/p/ - Photography » Thread #3529197

[329 / 107 / ?]

/fgt/ - Film General Thread

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 15:00:55 No.3529197 View View Reply Original Report

summilux edition

old thread: >>3523979
All analog/film photography related questions and general discussion is to take place in this thread.
35mm, 120, medium format, large format, instant, polaroid, instax, C41, E6, B&W, developing, scanning, labs, darkroom etc.
Post photos as often as possible, we want to see that beautiful grainy goodness!

useful links:
http://istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
http://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase

>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, unless you prefer a the planar

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO wow.jpg, 740KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 15:09:13 No.3529199 Report

Quoted By:

>unless you prefer a the planar

bet your photos look like this anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 17:15:44 No.3529240 Report

Quoted By: >>3529313 >>3530377 >>3530398

What are some fun in-camera effects you can do?
I'm trying to think of fun things do do with multi-exposure mode on my camera.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 45869C1-R01-019A.jpg, 904KiB, 1700x1109

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 18:01:49 No.3529257 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 21:08:26 No.3529313 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529240
Shoot all your frames in bulb mode, directly at the fucking sun. It'll look neat

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Image1776.jpg, 1MiB, 2250x1500

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 21:12:10 No.3529315 Report

Quoted By: >>3529329 >>3529368 >>3529463

Man I am blown away by the clarity you get putting unspectacular (Gold 200) film through a camera and lens with modern image quality and features. An image stabilised 24-70 f/2.8 means you can always get the picture you want, without shake somehow creeping in despite shooting at 1/125. Guess I'm selling my zoom compact (Fuji Super Mini DL.) It's really fun to use but the difference in results to a high spec lens on an electronic SLR is phenomenal. A prime compact should be significantly better as its replacement, no? Is the XA critically sharp at f/4? Or am I better suited to something later like a Fuji Tiara or what have you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 21:53:36 No.3529329 Report

Quoted By: >>3529368

>>3529315
The XA optics are terrible anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 21:59:11 No.3529331 Report

Quoted By: >>3530381

Hey sorry if this doesn't fit in here but I have a question kinda related.

All the photos I have inherited were shot analog. Most are darkroom prints or polaroids. I'm trying to digitize everything and I bought V600, SilverFast IT8 target, vuescan Pro. All of this still isn't getting me what I had hoped for.

I thought this all would give me the ability to put shit on the glass, hit scan, and get a nearly 1:1 digital copy. This doesn't appear to be the case.

For example if I throw a 2018 metro card in my scanner it's extremely vibrant IRL and I think it contains out of gamut colors but overall scans just doesn't seem to nail the exposure/etc here. The same goes for photos. Blacks aren't really as dark as they appear in real life and I assume this could be due to the monitor's contrast but besides that there's some slight color cast after profiling that I didn't think would be there. Editing the photos later in GIMP and applying auto levels or manual corrections helps but I thought this wouldn't be needed at all.

I have some film to scan but I was planning to work through all my paper prints before doing any film stuff. I'm aware the V600 isn't great for 35mm film but it's much better than my smartphone or camera on a light table so for under $400 total it's still a nice machine. I just expected a little more accuracy.

For example in vuescan Color Balance None scans come out weird with the it8 profile. Manual color balance fixes some of it but anything other than None seems to adjust exposure and it depends on how you crop so it's not really reliable 1:1 scanning. If a photo is faded I want it to scan that way.

Is this due to individual properties of the object/materials being scanned being different from the it8 target? Because it's reflected direct light rather than heavily diffused light? Is there no way to do easy 1:1 copying?

How can I even be confident that my IT8 target and profile are working properly? What tests can I do?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-november-dezember-2018 (1).jpg, 121KiB, 1000x666

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 23:34:09 No.3529368 Report

Quoted By: >>3529373

>>3529315
>>3529329
XA2 + Tri-X at 800 in HC-110. Wanted to focus on her, but missed minimum focus distance.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B75711A8-2CCF-470B-880E-B59ED377 (...).png, 1MiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Sun 01 Sep 2019 23:43:47 No.3529373 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529368
XA2 is great but nailing that close focus is near impossible.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1551195649340.png, 352KiB, 1166x678

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 00:19:46 No.3529386 Report

Quoted By: >>3529397

hola boys

What could this be?
Kinda looks like it says "sony" on it but I have no idea.
Background info: It was likely used to capture nuclear explosion tests, in the cold war era.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO camara-digital-sony-mavica-mvc-c (...).jpg, 214KiB, 1200x900

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 01:08:39 No.3529397 Report

Quoted By: >>3529431

>>3529386
that's a sony mavica cd200, a digital camera from 2000 or so that saves data on small CDs. I don't think it was ever used in the cold war era...
also, pretty sure sony never made film cameras.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1543127584393.jpg, 801KiB, 2000x1587

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 02:32:53 No.3529431 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529397
Hm, thank you.
I was fooled once again by the internet. I haven't heard of sony film stuff neither so that's why I got well confused.
I was mainly mislead by the B&W pic of the the lad holding it, who was a scientist documenting nuclear explosion tests, which is undoubtedly a really fucking cool job.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO XABOYZ.jpg, 2MiB, 1500x2000

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 04:08:47 No.3529463 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529315
Are you retarded? That Fuji zoom is one of the sharpest compacts I've used rivaling Contax TVSii it's a super modern compact too so idk what you're going on about.
Like the other anon said the original XA's lens is pretty bad. It's noticeably soft in the corners and has bad vignetting wide open, that being said it's sharp in the center. The later iterations (not including the XA1) have much sharper lenses with no noticeable softness in the corners. Don't get me wrong the XA is a great camera I love mine but it doesn't have the best lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 11:33:41 No.3529557 Report

Quoted By: >>3529558 >>3529718 >>3530245

I've F90x and i wan't upgrade. Should i get F4 or FM(original one, not fm2)? Which one would be really reliable and won't let me down(shutter jamming on FM because of old, weared mechanics?)? I also have f301 as backup body. I use mostly manual AI lenses and shoot slide film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 11:34:55 No.3529558 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529557
Also, which one are more repairable - FM or F4. If something will fuck up can i send it to some service for repairs or it'll end for camera(like 90's premium P&S)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 11:51:50 No.3529562 Report

Quoted By: >>3529568 >>3529588

What kind of results should I expect from pushing colorplus 200?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 12:43:42 No.3529568 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529562
Not much, Colourplus and C200 are the lowest end films on the market. You'd get more out of Superia or Gold. Superia handles pushing especially well, I think.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20-06-19#2 (28).jpg, 445KiB, 1200x1728

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 14:36:57 No.3529588 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529562
Contrast increases. Here's an example at +1.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lake milton.jpg, 192KiB, 747x960

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 17:03:49 No.3529653 Report

Quoted By: >>3529657 >>3530382

Ran some Tmax through a 645 camera and pushed pushed two stops in Cinestill monobath, how did I do?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 17:10:14 No.3529657 Report

Quoted By: >>3529660

>>3529653
Anon, you have holes in it.
Don't buy film off ebay

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 69464406_3529497447076267_577105 (...).jpg, 102KiB, 720x960

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 17:16:05 No.3529660 Report

Quoted By: >>3529666

>>3529657
Funny you say that, I recently bought some "Ektachrome 400" on Ebay that was loaded into a canister for Ilford XP2 with a paper sticker over top of it and I have no idea what it actually is but it did develop in e6, but it seems to have been entirely light fogged by the seller before exposure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 17:23:54 No.3529666 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529660
interesting!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO formats.jpg, 30KiB, 341x278

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 17:53:27 No.3529680 Report

Quoted By: >>3529688 >>3529700 >>3529705 >>3529725 >>3529825 >>3529848 >>3529885 >>3529900

Anyone ever think about the future of film?
It seems like film's having a bit of a resurgence, which is nice.
Gives me hope that it'll continue to stay in production in the long term.
Not gone, just niche with a dedicated following.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 18:01:53 No.3529683 Report

Quoted By:

Sold my mamiya RZ system yesterday. Because I had a lot of cash on hand from it I decided to deposit it at the bank. Visited some thrift stores and got a Yashica Fx 3 with 55mm f2 for 6 euro and 50 cents. They also threw in a tamron 28mm and 70-150mm. Never seen "adaptall" before but it's a cool system. What a steal, everything seems to work just fine. I love no longer having to carry the RZ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 18:07:07 No.3529688 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529680
I think about it all the time.

I do believe you are correct with that, just as there are still companies that make ink for typewriters, there will likely always be companies who make film, especially black and white.

Slide film will probably be the first to go imo, but not if we keep shooting it. I shoot all the slides I can to try and help prevent its discontinuation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 18:34:09 No.3529700 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529680
Gotta say, I'll probably stop shooting colour films if Fuji discontinues their E6 slides.
At least they are bringing Acros back so hopefully Provia and Velvia will stick around.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Velvia 50 015.jpg, 1017KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 18:59:52 No.3529705 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529680
I talk to a few people from around the world that work in labs and they all say they're receiving 3x or more film now than they were just a year or two ago.

