goddamn fuck off you faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:31:44 No.2916811 Report

Quoted By: >>2916821

>>2916806

Not quite sure what you are taking issue with, to be honest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:42:28 No.2916820 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916710
>>2916724

Friendly banter

>>2916730

Hate

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 03:46:06 No.2916821 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916811
Fucking retard bush, showing up with his trip on to make some retarded joke, knowing that someone would come in and respond to him creating an autism critical mass that blows up. He knows it'll happen, but he still insists on bringing that bullshit into other threads.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 09:43:49 No.2916933 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914558
It's a comically big rangefinder but I walk around with it much, much easier than my RB. As far as size of camera vs size of exposure, it's small for making a 6x9 negative. The light curtains in them are pains in the ass, and you're looking at 8 exposures off of a 120 roll. All that being said, I do love mine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 10:47:00 No.2916955 Report

Quoted By: >>2917183

>>2916677

Your lens is shit in backlight.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 8mg2meO.jpg, 605KiB, 561x564

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 12:19:04 No.2916997 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916515
Actually this one was an in-date Velvia 50 roll I developed the night after ruining my roll of Provia, This shot was off a 2008 roll of Astia, my personal favorite film

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 12:32:25 No.2917012 Report

Quoted By:

>>2916633
Bump

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Photo-7.jpg, 906KiB, 1000x1250

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 14:04:36 No.2917049 Report

Quoted By: >>2917207

Has anyone pulled off an emulsion lift with regular photo paper? I can find plenty of info for a polaroid lift, but it seems nobody has tried it on regular paper.
Probably for good reason?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0190222f200c0482b3dbbd9a08785dd8 (...).jpg, 28KiB, 642x480

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 14:59:09 No.2917063 Report

Quoted By: >>2917082 >>2917130

What do you think /p/, is this scratched off properly to IS0 1600? I threw it into a DX encoded camera today (Oly Mju1) without looking thinking it was a regular 400 roll, but I guess I scratched it off at some point and never shot it. It's definitely not been shot before, but is it a good enough scratch job to develop at 1600? Kinda worried about it since the reason I never shot it in the first place was that I'd never messed with DX encoding before.

giannis

giannis Sun 04 Sep 2016 15:20:17 No.2917071 Report

Quoted By:

>>2914158
Think of it like that:

Your slide starts as "black", and getting lighter during the process.
The first developer is what lightens the image, the second developer is what turns it into colour.

Essentially, the silver developed in the first developer is removed later (bleached and fixed out), so the more you develop in the first developer, the less silver is left, upon which the colour image is formed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 15:47:38 No.2917082 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917063

just do it, fagtron.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 148318-6017-2a9Yge8-lovmedia.jpg, 445KiB, 580x792

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 16:32:52 No.2917111 Report

Quoted By: >>2917114 >>2917123

Why is overexposing Portra all the rage these days?

Looks like washed out shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 16:41:59 No.2917114 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917111

its luminous. hides blemishes. bitches love their blemishes hidden.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 17:19:25 No.2917123 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917111
The compressed highlights can look very good, and the washed out pastel tones you get fit some stuff amazingly.

Apparently Fuji 400H is even better but I've never shot it, only 160NS (at least I think it was NS) exposed at 100 in MF and it looked amazing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tri-x-push.jpg, 84KiB, 700x467

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 17:32:58 No.2917130 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917063
> Pic related. Learn to image search and use a camera with manual override. Otherwise, it's fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 19:56:06 No.2917183 Report

Quoted By: >>2917191 >>2917194

>>2916955
Any filters I can use to help? It's a Nikon L35AF so I can get 46mm filters I think.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 20:14:18 No.2917191 Report

Quoted By: >>2917194

>>2917183
do you not know what backlighting is? just don't take pictures of strong light sources if you don't want your lens to flare

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 20:21:33 No.2917194 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917183
>>2917191
That's not flare. It's haze.

Use a UV/Haze filter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 20:27:54 No.2917198 Report

Quoted By: >>2917235 >>2917243 >>2917275

Anyone using a Plustek 7200? Could get one cheap, but reviews are mixed and I'm wondering if the IR dust/scratch removal is good enough to justify paying half the price more. Also wondering if getting a later model like the 8200 or 8200i might be better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 20:41:14 No.2917207 Report

Quoted By: >>2917234

>>2917049
this is unbelievably cool, could you explain how to do it??

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:20:08 No.2917234 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917207
what's so hard about using google?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers176.jpg, 608KiB, 1530x1000

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:21:39 No.2917235 Report

Quoted By: >>2917240 >>2917247

>>2917198
Just lrn 2 dslr scan already plebtron.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:25:51 No.2917240 Report

Quoted By: >>2917281

>>2917235
implying dslr scanning isn't the most pleb way. What's the point of using a dslr to take a photo of a negative when you could use your dslr in the first place?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 28724942542_aebfb6ecce_h.jpg, 636KiB, 1600x1095

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:28:25 No.2917243 Report

Quoted By: >>2917245 >>2917281

>>2917198
I use a 7400, it works pretty well. I only shoot B&W so I couldn't use IR dust removal anyway. Also the newer 8100/8200 models are the exact same hardware as the 7400/7600 just bundled with newer software, but the software is shit and you should ditch it for vuescan anyway.

I think the image quality from the 7200 should be about the same, but it doesn't have an LED lamp like the newer models so it has to warm up when you turn it on. Try to find a 7400 or something newer instead, I got mine used and dirt cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:31:00 No.2917245 Report

Quoted By: >>2917257 >>2917281

>>2917243
many thanks for this advice. Going to look into these. Thought silverfast was ok, any source for vuescan? Tried the test version and think it's overpriced for what it is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:33:03 No.2917247 Report

Quoted By: >>2917281

>>2917235
dslr scanning is a pain in the ass

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:40:58 No.2917257 Report

Quoted By: >>2917262 >>2917270 >>2917289

>>2917245
Just pirate it, it's also a piece of shit but just a bit less shitty than silverfast. No scanner software is good enough to be worth paying money for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 21:45:25 No.2917262 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917257
true, I'm using an epson perfection 3200 right now and epson scan is really bad, especially for color. Scanner seems to be dying and has some dead pixels giving me lines through all scans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:08:31 No.2917270 Report

Quoted By: >>2917273

>>2917257
any reliable source for vuescan? I just downloaded a version + serial and all, activated it - was marked as professional, made a new firewall rule and it still wasn't professional anymore when I started it again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:14:51 No.2917273 Report

Quoted By: >>2917289

>>2917270
Buy it you faggot.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2016-08-24-0010-2.jpg, 224KiB, 1010x452

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:15:31 No.2917275 Report

Quoted By: >>2917277 >>2917281 >>2917289

>>2917198
I have a Plustek 7200

The scanner is not detected by windows 8 or 10. No drivers. So you'd better have a machine with an older operating system, or else you're fucked.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any IR dust/scratch removal option on this shit.

The software it came with is pretty outdated and awful, so I'm using VueScan instead. The difference made by change in software alone is night and day. Totally worth it (pirate if you're really looking to maximize your savings).

The only other scanner I've tried was an Epson v550. I can safely say that it resolves better, but can you even tell when resized for the web or a print? The only real practical advantage of the Plustek over the Epson flatbed is that it's waaay smaller and mine came with its own carrying case, everything fits inside it, very convenient and easy to deploy.

If I were to upgrade, it'd probably be cheaper to just buy a DSLR and macro lens than a new, better scanner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:16:54 No.2917277 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917275
or just dump windows and switch to osx

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers185.jpg, 753KiB, 1495x1000

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:23:35 No.2917281 Report

Quoted By: >>2917286 >>2917289 >>2917305

>>2917247
>>2917240
Dudes, the argument is *completely* settled, we've done this so many times it's not even up for debate any more.
DSLR scanning takes 2 or 3 seconds per frame, and absolutely dominates every other practical method as far as IQ goes.
The only reason not to do it is if you're a moron who can't into macro photography.
>>2917243
oh wow it's garbage!
>>2917245
oh wow, you only wanted your pre-formed opinions validated by a random on the internet?
>>2917275
reason speaks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:27:48 No.2917286 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917281
stfu melon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:28:06 No.2917289 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917273
see >>2917257

>>2917281
Not a good photo to begin with and I'd rather use a DSLR than waste a single frame of film on something like this. The DSLR "scan" result however looks ok for the resolution.

If you read above posts you'd notice that these anons recommended me getting another scanner, not the plustek 7200 I asked about.