I shoot about 100 rolls a year so I'm enjoying it while I can, either way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 19:26:24 No.3529718 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529557
the FM doesn't seem like an upgrade from an F90x. they're completely different beasts.
FMs is all mechanical and now nearly 40 years old. I'd trust more an F4, which is professional grade, over an FM any day. altough it being all mechanical means there's less stuff to go wrong and can be repaired, unlike the more electronic F4. still, single-digit nikons were made to go to hell and back multiple times a year and still work fine.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO F23E2CC6-B4E7-46DD-9385-97E630DE (...).jpg, 674KiB, 750x1031

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 19:31:49 No.3529725 Report

Quoted By: >>3529885

>>3529680

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CanonEOS100with50mmLens.jpg, 3MiB, 2560x1920

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 19:56:51 No.3529755 Report

Quoted By: >>3529767 >>3529935 >>3529986 >>3530255 >>3531500 >>3533868 >>3534226

What's the /fgt/ opinion on early EOS cameras? There's a nice EOS 100 body sold locally for ~20$. Should I go for it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 20:06:12 No.3529767 Report

Quoted By: >>3529783 >>3530255

>>3529755

Autofocus film SLRs are overlooked and undervalued in general, because they look too much like DSLRs so the people who want a film camera as a fashion accessory don't want one.

That one seems pretty nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 20:29:44 No.3529783 Report

Quoted By: >>3529792 >>3529798

>>3529767
Do you know how reliable the AF is on these ones? Not talking sports or anything, just whether I can can trust it with a portrait or architecture shot.

I remember hearing that focusing screens on these kinda suck for manual focus, any truth in that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 20:48:05 No.3529792 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529783

I don’t have direct experience with the EOS 100 but I have had a film Rebel for years which is I think was basically the cheap entry level version of the same generation.

The autofocus on that one is basic but serviceable. Just a single focus point in the center, no picking multiple points or auto detecting the subject like a DSLR. But that one point works pretty well.

Manual focusing on mine is passable but obviously not what it was designed for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 21:08:19 No.3529798 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529783
The autofocus is fine. I use the EOS 620 which is one of the first EF bodies *ever*. I've had no issues with autofocus and I pass the camera to friends a lot too because it's easy to use. I keep it on center point and focus then recompose.

The later bodies have neat shit like eye focus (the camera focuses where you look with your eye) which works surprisingly well. I've used an EOS 50E and the eye focus was really cool. I don't know why they dropped that on digital bodies.

Make sure to get decent lenses with STM motors because some of the older Canon lenses are really rough. I'd say the lens will slow down the AF performance more than the camera body.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 02 Sep 2019 22:11:55 No.3529825 Report

Quoted By: >>3529879

>>3529680
i also think about the future of film.

while we may not have as much convenience or option as 20-25 years ago, i believe that the hobbyists will keep the medium going.
for example, hobbyists revived polaroid film, with impossible project, and market demand kept it chugging.

I think there is a neat future ahead of us for film photography.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 00:19:42 No.3529848 Report

Quoted By: >>3529879 >>3529881

>>3529680

Can't imagine black and white going anywhere, and I think 120 format colour film has a long life ahead of it, but I imagine colour 35 mm film will die out over the next 5-10 years.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 488884495_c00c1a1577_b.jpg, 100KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 01:19:22 No.3529867 Report

Quoted By: >>3530005

stuck between getting a ricoh tf-900 and a canon a35fm ii
convince me, /p/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 02:40:12 No.3529879 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529825
>hobbyists revived polaroid film, with impossible project, and market demand kept it chugging.
True, instant film also seems to be quite the money maker for Fujifilm, considering they sell like three different instant film formats currently, with the most recently introduced being square from not too long ago.
Lomography also keeps making small batches of film in various formats.

>>3529848
Why do you think 35mm color will die out?
I though that was like the most popular film format.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 03:09:41 No.3529881 Report

Quoted By: >>3529975

>>3529848

It's just a hunch I have. I think 35 mm film is a novelty in 2019.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 03:24:27 No.3529885 Report

Quoted By: >>3529900

>>3529680
>>3529725
no joke film is getting a significant resurgence everywhere nowadays. here in México kodak just opened a new office and it's pushing their films quite strongly. they have reps in most communities getting people to submit photos taken with kodak film for their social networks to promote their films. they also reintroduced their higher-end films to the local market, like portra and ektar in both formats and all speeds. up until last year gold, ultramax and proimage was the only thing available and only way you could shot portra 400 or 800 was having it imported from the US yourself or pay stupid prices from some reseller.
more online photo stores are starting to stock film too.
also, local fuji store started stocking film in significant quantities again. they had a stack of like 70+ rolls of fuji c200 last week I was there. that's something I hadn't seen since the early 2000s.
for most of this decade there were times when I often struggled to get a single roll locally, but seems like no more, which is quite surprising considering where entering the 2020s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 03:52:52 No.3529900 Report

Quoted By: >>3529918 >>3529942

>>3529885
>>3529680
Film is a literal fucking meme though.
It's inherently the best format for photography, but it's also shit for 99% of users.

Like if you drum scan film you're going to BTFO 99.9999% of digital cameras but if you don't drum scan it you're AT FUCKING BEST matching the quality of $500 DSLRs. The only good thing about film is it forcibly film-ifies all of your shots in that you can do shitty scans and see the photo and later get drum scans in the future if you happen to fall in love with a particular photo but overall digital is better in both quality and convenience. Less dust, no development, instant availability, higher quality vs low cost scans...

Film died for a reason.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 05:14:51 No.3529918 Report

Quoted By: >>3529929

>>3529900
Ok, that’s also mostly true of vinyl records vs digital lossless audio, but records are still made, and people still buy them and use them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 05:48:38 No.3529929 Report

Quoted By: >>3529930 >>3529934 >>3529938 >>3531301

>>3529918
>vinyl records
Thing is though that's not really true, at all, lol.

An entire analog redording and production process resulting in a vinyl record alongside digital releases can result in a potentially better vinyl but if the recordings ever existed in digital form before releasing then CD or digital format is going to sound better than vinyl 100% of the time. It's all about purity of signals and reducing the number of analog-to-digital conversions.

Photos are all originally analog. Going analog (scene) to analog (film) to digital (computer file) is worse than analog to digital directly if digital is the goal in the end. Film's only measurably superior if you're interested in future professional end drum scanning or analog prints with an enlarger avoiding digitization.

It's basically three options.
A - Analog to analog
B - Analog to digital
C - Analog to analog/digital

If you're only interested in shooting film to view your shit on a computer monitor or get scans and do digital prints you have almost no compelling reason to even consider shooting film (especially if you do color photos) and that's an objective fact.

There are some other reasons to shoot film but for the most part for people who plan around eventual digitization their choice to shoot film has got nothing to do with objective quality or properties and all to do with hipster faggot shit - or mechanical properties because film camera are GOAT and don't rely on batteries as much.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dreamdecay1.jpg, 132KiB, 1024x679

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 05:57:16 No.3529930 Report

Quoted By: >>3529934

>>3529929
Totally agree with this anon. Only reason I shoot film is because the college close to me has a dark room I may use to make prints. As soon as the university pulls the funding for it, I'm busting out the 6d that is still in the box.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:34:57 No.3529934 Report

Quoted By: >>3529940 >>3529946

>>3529929
>>3529930
Give up, samefag

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:37:10 No.3529935 Report

Quoted By: >>3530255 >>3531500

>>3529755
Some of the best 35mm cameras you can buy are the 80s & 90s EOS cameras. Plus they're cheap as shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:39:38 No.3529938 Report

Quoted By: >>3529960

>>3529929
That argument is stupid and lacks nuance.

First off, you have the contradiction of saying going film to digital is worse than just using a digital camera, but then saying that film is measurably better if scanned with a drum scanner.
I see your point (film and drum scanners both capture very fine details), but that doesn’t change the fact that your argument is in direct contradiction with itself.

Second, you list film to analog print as being superior.
This also is in contradiction with your argument of “the fewer number of conversions the better.”
Analog to analog processes are always lossy, this too applies to analog prints from film.
High end gear and materials minimizes these loses, but there are still losses.
Digital, on the other hand, allows for lossless conversion and editing.
Since storage space is a concern, many file types are lossy (mp3, jpeg), but professional work like studio recordings is always done with lossless formats.
Also, you’d be surprised how many audio studios use and continue to use analog tape masters.
Analog audio tapes are considered to be a better archival medium, compared to a hard drive.
That means that most vinyl records probably do have an all analog conversion chain, from master to pressing die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:41:45 No.3529940 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529934
yo eat my fuckin dick

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:46:46 No.3529942 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529900
the advent of vsco and similair shit def made the visual appeal of film pretty arbitrary outside of some bomb ass kodachrome 120s or something. that said the process is still way more satisfying in a material sense

sorry am drunk

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 06:52:06 No.3529946 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529934
lol try again

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 07:47:39 No.3529960 Report

Quoted By: >>3529974

>>3529938
>First off, you have the contradiction of saying going film to digital is worse than just using a digital camera, but then saying that film is measurably better if scanned with a drum scanner.
If the digital version of the photo is what's most important straight digital is the way to go.
Film is only superior when you get drum scans (which are fucking expensive btw) and even then it's just barely. Digital has gotten damn good. So good even NASA uses it.

>Second, you list film to analog print as being superior.
As opposed to Scene->Film->RGB Digital File->CMYK Digital->Analog(printer printing it)->Paper, an entirely analog process can definitely be superior. It's not a debate everyone knows this.

>Analog to analog processes are always lossy, this too applies to analog prints from film.
Still less lossy than analog->digital->analog.
Film has infinite detail. Not a meme. The captured photo info is limited, of course, but the film isn't hard capped by finite pixels like digital is. Rotations in digital require re-sampling which introduces artifacts while analog has no such issue. If you need to rotate or resize by 4 degrees and 2% it's no problem with film. Just move it physically prior to capture/print. Digital loses a slight bit of quality each time doing the same.

>Since storage space is a concern, many file types are lossy (mp3, jpeg), but professional work like studio recordings is always done with lossless formats.
Storage space actually isn't a concern.
It's super cheap these days, I don't know of any serious photographers who don't back up RAWs for important photos and they all work in high bit depth software for their editing. JPEG is for final images to simplify delivery and compatibility for easy viewing by clients/etc.

>That means that most vinyl records probably do have an all analog conversion chain, from master to pressing die.
Some simply convert digital music to vinyl just for the feels because it's a "special" format though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 09:26:58 No.3529974 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529960
>Film is only superior when you get drum scans
I have a drum scanner and shooting 6x7 you can compete quite well with digital full frame. For 35mm you are probably at a level worse than micro 4/3 for most things. The difference between drums scans isn't as big as people make the sales pitch out to be. Film itself just isn't all that sharp, When I scan at 5000DPI I barely see improvements over 3000DPI, this is for a very large part due to film softness. It's nice to have a 150MP scan but upon close inspection it's pretty soft. You can also observe that if you use something like a 10x loupe on a slide.
>Digital has gotten damn good. So good even NASA uses it.
All scientific work moved to digital as soon as they could get the first CCDs. Film has never ever been able to compete.

Also I disagree on the printing narrative. You can get more resolution out of a piece of film with a nice drum scan you make a print out of than just printing the film straight. Contact prints are different but if you use an enlarger you lose resolution compared to a high quality scan you print from.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 09:27:13 No.3529975 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529881
I'm sure 35mm sells much better than 120. I can grab a 5 pack of Kodak Tri-X 120 for £26 new but Tri-X 35mm is about £6.50-£7.50 a roll. I think the demand for 35mm is huge at the moment but there's just enough people moving up to 120 for it stay viable.

I think eventually this fad will pass. The next generation won't remember one hour photo shops, or Kodak Gold holiday snaps, or disposable cameras. This is a very situational hipster trend of a certain breed of adult becoming nostalgic for a very particular thing. Like how Blockbuster Ex-rental tapes are exploding in value. The next generation won't remember or care.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Canon_EOS_50e_1255.jpg, 481KiB, 2000x1772

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 11:12:34 No.3529986 Report

Quoted By: >>3530033 >>3530052 >>3530255 >>3530469 >>3530657 >>3531500

>>3529755
Watch out if you use 3rd party lenses from after the film era ended - I have a Tamron SP 24-70, and picked up a really nice EOS 50e a month ago, only to find out it doesn't work with that (my main) lens. This is also the case for the EOS 30, and I would presume the EOS 100 too. I have picked up an EOS 1000F N instead for next to nothing but it's nowhere near as cool as the 50e, but it works with everything, and is light and compact.

Overall, EOS cameras are all fairly good, but the downside is that none of them are particularly special. If you already have a high quality EOS lens or two, then go for it. The cameras are so cheap they're basically no-brainers at that point. The only one I'd really recommend is the 50e, but obviously not if you have recent 3rd party lenses as I specified before.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ricoh-rt-550-1-4_orig.jpg, 332KiB, 1024x682

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 12:07:09 No.3530005 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529867
I'd say the Canon but if you really want a compact with a switch able wide/tele consider tha Ricoh RT-550 it's pretty much an updated tf-900

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO index.png, 2KiB, 227x222

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 12:10:11 No.3530007 Report

Quoted By: >>3530009 >>3530075 >>3530863

Join this new film photography Discord.

https://discord.gg/UXTaD85

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 12:11:48 No.3530009 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530007
Fuck off cunt no discord server advertising allowed

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 12:59:59 No.3530033 Report

Quoted By: >>3530468

>>3529986
Yo. I have a Tamron 45 1.8 and the EOS 55 and I was super disappointed to find out they dont work. I wonder if there is a list somewhere of compatible cameras with our Tamron lenses? I know the EOS 3 and Elan 7NE work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 13:30:24 No.3530052 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529986
got the same camera minus the eye control. even some older 3rd party lenses hate working on this.. which is a shame because it's got some decent features, just burns a frame if you use anything but genuine canon lenses (trying out a few adapted M42 lenses, some with af contacts, some without. absolutely hates my EF sigma gear)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 14:43:47 No.3530075 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530007
Reported for advertising/begging.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 41500020.jpg, 1MiB, 3089x2048

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 16:48:23 No.3530117 Report

Quoted By:

Where does everyone here get their film and how much do you pay a roll? I can get Kodak Colour plus from my local camera shop for £4 and Ilford XPS 2 for £5. Anyone know of any cheaper places or alternatives I can try?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 17:19:48 No.3530131 Report

Quoted By: >>3530133 >>3530134 >>3530136 >>3530141 >>3530397

So, what's objectively the best film camera?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 17:26:28 No.3530133 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530131
Sinar P

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 17:26:58 No.3530134 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530131
Depends what you want to do with it

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 17:34:56 No.3530136 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530131
Any cam with intact seals will do

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 17:44:11 No.3530141 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530131
You have to at the very least split film cameras into subcategories before answering that question. Otherwise it's completely nonsensical.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:06:25 No.3530154 Report

Quoted By: >>3530159 >>3530170

What is an objective ranking of the best film cameras??
I don't mean best looking or fun to use, or personal favorites, I mean stuff that will get the job done no matter what, something you'd be forced to use and live with the rest of your life so it better be the absolute finest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:11:48 No.3530159 Report

Quoted By: >>3530231

>>3530154
You can make a ranking of 35 mm cameras and 120 cameras, as to not get confused like the other post

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:20:13 No.3530168 Report

Quoted By: >>3530249

Do you guys do anything to care for your camera bellows?
I just got my first camera with bellows and I don’t know if I need to do anything to keep them from wearing out, especially if I keep racking them all the way out with the telephoto lens.

I’ve read mixed info about applying mineral oil or neatsfoot oil.
The only thing I’ve heard for certain is to avoid ArmourAll.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO smena-8m-900px.jpg, 95KiB, 900x601

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:22:20 No.3530170 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530154
Gotcha covered, chief.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2123423465.jpeg.jpg, 2MiB, 1321x2000

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 18:43:46 No.3530175 Report

Quoted By: >>3530200 >>3530227

Olympus OM2N, XP2
I miss auto focus.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 19:23:42 No.3530200 Report

Quoted By: >>3530202 >>3530204 >>3530229

>>3530175
stop taking (bad) pictures of other artists art

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 19:28:30 No.3530202 Report

Quoted By: >>3530204

>>3530200
Name one bad thing about that picture.
I'm not even him. I just think you're being a troll.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 19:36:00 No.3530204 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530200
Based
>>3530202
Cringed

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 20:39:18 No.3530227 Report

Quoted By: >>3530229

>>3530175
what does autofocus matter if the subject was perfectly still? Easily could've done this without it.