>>2917275
Same for my current scanner, had to change some lines in another driver and got it working.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:30:22 No.2917291 Report

Quoted By: >>2917295 >>2917298

Hey I have an old yashica fx-d.
The film advance lever is stuck, like it won't advance film. Any tips?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:33:57 No.2917295 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917291
>just take every picture without advancing the film
>you'll get a white overexposed square
>send it to the moma
>describe the process
>blah blah
>?????
>profit
hipsters and art hoes will love it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:38:02 No.2917298 Report

Quoted By: >>2917307

>>2917291
Best advice for any issue with a film camera with no value such as yours is throw it in the trash, go to your local charity shop and buy a working camera.
But because you've given us no information at all, it's very likely it's not actually broken and you're just a fucking idiot.
Try these:
Rewind the film?
Release the shutter?
Put a battery in it and then release the shutter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:42:59 No.2917305 Report

Quoted By: >>2917320

>>2917281
FWIW I find DSLR scanning to be a PITA.

Gotta set the tripod up, the light table, gotta align the films on the table, film, put on weights/magnets to make sure the film is flat enough, run them through, lift film away, forward, put weights/magnets back on for next frame, repeat, and then stash all that junk away once I'm done.

And if you're doing LF/MF you're not even finished, because you're probably going to stitch up the partial-image frames in PS.

With a scanner, i just plop the film into the machine sitting on my table and let it do the rest. Sure, it spends a great deal more time per frame, but I can wait, because it is much less of a hassle and involves less manual work for _me_.

I still do DSLR scanning, but only because my cheapo LS4000 only eats 35mm negatives. And like said, if you want the quality out of large negatives, it's difficult to beat DSLR macro + stitching. But if I had the spare cash, I'd buy an Imacon in a heartbeat.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:46:34 No.2917307 Report

Quoted By: >>2917310

>>2917298
Wow harsh bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:46:56 No.2917308 Report

Quoted By:

I've used numerous Epsons and a Super Coolscan 9000ED. DSLR scanning blows the Epsons away in IQ and takes a fraction of the time. The 9000ED could give beautiful, massive files but the cost of one of those is out if most people's budgets and it takes a couple of minutes to scan each frame.

If you want to scan 35mm and 120 and have a good quality digital camera capable of macro shooting I recommend using that over buying a flatbed. If you're only scanning 35mm there are some dedicated scanners in the $250-$300 range that I'd recommend as another possible option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:50:33 No.2917310 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917307
It's pretty true. The vast majority of film bodies aren't worth the money or effort to fix.

Anonymous

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

Anonymous Sun 04 Sep 2016 22:57:04 No.2917320 Report

Quoted By: >>2917365

>>2917305
Well I shoot enough volume to justify it on the time to scan basis.
But even then, my reference for "good enough" quality, as in, is it worth it to shoot film, has always been "at fullscreen on a normal screen, is it as good as a digital photo would be?"
I know that almost any film is capable of that quality in 35mm if it's exposed correctly, but absolutely not in any sort of lab scan, and ususally not with a shatbed or any variant thereof.
I'll give the coolscans and imacons their due, they can get to that level. But they're still stupidly expensive, and a basic DSLR surpasses them.
A better DSLR than mine would be a speck in the distance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 00:14:12 No.2917365 Report

Quoted By: >>2917366

>>2917320
if DSLR scanning is so good, why hasn't anyone made a scanner that's just an APS-C sensor and a good macro lens that you can manually adjust and take stitches?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 00:15:07 No.2917366 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917365
because for the amount of money that you could do that, you could just make and sell another drum scanner

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 04:22:28 No.2917488 Report

Quoted By: >>2917519

why would the nips at olympus call the new digital Olympus F exactly like the old one? why not Oly F-D or something? it shits the searches bad with that new crap around.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 05:14:19 No.2917519 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917488

Because Pen F and half frame was obsolete even when it was released

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 05:24:27 No.2917525 Report

Quoted By:

Fuck off dslr scanning shill.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO triedtablet.jpg, 534KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 05:42:07 No.2917528 Report

Quoted By: >>2917529 >>2917550 >>2917562

tried this DSLR scanning thingy. Used a bright tablet on 100% brightness... that didn't work out as a back light alternative.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 05:49:13 No.2917529 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917528
meme'd.

Tipsy R !!ciXydgyXy2X

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 30KiB, 750x402

Tipsy R !!ciXydgyXy2X Mon 05 Sep 2016 06:04:08 No.2917535 Report

Quoted By: >>2917537

Daily reminder to buy your brand new instant automat coming out that's only going to be a lot of money initially but progressively drops by the dollar as the years go on

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 06:11:20 No.2917537 Report

Quoted By: >>2917540

>>2917535

why are trips so useless and retarded?

Tipsy R !!ciXydgyXy2X

Tipsy R !!ciXydgyXy2X Mon 05 Sep 2016 06:16:20 No.2917540 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917537
I don't know anon, people on /b/ always make a big hoot about rolling them so much.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 06:58:51 No.2917550 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917528
You need to put something between the film and the tablet. Something like a sheet of glass from a photoframe should work fine. What you see in this photo are the pixels in the tablet screen

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 07:50:08 No.2917562 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917528
You need an opaque white piece of plastic between the screen and film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 08:00:48 No.2917569 Report

Quoted By: >>2917573

My thread was scanned with an A7 using my smartphone as a backlight.
>>2913975

Gives me ~12mb files after cropping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 08:10:05 No.2917573 Report

Quoted By: >>2917575

>>2917569
even though i like your thread, the scans look superdark and contrasty. was this a fault of the scanning rig? provia is contrasty but not like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 08:16:28 No.2917575 Report

Quoted By: >>2917577

>>2917573
Most of the Provia was shot in less than idea conditions. The slides have pretty blocked up shadows. How do the C41 scans look, in particular the Portra (since the 800Z got pretty grainy)?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 08:26:49 No.2917577 Report

Quoted By: >>2917665 >>2918122

>>2917575
>Portra

you made it look similar to provia, which it isnt. looks very blue, contrasty and saturated, except the horse part, thats the more canonical portra shot, still cold looking. they dont look very clean, as in mushy. see if you can find some of last years rsim's 6x6 portra scans, they look damn sweet, you should go in that direction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 09:24:58 No.2917588 Report

Quoted By:

What are some nice discontinued films that I can buy online?

I mostly shoot medium format.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 09:58:19 No.2917605 Report

Quoted By: >>2917669

Anybody home process E-6? If so, what have been your experiences?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60900016R.jpg, 652KiB, 643x1000

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 10:43:12 No.2917629 Report

Quoted By: >>2917630 >>2917669 >>2917723 >>2917736

Got x-rayed

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60900021R.jpg, 664KiB, 1000x663

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 10:44:26 No.2917630 Report

Quoted By: >>2917631 >>2917723

>>2917629

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60900024R.jpg, 911KiB, 655x1000

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 10:45:58 No.2917631 Report

Quoted By: >>2917632

>>2917630

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60900023R.jpg, 1MiB, 663x1000

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 10:48:10 No.2917632 Report

Quoted By: >>2917633 >>2917736

>>2917631

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 60900018R.jpg, 588KiB, 663x1000

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 10:49:21 No.2917633 Report

Quoted By: >>2917736

>>2917632

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l1600.jpg, 42KiB, 1000x681

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 12:40:50 No.2917660 Report

Quoted By: >>2917669 >>2918825

Some Russian mixes his own Xtol and sells it on ebay for 4 €.

Anyone have experience about it? I love Xtol but don't want to mix 5 litres at a time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 13:05:09 No.2917665 Report

Quoted By: >>2917696

>>2917577
Similar to Objective Provia?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_8450mini.jpg, 188KiB, 550x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 13:12:13 No.2917669 Report

Quoted By: >>2917696

>>2917660
Great idea anon, buy the nondescript white powder in the hand-labeled package from the russian on ebay.
>what could go wrong?

>>2917629
>Got x-rayed
At least they were only snapshits.

>>2917605
It's easy. It works. Pic related. Don't let the developers contact too much oxygen, don't let them get too old, dont get greedy going over the stated processing capacity.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO whatisthis.jpg, 906KiB, 1920x1158

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 14:08:20 No.2917694 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO plsletitgo.jpg, 35KiB, 254x232

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 14:13:08 No.2917696 Report

Quoted By: >>2917924

>>2917665

cucked you hard, didnt i?