Also >>3530175

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 20:40:47 No.3530229 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530227
I meant >>3530200

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 20:43:07 No.3530231 Report

Quoted By: >>3530251

>>3530159
Minolta a7
Minolta a9
Nikon F5

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04537FERDP.jpg, 556KiB, 1620x1080

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:08:30 No.3530245 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529557
If you shoot slide then the best camera is the one you have with you, and buy some AF lenses.
Giving yourself Matrix metering by switching to AF lenses is the only meaningful upgrade you'll find in the Nikon line; the F90X is already a semi pro body. The F100 is just a more modern feeling and looking version of the same.
FM is a terrible idea, if you want to go to a manual camera, go balls deep with an FM3a >(and don't worry about the price, unless you drop it into an abyss there's no way you can overcapitalise on the last and finest manual SLR ever made, they are never getting cheaper)
or an FE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:14:29 No.3530249 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530168
It will depend on the bellows material. I do nothing to my RZ bellows and they seem perfect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:18:09 No.3530251 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530231
wew
>not 1V
>not F6
>not FM3a
>not M3

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:23:22 No.3530255 Report

Quoted By: >>3530315 >>3530590

>>3529755
Nah man EOS cams are shit, what you need to do is get yourself a nice AE-1 Program or K1000!
If you want more auto then look for a Mju-2.
>>3529767
>>3529935
>>3529986
What the fuck are you guys doing, shhhhhhh...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_233002.jpg, 2MiB, 4608x3456

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:35:00 No.3530261 Report

Quoted By: >>3530284

How bad is this for a ghetto scanning?
Should I even bother converting and cropping?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_221305.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:51:05 No.3530267 Report

Quoted By: >>3530320 >>3530392

Back in the darkroom. First trial of my DIY vertical processor.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_224534.jpg, 4MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:54:19 No.3530269 Report

Quoted By: >>3530320

It's nice to be see the image appear through the acrylic. Not the best photo, but good enough for testing.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_224759.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 21:56:35 No.3530270 Report

Quoted By: >>3530320

I've included an extra slot so I can do a dual fix. Each segment holds about 1 litre of solution.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190903_230512.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 22:06:50 No.3530278 Report

Quoted By: >>3530320 >>3530976

And it's pretty easy to put all the chems away ready for the next session.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1555313305004.png, 2MiB, 1639x1098

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 22:18:46 No.3530284 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530261
tried it with my Oly dslr
this is about as good as I can get it to look

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 23:24:20 No.3530315 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530255
Fuck sorry bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 03 Sep 2019 23:39:31 No.3530320 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530267
>>3530269
>>3530270
>>3530278
nice

Ahamkara !!bftUbFFrX/F

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PAPA_1.jpg, 429KiB, 1600x2000

Ahamkara !!bftUbFFrX/F Wed 04 Sep 2019 02:28:00 No.3530374 Report

Quoted By: >>3530725

Shot my first Tri-X on my Mamiya645, processed with Rodinal, loving the look and the grain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 02:46:53 No.3530377 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529240
I've always wanted to try taking a photo of the same person sitting on both ends of the couch. Would you divide the exposure time in half? Have to experiment with this..

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 02:52:46 No.3530381 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529331
I have the same scanner. I just use the software that came with it and have gotten decent results scanning my family's old slides. Haven't tried photos yet, but color negative come out well, also.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 02:57:49 No.3530382 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529653
I like it, holes and all. It's dark enough to seem like it was taken at night. Lots of detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 03:24:51 No.3530392 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530267
Nice setup. I do roughly the same in my bathroom. Wish my vanity was as wide as yours.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 03:36:03 No.3530397 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530131
the one you have with you

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 03:37:43 No.3530398 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529240
If you get a bunch of filters, you can get some fun results with multiple exposure.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO yosemitepic.jpg, 658KiB, 2008x1991

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 04:40:30 No.3530412 Report

Quoted By:

anybody have film stock recommendations for angkor wat?
so far considering ektar, provia, fuji pro 160ns, and portra

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 04:52:34 No.3530414 Report

Quoted By: >>3530491

Just finished my first roll with a minolta weathermatic dual 35. i submerged it underwater and the roll turned out fine There were no signs of water in the interior but when i opened the battery compartment there was a weird smell, the batteries were warm to the touch and they looked slightly warped. Does this mean the battery compartment is leaking? Any ways to fix??

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 000045.png, 4MiB, 1240x1801

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 06:41:36 No.3530439 Report

Quoted By: >>3530463

Post in the wrong thread, post again
This picture i took seem to be overexposed, i still dont know what's wrong
kodak gold 200

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 08:07:49 No.3530463 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530439
exposed fine
flash a bit too bright

lern2photo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 08:13:10 No.3530468 Report

Quoted By: >>3533499

>>3530033
Can confirm my EOS 3 works with the Tamron 45 1.8. However, it does not work with the Tamron 70-200 G2 VC.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO eos3_1.jpg, 207KiB, 1495x1010

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 08:18:49 No.3530469 Report

Quoted By: >>3530859 >>3531500

>>3529986
>Overall, EOS cameras are all fairly good, but the downside is that none of them are particularly special.
The EOS 3 is one of the best camera bodies I've ever handled. That's why they're not cheap, going for $250-$350 on eBay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 09:39:53 No.3530491 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530414
It means the batteries shorted, could be water but it could also just be your electrical contacts were already damaged before.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 12:25:20 No.3530590 Report

Quoted By: >>3530617

>>3530255
>AE-1 Program or K1000
>Mju-2
Are you memeing? All those are overpriced af for what they are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 13:26:15 No.3530617 Report

Quoted By: >>3530646

>>3530590

nah those are totally what people with too much spare cash should go buy, leave all the $20 EOS bodies for us poorfags please

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 14:46:51 No.3530646 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530617
The only EOS body worth it is the 1V

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 15:27:49 No.3530657 Report

Quoted By: >>3530683 >>3530861 >>3531500

>>3529986
I don't know why people recommend the 50E. Maybe some e-celeb shilled it or it had an article on Fstoppers or something. I own one and it pales in comparison to the "professional" film bodies Canon put out at that time. The 50E has a lot of features, sure, but it feels like a hollow, plastic piece of shit. Like it feels cheaper than most modern Rebels if that's possible because there's no weighty electronics inside like we have now. I got a battery grip to see if it that would help but it still feels too hollow and light with that. If you're going to get an EOS from the film era, it's best to go for the bodies that were actually worth something.

Anything in the same class as the Canon 620/650 like the Canon EOS 5 or EOS 3 are worth it just because they don't feel like flimsy pieces of shit in your hands like the 50E does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 17:07:47 No.3530683 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530657
The later EOS30 /33 (ELAN 7) models are well built and a lot less pricey than the EOS 3. The EOS 300 is flimsy but has good features.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 19:08:32 No.3530725 Report

Quoted By: >>3530732 >>3532440

>>3530374
Shooting MF and then processing for the grain seems.. backwards. Couldn't you achieve the same look with any 35mm b&w film?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 19:14:07 No.3530732 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530725
>Shooting MF and then processing for the grain
That was never stated in the post you quote.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 20:15:56 No.3530738 Report

Quoted By:

When do I sell most of my 35mm gear and make the jump to mf?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 20:30:32 No.3530748 Report

Quoted By: >>3530799

Is MF scanned on $200 epson flatbed better than 35mm on plustek?
Im not sure if I want to sell most of my 35mm gear and upgrade or just upgrade my scanner.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 20:37:39 No.3530755 Report

Quoted By: >>3530758 >>3530759

what's the highest iso 35mm film comes in?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 20:43:45 No.3530758 Report

Quoted By: >>3530954

>>3530755
Pushed T-Max P3200 or Delta 3200.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault (2).jpg, 332KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 20:47:21 No.3530759 Report

Quoted By: >>3530954

>>3530755
The King

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190904_224416.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 21:49:38 No.3530773 Report

Quoted By: >>3530799

Busy working on this print. Will probably burn the background more and dodge the subject. Started using my phone as a light source to burn the borders in. First impressions are pretty good.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2019-08-22-210912.jpg, 205KiB, 2048x979

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 22:51:04 No.3530799 Report

Quoted By: >>3530824

>>3530748
Try upgrading your scanner first. I used some Epson scanners before and was never satisfied. At MF you gain resolution at the cost of fewer shots per roll.

>>3530773
I used a small flashlight once and got too close. Borders looked like shit. Using a cardboard in the easel now. Put it in top left corner, expose, bottom right corner, expose. This way you get a good border.
Why would you want to dodge and burn it? Your shadows are mushy and your print might benefit from an overall increase in contrast. Try a filter, or higher graded paper.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 22DF334E-0A7C-4D83-B3E8-DCE10331 (...).jpg, 37KiB, 371x300

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 23:01:45 No.3530805 Report

Quoted By: >>3530820 >>3530954 >>3531066 >>3531143

Anyone overexposing Kodak Ektar? I’m torn between exposing it @100 or @64. Got any tips on its behavior?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 23:23:56 No.3530820 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530805
You're seriously debating if you should overexpose by 1/3 stop? Can you even set third stops on your camera/lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 23:33:20 No.3530824 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530799
Thanks for that. I've now tried holding my phone over my burning card with a sheet of toilet paper in between to diffuse the light. It's an improvement for sure.