>>2917669
that shits badly processed. again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 15:02:07 No.2917723 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917629
>>2917630
holy shiiiit. id be so mad. did you fight or just passed them thinking nothing would happen? what country was this?

i was forced to pass my rolls through the x-rays in argentina, but, since it was argentina the machine most likely wasnt even functioning, so the rolls came out just fine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0115.jpg, 182KiB, 1000x750

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 15:29:27 No.2917736 Report

Quoted By: >>2917738 >>2918085

>>2917629
>>2917632
>>2917633

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 15:37:43 No.2917738 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917736
>Important:
>The content is HIGH ISO photographic film.
> X-RAY should be avoided!!!

That means nothing to 90%. And newer workers don't even know what half of that message even means.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 16:32:50 No.2917765 Report

Quoted By:

Has anyone shot the Adox CMS 20 film? And used the Adox developer? Considering on buying a kit, but if its too much of a hassle fuck it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:24:14 No.2917913 Report

Quoted By: >>2917918

Does anybody here do wet scanning for their flatbeds or is everybody doing the cam scanning thing?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:29:32 No.2917918 Report

Quoted By: >>2917936 >>2918068

>>2917913
>everybody
just two or three shills

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO haul.jpg, 434KiB, 1155x2048

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:34:01 No.2917922 Report

Quoted By:

Got me a bunch of expired stuff from a local shop. Now I know that B&W is generally alright and color negatives age like milk, but what about slide film? Never dealt with expired reversal films before, the 120 ones expired in 2000 and the Elite Chrome in 2011. Are they completely memefied by now or worth giving a try?

Also what the hell is that Wizen X-Pro 400? Some obscure rebrand of Fuji/Kodak? Never seen it before.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia30neg.jpg, 319KiB, 531x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:36:34 No.2917924 Report

Quoted By: >>2917943

>>2917696
>correct colour is a social construct
You need to unburden yourself from these dogmatic concepts of what a photo should look like if you want to start producing worthwhile art, that speaks about yourself rather than about your camera gear.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers040.jpg, 304KiB, 1161x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:48:19 No.2917936 Report

Quoted By: >>2917987

>>2917918
>just two or three shills
Just the two or three shills who happen to be the only people posting quality film photos on a regular basis?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 19:54:21 No.2917943 Report

Quoted By: >>2917978

>>2917924
>he thinks he can lecture me on art

get that soccer mom art out of my face, you retard.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO T70Superia02.jpg, 153KiB, 569x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:31:36 No.2917978 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917943
>he said, whilst posting photos
oh wait...

With this piece, I wanted to examine the intersection of artifice and decay, the point at which our instinctive preference for the warmth and tactility of things that are natural and organic is subsumed under the crushing, durable logic of that which is synthetic, as inevitable decomposition reveals the transience of real beauty.
The chosen medium also speaks to this theme, the image was captured using a traditional analogue process involving silver particles suspended in natural gelatine substrates and coupled with organic dyes; however anchored to the cold manmade world through the unrelenting convenience and ubiquity of a digital editing and display process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:36:18 No.2917987 Report

Quoted By: >>2918014

>>2917936
>horribly underexposed snapshot of a boring scene shot on the street
>quality film photo
Great job wasting film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO olyxa.jpg, 5MiB, 3024x3024

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:42:22 No.2918004 Report

Quoted By: >>2918009 >>2918010

>>2914343
>>2914349
>>2914360

It didn't work initially, but after pulling it apart and putting it back together it works great!

I really didn't know what I was doing. The winder refused to wind and the shutter wouldn't fire. Anyways, ran a test roll of tri-x 400 and everything exposed properly. The lens on this is pretty nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:45:13 No.2918009 Report

Quoted By: >>2918012

>>2918004
What happened to the shutter button? Did they send it missing the button?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO XA-Test002.jpg, 393KiB, 664x1018

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:47:36 No.2918010 Report

Quoted By: >>2918059

>>2918004
Here's one of the first snapshits out of the thing to test if everything was working. Developed in xtol. Scanned with an Epson V500. I have a roll of Ektar 100 in it right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:48:39 No.2918012 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918009
Yea the camera was in decent shape. The button appears to have been held on by some light adhesive glue in case you need to take it off to get to the screws underneath. I'm trying to figure out what kind of glue I should use.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_2071.jpg, 205KiB, 911x600

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:51:44 No.2918014 Report

Quoted By: >>2918019 >>2918033 >>2918045

>>2917987
>underexposed
lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 20:56:47 No.2918019 Report

Quoted By: >>2918038

>>2918014
WHAT A CUNNING RUSE!!!!
Pls stop posting terrible photos

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:07:43 No.2918033 Report

Quoted By: >>2918038

>>2918014
>lmao
lmao at your shit processing then. Fell for the high contrast bw meme son?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers052.jpg, 165KiB, 550x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:10:44 No.2918038 Report

Quoted By: >>2918042 >>2918045

>>2918033
>>2918019
pls keep posting your film photos, I am enjoying them!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:15:31 No.2918042 Report

Quoted By: >>2918053

>>2918038
I post my photos on here all the time, but am on my phone at the moment.
Pls don't turn into isi, thinking that posting any photo, however trash it may be, invalidates any criticism of your photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:17:50 No.2918045 Report

Quoted By: >>2918068

>>2918038
I already posted my shots here, but why do you need to see my photos? So you feel less bad for someone calling yours snapshits and badly processed? That discussion is overdone.
You crushed the shadows to a level you could have shot all these with any digital camera right away and lost all the tonality that bw film has to offer. Moreover your composition on >>2918014 adds to the snapshot character and getting closer to your subject would certainly have improved the general composition while keeping all leading lines.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers245.jpg, 244KiB, 1196x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:25:41 No.2918053 Report

Quoted By: >>2918055 >>2918057

>>2918042
>I post my photos on here all the time, but am on my phone at the moment
>but I can't link to any in all 300 posts in this thread, or the 300 posts in the other fgt which is still on the board
And nor should you, that would just be stooping to my level.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:28:09 No.2918055 Report

Quoted By: >>2918068

>>2918053
This one is better. Do you use dodge & burn? Looks like you just turned the contrast slider to max.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:29:57 No.2918057 Report

Quoted By: >>2918068

>>2918053
You may think you're proving a point or winning something, but you're not.
Your scans are decent, something I never contested, but your photographic output does not justify your smugness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:35:10 No.2918059 Report

Quoted By: >>2918072

>>2918010
My XA's lens is really soft (even stopped down, and I've checked that the RF calibration is correct), yours looks a ton better.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Slobruthers231.jpg, 175KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:44:49 No.2918068 Report

Quoted By: >>2918071 >>2918072 >>2918081

>>2918057
>>2918055
>>2918045
At this point I'm not even sure how many butts I'm hurting atm, I'm just getting to the bump limit
These are all from the most recent batch of scanning I did, 90% of which was a wedding, and I'm just throwing contrast and sharpening at them so I can post them and fuel your sadness.
The selection criteria is "doesn't have my friends in them".
And yet despite your bleating there are more of them, they're better scanned and processed, and they're better photos than I'm sure your combined selves have contributed in recent memory.
This all started with >>2917918
>just two or three shills
We're not shills, we're dedicated photographers, and this is why we have something to show and you don't, and why our output dominates the conversation. Complaining about it doesn't put any runs on the board for shatbedders.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:50:26 No.2918071 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918068
My butt is unhurt, but you seem to become upset.

>and they're better photos than I'm sure your combined selves have contributed in recent memory
Keep telling that to yourself if it makes you feel better.

>We're
>we're
>we
>our
Wonder what the others say about you speaking for them while posting well done scans of bad snapshots destroyed by even worse processing.

Without trying to hurt your feelings, I strongly suggest you stop using the contrast slider and learn to dodge and burn.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:51:57 No.2918072 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918059
Mine's soft too, I think they're very prone to knocks. My mate's XA2 didn't impress him much either.

>>2918068
Without photo posters this board would just be people telling each other to kill themselves over minor differences in opinion. Keep on it mate, enjoyed your photos so far.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 0015_7A.jpg, 553KiB, 1000x663

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:54:54 No.2918077 Report

Quoted By: >>2918091

[Minolta Hi-Matic 7s w/Fujicolor X-Tra 400]

I got my scans from the lab but they just gave me some measly 6MP scan. Been playing with a DSLR scan rig with a A57 and a 90mm Macro, kinda annoying with the set up so if anyone that has the V550, your opinions on it? or even any of the dedicated film scanners?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:56:51 No.2918081 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918068
My butt's fine.
I'm also not one of the flatbed shills, I'd gladly DSLR scan if I had the equipment and patience, I just didn't like your attitude.
Keep on posting shit and claim you have good shots you don't want to share tho, that shit's hilarious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 21:58:45 No.2918085 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917736
Wait, did you put your film in your checked luggage?