Overall the print is being exposed with a grade 3 filter. I really want the subject to glow so I'm dodging it a tad. I want the background to be more textural than anything so the overall effect of the print is a dream like quality.

I'm giving the left and right a burn of 30 seconds at grade 00. The final print is almost how I had it in my head, just wish I had enough light at the time to take the photo at 2.8, but hey ho.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 88090026.jpg, 1MiB, 1791x1188

Anonymous Wed 04 Sep 2019 23:46:40 No.3530834 Report

Quoted By: >>3530975 >>3530985

Just got this back from the lab. Played around with a fuji underwater disposable camera. Didn't know they still made Superia 800 but this camera had it and it was fresh

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 572KiB, 640x640

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:45:46 No.3530859 Report

Quoted By: >>3530867 >>3530879 >>3530893

>>3530469
Why do all the eos cameras use that ugly shiny plastic? makes them a bit unappealing. One that especially stands out is the eos 1v

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:46:02 No.3530861 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530657
As I said, I have the EOS 1000F N, and that really *is* a plastic piece of crap, but it works. The 50E is quite nicely built in comparison, and is by far the least ugly of its kin, with a nice squared off design and firm dials and buttons. The higher end EOS cameras are nice, but they're £/$100 or much more, and they're also very bulky in comparison. I don't see the point in investing in something so overbuilt when the lens is far more important to the resulting image, and basically all the other EOS cameras do the same base job.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 08G4vpq.png, 491KiB, 900x803

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:48:15 No.3530863 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530007
dude I'm already browsing /p/, why would I want a social platform inside my social platform?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:53:01 No.3530867 Report

Quoted By: >>3530869 >>3530888

>>3530859
It's just not your style I guess

I'm a whore for that shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 00:58:14 No.3530869 Report

Quoted By: >>3530870

>>3530867
I mean I can see the appeal, being retrol 80s/90s stuff but I just like the Nikon designs of the time more.

Will probably still buy a canon body since that's the system where I have all my lenses in and just learn to love it I guess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 01:01:32 No.3530870 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530869
Nikon used a more classic design while Canon's 90's stuff is really hard to distinguish from their modern cameras if you're not super into them

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l1600 (1).jpg, 209KiB, 1536x1536

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 01:20:26 No.3530879 Report

Quoted By: >>3530940

>>3530859

I'm unironically swapping out my bread and butter eos which I'm using for m42-lenses for a pentax ME because it's so ugly and I don't even care that much about how the camera I'm using looks like - for the EF lenses it will be enough.

Pic related is basically the ugliest camera ever created, I own this one as well but I will never use it although it's my only EOS with a metal lens mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 01:38:22 No.3530888 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530867
It's cool and all but it's a camera which, in a post-analog industry, suits none of the remaining advantages of film over digital (size:quality ratio, process of taking a picture, ability to use classic lenses naively) and doesn't perform any better at actually winding film and exposing an image upon it than any other (much cheaper) EOS film camera. If I were going to dump £/$ 200+ into a 35mm film system camera for some reason, I'd get a Pentax LX, Nikon F3, Olymus OM1, Contax G2 or Minolta CLE

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 01:49:14 No.3530893 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530859

It was the style at the time!

At the time that smoove black plastic looked "modern".

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 04:04:31 No.3530940 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530879
>Pic related is basically the ugliest camera ever created
haha true. my first AF SLR was a canon EOS 3000v/rebel k2, which looks exactly like that but with plastic mount. I saved money for over a year to get an EOS rebel 2000 but by the time I had enough it was already discontinued everywhere and the 3000v/k2 was the then current budget model. I was so fucking bummed out because it was ugly as fuck and didn't look anything like the other sweet EOS cameras from previous years. ended up buying it either way and still have it. the large LCD in the back looked pretty cool at least.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AA032.jpg, 3MiB, 3000x1999

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 04:34:10 No.3530947 Report

Quoted By: >>3531248

I went surfing with my friends. First time using a film camera, this one was my favorite.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 04:43:25 No.3530954 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530758
>>3530759
TMax 400 pushed to 3200 actually looks better than P3200 in my experience

>>3530805
Box speed always overexposure is a MEME

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:20:16 No.3530975 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530834
Cool pic. Quite surreal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:23:44 No.3530976 Report

Quoted By: >>3531226 >>3531254

>>3530278
How do you pull the siphon when storing the chems? Surely not with your mouth right anon?... Anon?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-06-07-2018#028.jpg, 208KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:45:30 No.3530985 Report

Quoted By:

I visit zoos quite often.

>>3530834
similar to my results with that film. I don't like the grain.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-06-07-2018#023.jpg, 147KiB, 667x1000

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:46:32 No.3530986 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-06-07-2018#018.jpg, 160KiB, 1000x666

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:47:34 No.3530987 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-06-07-2018#034.jpg, 150KiB, 1000x666

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:48:36 No.3530988 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO edit-06-07-2018#012.jpg, 137KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 06:49:40 No.3530989 Report

Quoted By:

fin(s)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 08:49:35 No.3531039 Report

Quoted By: >>3531052 >>3533609

Is it worth it to develop your own (colour) film?
I looked up prices for the chemicals online, and its more expensive than I thought.

And is it reusable? I always see people in vids online pouring the shit back into the containers. But I looked it up online and people are saying not to re use them, cuz they'll fuck up your shots.

Whats the cheapest most efficient way to develop and scan your film? I'd rather do it all myself too rather than having some fag going through my shit. If its all too much of a hassle, imma just stick to digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 09:24:41 No.3531052 Report

Quoted By: >>3531315

>>3531039
Yeah, super worth it to do it yourself. A 1L kit will do 25-28ish rolls of film, so you do the math and work out how much that is per roll (hint: cheap). The chemicals are all reusable, though towards the end of their life they will need addition to time to compensate for exhausted chemicals.

In terms of scanning, if you just shoot 35mm, buy a Plustek. If you shoot 120 & 35mm, buy an Epson V550 or better

Any other questions feel free to shoot

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 10:05:00 No.3531066 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530805
I like overexposing some films (Superia at 200 is my favourite), but overexposed Ektar doesn't work for me at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 10:46:35 No.3531087 Report

Quoted By: >>3531091

What the fuck happened to the beginner photography general? I need to ask shit questions like "will ISO hurt my IR filter/sensor if used as cleaning solution with microfiber instead of buying a fucking squeegee kit for no goddamned reason?"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 10:56:33 No.3531091 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531087
Go here retard >>3522870

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 12:35:23 No.3531121 Report

Quoted By: >>3531127 >>3531131

Someone local is selling an m4, leather redone in brown, curtain has been patched, rest if flawless and been film tested, comes with leica meter mr for $1350 aud, good buy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 12:55:11 No.3531127 Report

Quoted By: >>3531132

>>3531121
That sounds hella expensive but I have no idea what the australian market is like.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 13:05:18 No.3531131 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531121
That's a good deal. A good working M4 goes for around $2k aud not to mention that comes with a Leica meter which is around $300 on it's own

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 13:05:44 No.3531132 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531127
Pretty much non existent, most of the stuff we get comes from Japan, the cheapest m4 on ebay au is 2.5k aud, the light meter is about $200-300 aud. If you know what gumtree is, there's no M4's for sale in Australia at the moment. Hard to gauge if good deal or not because ebay is eh, I bought it anyway tho

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 13:50:19 No.3531143 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530805
Ektar doesn't respond well to overexposure. Read a few reviews of the film before deciding shit like this. There's plenty of resources showing effects of overexposure on films, Ektar is one that's best at box speed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 14:30:51 No.3531153 Report

Quoted By: >>3531308

I've been getting started with film and it's been a lot of fun so far, and is definitely something I want to pursue further *purely* as a hobby.

I send off my film to get developed and it's been working out pretty great, though ordering 3 dollar CDs for each individual roll of *maybe* good shots is going to start getting annoying and pretty wasteful. Is digitalizing my 9x13cm prints by scanner viable or will that just look like shit?

I'm a little unsure what the best way is for someone who doesn't develop at home nor has plans to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 16:20:41 No.3531226 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530976
Sure do, just get the fluid half way and the let gravity do the rest.

I've got some developer in my mouth before and it's not something I want to repeat. For the most part the chems I use are fairly safe, I wouldn't dare try it with pyro though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 16:59:35 No.3531248 Report

Quoted By: >>3531624

>>3530947
nice one anon, what film stock did you use

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 17:12:03 No.3531254 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530976
Dunk the tube past halfway and hold the end shut with your thumb. No need to get chem residue anywhere near your pie-hole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 18:43:10 No.3531301 Report

Quoted By: >>3531395

>>3529929
No offense but your vinyl comparison makes literally no sense, neither does the purity of signals stuff. I literally know heaps of top engineers in my country who routinely will record to digital, then record that stuff back to tape just to get saturation and record that back to digital. Or record a digital signal back into the box to get more character from the AD converters.

Also vinyl literally is a worse format, no two ways about it. For example you can’t have any low end information in stereo, or the needle will get thrown off the track, so you have to sum everything in the low end to mono. Every album I’ve worked on that was released on vinyl has had a separate vinyl master, since you have to work against the format’s limitations and can’t use the ”true” master used for the digital release.

All that said, I don’t see vinyl dying off even if it’s technically a worse format. I mean a bunch of stuff I’ve recorded and mixed for friends were released on cassette, and that’s even worse than vinyl, yet it’s still steadily popular in certain circles. I’m sure the same applies to film, and locally I’m definitely seeing it just getting more popular. I see kids signing up to darkroom courses at community college who are young enough to have never used or seen film, even the baby photos their parents took were on digital point & shoots. People will prefer things for subjective reasons, technical details or things being objectively better simply do not matter unless you’re the most npc average consumer who only follows trends.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 18:52:05 No.3531308 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531153
Even a flat bed scanner has *good enough* results for social media. You probably only upload to Instagram anyway so all the detail from a drum scan is lost by compression.

I'd go for a Plustek though if you can afford it if you shoot 35mm. Definitely better for the speed of scans alone. Or look into DSLR scanning for maximum efficiency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 19:16:13 No.3531315 Report

Quoted By: >>3531591

>>3531052
But doesn't the development step need to be a bit longer everytime you use the chemicals?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 21:11:03 No.3531395 Report

Quoted By: >>3531878

>>3531301
>your vinyl comparison makes literally no sense, neither does the purity of signals stuff.
>Or record a digital signal back into the box to get more character from the AD converters.
Literally a fucking meme here anon.
"more character" is literally coping words for an impure signal conversion and tainting the original recorded data.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO TMAX P3200 R1 S21-25.jpg, 2MiB, 2940x1959

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 22:43:26 No.3531433 Report

Quoted By: >>3531436 >>3531500

hey /fgt/s i usually shoot with a yashica tl-electro, but i recently picked up a 70-200mm USM L

could someone rec a canon film body

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 22:47:27 No.3531436 Report

Quoted By: >>3531441

>>3531433
canon 620

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 22:52:15 No.3531440 Report

Quoted By:

What’s a good beginner camera for medium format/120? Preferably below $300.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 22:53:35 No.3531441 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531436
hey thanks, thats reasonably priced, is the viewfinder decently big?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190906_005748.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Thu 05 Sep 2019 23:59:51 No.3531466 Report

Quoted By: >>3531611 >>3531667

Half way through tonight's session. Gunna be a late one.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 001_1.jpg, 981KiB, 1536x1024

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 00:46:01 No.3531500 Report

Quoted By: >>3533698

>>3531433
lol dude we literally just had this whole conversation, read the thread

>>3529986
>>3529755
>>3529935
>>3530469
>>3530657

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Scan-190905-0001.jpg, 423KiB, 931x1397

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 01:47:10 No.3531554 Report

Quoted By: >>3531563

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 01:54:01 No.3531563 Report

Quoted By: >>3531572

>>3531554
yknow mark custer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 02:03:48 No.3531572 Report

Quoted By: >>3531589

>>3531563
Nah but I've seen those kids around Tompkins a whole lot. I'm friends of friends with them so I don't really have an in to talk to them. Plus I live mad far away from the lower so. You know Sloan Laurits or Danny Weiss?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 02:26:20 No.3531589 Report

Quoted By: >>3531590

>>3531572
yeah i know danny, this is weird haha

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 02:27:23 No.3531590 Report

Quoted By: >>3531599

>>3531589
danny serving fiends on instagram right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 02:32:44 No.3531591 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531315
Yes it does, follow manufacturers instructions

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 03:10:49 No.3531599 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531590
Nah, Daniel Eric Weiss. Do you know Chris Shonting? Cooper Winterson? All skaters who take photos around New York

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC02299OM20Retro80SMacroTest.jpg, 592KiB, 1080x1517

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 03:28:20 No.3531611 Report

Quoted By: >>3531667

>>3531466
Imagine putting this much effort into babby's first macro snapshit!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO port--.jpg, 4MiB, 1326x2000

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 03:38:55 No.3531622 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AA032A.jpg, 3MiB, 3000x1999

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 03:40:22 No.3531624 Report

Quoted By: >>3531626

>>3531248
Thanks! I used Kodak 400, not sure exactly what type, I just grabbed what ever they had at walgreens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 03:42:43 No.3531626 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531624
Most likely Ultramax 400

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 06:04:31 No.3531667 Report

Quoted By: >>3531685

>>3531466
Can someone explain this to me?

Because this is how I feel about it >>3531611

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1567070508417.jpg, 314KiB, 839x839

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 07:08:25 No.3531685 Report

Quoted By: >>3531703

>>3531667
What is there to explain?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 08:00:53 No.3531703 Report

Quoted By: >>3531718

>>3531685
>What is there to explain?
Why someone would print so many copies of the same plant with bokeh behind it?

Like, I get taking it and printing it but why's he wasting so much material with this image? Is he practicing printing using this as a benchmark to test his focus and sharpness with equipment or something or is it actually a meme of someone obsessing over baby's first macro making lots of copies of a plant for no reason..

Is it an endangered plant species or something?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2457102497_81fd86ee1c.jpg, 58KiB, 500x328

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 08:43:51 No.3531718 Report

Quoted By: >>3531725

>>3531703
Practice. I do a monthly postcard for friends and family, and this is the latest run.

The only paper I waste is when I nuke it by switching my lights on by mistake. Even then the paper is used for darkroom tools. The aim of my practice IS too ensure every print is identical during a run, and that is harder than you think. I'd like to eventually make some money from my work and for a darkroom printer consistency is critical. Every print now is a learning experience, and well worth the investment of time and materials.

And no, it's not rare plant. It's grass. I attempted to make a simple print with a strong visual impact.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 09:02:38 No.3531725 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531718
I knew there had to be something to it.
Nice to see I was on the money.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 17:07:39 No.3531878 Report

Quoted By: >>3532025 >>3533587

>>3531395
Tainting is good and sounds good though. ”Signal purity” is the only meme here, only reddit users who read a post about loudness wars once care about that, and they literally have no idea how good sounding albums are actually made. It’s just like the whole ”432hz is the sound of the universe” bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 17:16:32 No.3531882 Report

Quoted By: >>3531927

Just ordered a 30m bulk roll of the new Agfa Apx 400, was almost going to go with Foma again but decided to try out the Agfa, since I read online it’s by Harman and actually the same stock as Kentmere 400 and Rollei Rpx 400. I liked both of those stocks a lot, so will be interesting to see if it’s true. Anyone here shoot it yet? The price is really nice with bulk Hp5 now over €80 already, though I think I’ll still use Hp5 for anything important.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 06 Sep 2019 18:51:06 No.3531927 Report

Quoted By: >>3532520

>>3531882
Fill us in once you've shot a roll or two. I'm also in need of 30,5m of something, probably gonna be RPX 400 again at this rate, maybe two reels since its price has been going up. But I'm also looking at 30,5m of Kentmere 400 since hey, apparently that's available in bulk now too.

I don't believe a word of any rumour saying that there's a 1:1 correspondence between Agfa APX 400, Kentmere 400, and Rollei RPX 400. To my understanding the modern APX 400 is a contemporary recipe created after Agfa went tits-up and its bits were scattered to the winds. Rollei RPX 400 is what became of the "old" APX 400 recipe, and supposedly it's made in Germany -- but what degree of "made" this is, is up to question. Kentmere 400 is what used to be Kentmere 400 before Kentmere-the-company went similarly tits-up and was bought out by Ilford, persisting as their non-primary brand in Europe.

In any case I've found Kentmere 400 and RPX 400, both in HC-110(B), to have quite distinct density response curves. Kentmere being more opinionated on contrast, and RPX 400 being linear and easy in the darkroom. Similarly Kentmere 400 doesn't push to 1600 easily in HC-110 where RPX 400 at EI1600 is just the cat's pajamas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 00:12:23 No.3532018 Report

Quoted By:

Anybody know anything about Ultrafine Xtreme black and white film? It's reaaally cheap. Is it defective lots of other film brands, or what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 00:49:19 No.3532025 Report

Quoted By: >>3532044

>>3531878
>Tainting is good and sounds good though. ”Signal purity” is the only meme here, only reddit users who read a post about loudness wars once care about that, and they literally have no idea how good sounding albums are actually made.
Literally false, lmao.
Bet you consider Beats headphones to be the gold standard because you subjectively think they sound good yet wonder why most musicians spanning all genres don't wear them.

After all, accuracy sounds bad am I right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 00:59:49 No.3532029 Report

Quoted By: >>3532174 >>3532428

Just shot my first two rolls of film.