If so, 100% your fault dumbass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:04:04 No.2918090 Report

Quoted By: >>2918093

>tfw recently realized my Mju II leaks light after getting a roll of slides back, went through some old rolls and even the first rolls I shot with it have leaks on the same spot

Just finished the roll I had in it and tried to search for the leak spot, but I just can't find any. Oh well, the leak only gets to the sprocket holes so it isn't a dealbreaker (and is why I hadn't noticed it until now), there's only a couple of shots in very bright light in which it managed to creep into the frame. Still annoying because I love that camera :(

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:09:27 No.2918091 Report

Quoted By: >>2918100 >>2918133

>>2918077
I have a V500 and bought a Nikon D800 and built a scanning rig using an enlarger base. I had really high hopes, but even with the 55mm macro Nikkor I had on it and using an enlarger head flipped upside down, the scanning process was so painful and the scans themselves weren't great. I sold off my D800 and am back to using the V500.

I'd say for the price and ease, the flatbeds are adequate. I mean how often are you really going to print 20"+ prints? Just get those special shots done at a lab and use the V500 for 95% of everything else you shoot for web and 8x10's or smaller.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:10:55 No.2918093 Report

Quoted By: >>2918126

>>2918090
>leak only gets to the sprocket holes
What's the problem then?
Also, post mju slides, don't think I've ever seen those.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF0717.jpg, 293KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:15:30 No.2918100 Report

Quoted By: >>2918102

>>2918091
thanks for the reply anon, I can get access to a Noritsu Scanner through work so getting good scans for 20'+ prints wont be too hard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:17:46 No.2918102 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918100
Yea then getting a V500 is a no brainer if you shoot more than 35mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:24:31 No.2918111 Report

Quoted By:

I don't understand what you people are doing when claiming setting up and scanning with a DSLR is a tedious.

>Get backlight source
>Lay opaque white plastic on top
>Lay film on top and figure out way to hold it flat
>Set up camera and focus once

At that point all you do is shoot a frame and move the film to the next frame. I can do a roll of 120 in less than 5 minutes with superior results to a V600. Dust also seems to be WAY less of an issue when DSLR scanning vs using a scanner. I think closing/opening the scanner lid stirs up dust or something because I rarely need to do more than a 6 or so healing brush stamps on a DSLR scan. I could take 5 minutes editing out dust on my flatbed scans, despite using a blower between scans.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 28183069441_3253c0f73d_b.jpg, 512KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:30:05 No.2918122 Report

Quoted By: >>2918157

>>2917577
I could definitely work on them in post a bit more. Edited them on the colder side cause I've been digging the cold vibes lately.

Disregarding my editing preferences in terms of color temp, these scans are much, much sharper than anything I got with an Epson scanner...and I even dropped $100 on one of those betterscanning holders back when I had a V600.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:33:35 No.2918126 Report

Quoted By: >>2918131 >>2918157

>>2918093
One shot I really liked from the roll of slides was the one with the worst leaks so far.

Might post some scans later when I figure out my setup, just recently got a macro lens but I haven't had time to do any testing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:34:55 No.2918131 Report

Quoted By: >>2918157

>>2918126
I'll be here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:36:33 No.2918133 Report

Quoted By: >>2918157

>>2918091
>using an enlarger base
There's your problem fucktard.
Use a diffused flash, or an LED array, or even a goddamned iPad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Sep 2016 22:54:30 No.2918157 Report

Quoted By:

>>2918122
>>2918126
>>2918131
>>2918133
New thread >>>>>2918139

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screen Shot 2016-09-06 at 12.35. (...).png, 2MiB, 1244x902

Anonymous Tue 06 Sep 2016 02:36:51 No.2918271 Report

Quoted By:

Is anyone selling a black Konica C35/flashmatic, automatic, etc...

looking for one even if it's for parts.

(looking on eBay and a few other sites are showing little prospects...)

giannis

giannis Tue 06 Sep 2016 20:07:32 No.2918825 Report

Quoted By:

>>2917660
Real XTol is around 8€.
It's cheap enough to afford the real thing *and* toss any that's left and you can't use.

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/