First roll - Ektar 100
Second Roll - Portra 400

Was really happy with the Ektar, pictures really 'popped'. I then got the Portra after hearing everything about it, but was very underwhelmed, seems very dull and lifeless.

I shot the Portra @ 400, should I have shot it under/over and pushed/pulled?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 01:47:17 No.3532044 Report

Quoted By: >>3532048

>>3532025
I have no idea why you’re bringing up monitoring suddenly, but you do know how many pro AE’s work on NS10’s or Avantones, right?

And going back to degradation, you know why a lot of audiophiles, especially those using mainly headphones use tube amplifiers, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 01:50:48 No.3532048 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532044
You're wasting precious lifetime arguing with an anonymous stranger over irrelevant bullshit. Take some photos.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO shady.jpg, 2MiB, 995x1500

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 04:51:00 No.3532146 Report

Quoted By: >>3532531 >>3533700

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 05:47:47 No.3532174 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532029
No that's just how Portra look

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO _OM_#5_14_AA_U.jpg, 618KiB, 1500x981

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 06:14:59 No.3532183 Report

Quoted By:

KG200
OM10
50mm Zuiko

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1143.jpg, 566KiB, 1000x664

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 08:04:12 No.3532226 Report

Quoted By: >>3532241

>>3528563
>>3528585

Alright, my Isolette III arrived.

The camera looks like it's in a pretty clean condition, lens looks excellent, and bellows look okay.

Only problem is that the stories of the German grease cement are real. Both the focusing ring and the rangefinder wheel are completely stuck in place. I'll have to figure out a way to get them off without breaking anything so I can replace the grease.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 08:53:36 No.3532241 Report

Quoted By: >>3532257

>>3532226
>Only problem is that the stories of the German grease cement are real.
Nothing a little vinegar can't fix.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO poor_little_agfa_guy.jpg, 256KiB, 966x534

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 10:03:16 No.3532257 Report

Quoted By: >>3532259 >>3532423

>>3532241
I think I'll stick to lighter fluid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 10:10:31 No.3532259 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532257
Ha, gotcha.
You spilled the beans and now I finally know what to use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 14:51:27 No.3532365 Report

Quoted By:

what film should i buy for the most aesthetic look?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1148.jpg, 507KiB, 1000x664

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:09:49 No.3532423 Report

Quoted By: >>3532426

>>3532257
Alright, the lens came off with a bit of naphtha and not too much force. Giving the shutter a good soak now.

Turns out I was a bit optimistic about the bellows though. It's full of pinholes. I'll have to get a replacement for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:24:04 No.3532426 Report

Quoted By: >>3532435

>>3532423
Love the way shutters look inside so much

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:29:38 No.3532428 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532029
Portra has low contrasg but high saturation, supposedly. You should look this up before buying your film. It's super easy to do so.
Know your film stock, know what you want to shoot, and pick which stock you want based thereupon.
That said, I've heard very good things about shooting Portra 400 at 200iso, and I've found it to be good as well. I haven't shot much so I can't properly quantify why I like it, though

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_1157.jpg, 829KiB, 1500x1366

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:42:13 No.3532435 Report

Quoted By: >>3532437

>>3532426

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:45:20 No.3532437 Report

Quoted By: >>3532438

>>3532435
I really like the simpler apertures with few blades lenses had back then. Thinking about it, I don't think I have ever seen a leaf shutter with all too many blades.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 17:50:20 No.3532438 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532437
That's blades for the leaf shutter, though. The aperture is behind that and has 10 blades.

Ahamkara !!bftUbFFrX/F

Ahamkara !!bftUbFFrX/F Sat 07 Sep 2019 18:14:50 No.3532440 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530725
I mean, maybe, but I shoot MF mostly for the feel and shooting experience and shallow DoF. A friend gifted me a lot of 20 expired BW rolls and Rodinal helps with that, ordered some benzotriazole to deal with the fog.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 20:49:11 No.3532520 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531927
Yeah, still got a few meters of Foma 200 left, but will report after I shoot & develop some of the Agfa. Probably gonna take a month or so. I'm a bit more excited about trying out the Agfa than finishing the Foma to be honest. I posted some of my thoughts about the Foma 200 in an earlier thread, but it's different and I haven't yet really figured out how to make it look like I want, so I probably won't be buying more of that soon, unless in 120.

I read that about Rpx 400 being old Agfa stuff, and to me it seems believable. I mean, we know that Rollei does not make any film themselves, and for example that the Rollei Infrared is the same film as JCH Streetpan, both of them being old Agfa Aviphot 200.

I actually got quite similar results with Rpx 400 and Kentmere 400, I pushed both to 1600 mostly - also using Hc110 dil B - and the difference wasn't big. But yeah, I feel like there is a noticeable difference - Rpx 400 looks slightly better to me, and prints easier too. It's been a while since I printed any Kentmere though, and I was a total darkroom beginner back then, so that's also probably a factor. FWIW, I've shot maybe 10 rolls of Kentmere 400 and one 30m bulk roll of Rpx 400, plus ~10 rolls of it in 120. And though I've shot 3 or 4 30m bulk rolls of Hp5 and it's my favorite 400 speed film, there isn't really anything that I shot on Rpx 400 that I wish I'd have shot on Hp5 instead. It's a good film and I'd have kept shooting it, if the price didn't increase to what at that time was only a few euros less than 30m of Hp5, which is still clearly the better film to me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC04368OM20Super200.jpg, 1MiB, 1620x1080

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 21:18:00 No.3532531 Report

Quoted By: >>3533701

>>3532146
Why is a Lada buried in tropical plants?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO (jeep).jpg, 2MiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 21:48:39 No.3532547 Report

Quoted By:

Olympus OM2
Zuiko 28mm 2.8
XP2

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 190907_colorplus200010.jpg, 541KiB, 1000x633

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 21:52:33 No.3532549 Report

Quoted By:

taken 3 years ago, developed last month

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_8102-positive-1.jpg, 581KiB, 1080x720

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 22:00:18 No.3532551 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 22:05:30 No.3532553 Report

Quoted By: >>3532573 >>3532582

Help me out /fgt/. I've been shooting mainly rangefinders and compacts for the past ~3 years, but just recently got to thinking, I've been hunging for an M6 for 6 months now and still haven't managed to find a decent deal. What if I'd just get an SLR for now? Something like a Nikon F2/F3 is still decently cheap compared to the Leicas. My main camera (Bessa R2) is falling apart, and with two shutter speeds not working I need a new main camera that works reliably.

I do already own an OM-1 with a couple of lenses, but since I got the RF bug I haven't been using it, besides the light seals need replacing and I'm not sure the speeds are accurate on it. What are the main differences between something like a Nikon F3 and say, an OM-2n? I mean including lens availability too. Or should I just go get the OM-1 CLA'd? I'm so out of touch with SLR's since I prefer composing with everything in focus, but I need a decent camera to shoot soon, and I'm getting bored of using mostly compacts with small viewfinders and no real control of focus or depth of field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 23:00:17 No.3532573 Report

Quoted By: >>3532579

>>3532553

> I've been hunging for an M6 for 6 months now and still haven't managed to find a decent deal. What if I'd just get an SLR for now? Something like a Nikon F2/F3 is still decently cheap compared to the Leicas.

> What are the main differences between something like a Nikon F3 and say, an OM-2n? I mean including lens availability too. Or should I just go get the OM-1 CLA'd?

Think about what you want your camera to do and buy the best fit. I bought into Nikon F2 bodies since they are modular, have 100% finder coverage and last forever thanks to Sover Wong. Rangefinders are just kinda wimpy to me and not seeing depth of field and dealing with parallax is honestly just added hipster tax. Once you go either SLR or rangefinders, the film makes a bigger difference than the gear anyways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 23:23:02 No.3532579 Report

Quoted By: >>3532583 >>3532588

>>3532573
I know the M6 is pretty much what I want in a camera, and with the Bessa I’m already in the M-mount system (as well as M39 with adapter). But since hunting one down has turned out to be a bit difficult, I’m looking for an alternative, which could be temporary but doesn’t have to be. I could always keep the SLR on the side for random portraits and stuff. Obviously I could also just get something like an Olympus fixed lens rf for now, but I don’t know if I’d have use for it after getting the Leica.

Modularity is of course a plus for the Nikons, and I’ve read about the 100% vf coverage of the F2 as well. It’s just the unmetered finder though, right? For Olympus a minor inconvenience I’ve noticed is that since it was never quite as popular a system as e.g. Nikon, spare parts, lenses and maintenance aren’t as widely available, though they might be slightly cheaper.

For me the parallax and not seeing the exact frame has always been a minor inconvenience with RF’s, and composing with the whole frame in focus, focusing being really fast and being able to hand hold slower speeds due to no mirror slap have been bigger benefits. Of course there’s also (at least in theory) sharper lenses especially in wide angles due to no design limitations caused by the mirror, though I don’t shoot wider than 28mm at the moment.

giannis

giannis Sat 07 Sep 2019 23:44:52 No.3532582 Report

Quoted By: >>3532601 >>3532643

>>3532553
You got an OM-1, you don't need another SLR.
Give it a try since you already have it, you can get a seal replacement kit for cheap, and even with precut pieces of foam, since it's a popular camera.
I also like rangefinders, and the Olympus OM series are my fav SLRs, with the Pentax ME/MX a close second. Primarily for 3 reasons
1. Small size in camera *and* lenses. The body is no bigger than an M6, maybe a bit bulkier in the prism area but that's it.
2. Great ergonomics, screen/viewfinder, lightmeter
3. Very good lenses that are also good value for money, since they're not adaptable to most dSLRs.

Nikons are fine, but they made a name not because they had best optics or anything, but because they were tough and very modular (interchangeable viewfinders, backs, etc.). F3 is great, but much bulkier than an OM.
The one reason I don't prefer Nikon for SLRs is because of the compatibility tax on lenses. Since they kept the same mount from the manual focus era all the way through the autofocus and digital era, lenses command a premium cause they're "compatible" (with lots of fine print) with modern cameras. Same, to a slightly lesser degree, with Pentax K mount. If you're looking at Nikons, check the equivalent models on FD mount Canons as well, like the F-1 or New F-1, on account of comparable FD lenses being unadaptable to most dSLRs and cheaper.

But really, get the OM-1 fixed and use that or trade it for an OM-2 if you want aperture priority.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 23:46:45 No.3532583 Report

Quoted By: >>3532601

>>3532579
Many people have sold their M bodies and went with some type of Bessa, just stick with it? Honestly same shit, unless build quality is a concern.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Sep 2019 23:56:01 No.3532588 Report

Quoted By: >>3532601

>>3532579
If you want an M6 then don't bother with anything else. Get it and never look back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 00:17:18 No.3532601 Report

Quoted By: >>3532606

>>3532582
I guess you’re probably right. I should just redo the seals and take the OM-1 out again, or take it to a shop. Maybe pick up an adapter for the battery as well, though I’ve survived just fine with the wrong kind of battery and compensating for the false readings the meter gives. If it turns out I’m not happy with it, I’ll think about what to do.

>>3532583
The Bessa has issues, biggest one being that the 1/30 and 1/60 speeds don’t work. The RF goes out of alignment from the tiniest knocks too - I’ve already had to adjust it 4 times I think. I’m keeping it as a backup but it definitely isn’t a Leica with the Cosina shutter and internals. I decided to stop using it actively this summer as I’m losing too many frames per roll due to the shutter issues.

>>3532588
I will, but it’s just been hard to find one that doesn’t come with a crazy collector’s price tag. I guess I just have to wait more still.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_3847.jpg, 817KiB, 3345x2230

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 00:31:51 No.3532606 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532601
Do you need the lightmeter? If yes, the M6 is your only fully mechanical option. Otherwise, consider one of the earlier models. I don't know how deep you got into the topic, but apart from the lightmeter, you can basically choose your M based on the widest lens you want to shoot without an external finder.
I got this M2 for 400eur, but sold it after realizing it doesn't offer anything over my M4-P. Good deals have become rarer and you have to be patient. Otherwise expect to pay about 1200-1400eur for an M6.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO smc crop.jpg, 2MiB, 2000x1000

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 02:01:24 No.3532628 Report

Quoted By: >>3532632

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dead sea crop.jpg, 2MiB, 1500x1500

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 02:16:50 No.3532632 Report

Quoted By: >>3533704

>>3532628

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 190907_agak18k_067.jpg, 405KiB, 713x1000

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 02:37:39 No.3532636 Report

Quoted By:

From a half frame plastic camera

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 190907_colorplus200014.jpg, 654KiB, 631x1000

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 02:38:42 No.3532637 Report

Quoted By:

fucked up the framing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 03:08:57 No.3532643 Report

Quoted By: >>3532769

>>3532582
>Same, to a slightly lesser degree, with Pentax K mount
OM lenses still outprice vintage pentax lenses by a large factor.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Scan 010.jpg, 885KiB, 4321x3015

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 05:35:33 No.3532664 Report

Quoted By: >>3532767 >>3533212

My yashica 35 has light leaks on the top and bottom of frame, but only shows up sometimes? These were all shot on the same roll. What can I do to fix?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 11:24:20 No.3532767 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532664
Remove all old light seals and replace them with new ones. Use some sort of felt or foam rubber that you can cut easily.

giannis

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO XTra400_ (40).jpg, 553KiB, 1200x798

giannis Sun 08 Sep 2019 11:34:21 No.3532769 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532643
>OM lenses still outprice vintage pentax lenses by a large factor.
I've noticed that only in the specialty ones, like the fast teles (where Olympus was topdog anyway in terms of optical performance), or the fast wides like the 21mm, which are tiny by SLR standards and perform well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 11:48:44 No.3532770 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529197

hello

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 15:18:17 No.3532836 Report

Quoted By: >>3532837 >>3532851

ANONS QUICKLY I NEED YOUR HELP

Should I buy an AE-1 with a Canon FD 50mm f/1.8, or an A-1 with the same lens?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 15:21:04 No.3532837 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532836
also what film should i buy?

giannis

giannis Sun 08 Sep 2019 15:45:17 No.3532851 Report

Quoted By: >>3532856

>>3532836
Do you want the entry level or the pro model for the same price?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 15:49:46 No.3532856 Report

Quoted By: >>3532875

>>3532851
The pro model for sure. So I should go with the A-1? And what film would you recommend?

giannis

giannis Sun 08 Sep 2019 16:36:10 No.3532875 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532856
>So I should go with the A-1?
Yeah mate. It's a better camera both in build quality and functions.

>And what film would you recommend?
Try Superia XTra 400. It's a good general purpose film, with slightly increased contrast and saturation. Good for snashitting.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Kodacolor_200.jpg, 364KiB, 1024x1568

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 17:22:35 No.3532889 Report

Quoted By:

Sorry, might be a silly question, I'm not really a photo guy but figured this is the place to ask.

I found a Kodak color 200 film roll. It's definitely been used. "Develop before" date on the box says 2015. so it's definitely at least 10-15 years old? It was stored in a dark place in room temperature. Do you think it's still possible to develop it and recover any photos from this?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Kodacolor_200.jpg, 364KiB, 1024x1568

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 17:25:11 No.3532890 Report

Quoted By: >>3532921 >>3532942

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190908_201300.jpg, 3MiB, 4032x3024

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:15:07 No.3532919 Report

Quoted By: >>3532939

Back at it boys. 20+ rolls to develop. Each one one at a time. Going to take more than one evening.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:17:32 No.3532921 Report

Quoted By: >>3532976

>>3532890
Sure, they'll just be a little washed out. Maybe compensate with 10% more than the recommended dev time. If you take it into a shop ask them to push it a stop. Good luck.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190908_202307.jpg, 3MiB, 2268x3024

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:24:08 No.3532927 Report

Quoted By:

Incase I forget!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO grandcanyon2019_016.jpg, 469KiB, 1000x643

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:53:19 No.3532938 Report

Quoted By: >>3532941

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:55:27 No.3532939 Report

Quoted By: >>3532950

>>3532919

I recently did 12 rolls of bw one day then 22 rolls of color the next weekend. Its possible but took me about 20 hours total to get everything done. I dont have a jobo but I used a sous vide for my temperature control.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO grandcanyon2019_013.jpg, 410KiB, 1000x650

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:57:08 No.3532941 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532938

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Box01.jpg, 684KiB, 1440x919

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 19:58:33 No.3532942 Report

Quoted By: >>3532976

>>3532890
Should be no problem, C-41 that has been shot within the expiration date and then developed far beyond that works better than the other way around. Yours isn't that many years past the prime so the effects should be minimal, namely more grain and some slight color shifts.

Hell, I've developed shit from the 50's that I found inside a box camera. Just plopped it in Rodinal for an hour and presto. Horrible backing paper marks all over, but the image was still there. Pic related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 20:16:30 No.3532950 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532939
That's some hard graft, but well done for getting all the processing done so quickly. I may be using jobo tanks but it's all hand processed. I would say loading to hanging it's about an hour a roll. So I'll churn through 3 more before going to bed. If I do 4 rolls each evening this week coming I should be good.

Most of the film is pan f, so the clock is ticking!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO stpatday2016_028.jpg, 578KiB, 1000x640

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 21:19:38 No.3532964 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 21:46:02 No.3532976 Report

Quoted By: >>3532985

>>3532921
>>3532942
Thanks. I'll try to find a place that develops film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 21:55:12 No.3532985 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532976
If you can't find a local shop, there are a lot of places online where you just send it off and they will send you back the scans

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 22:08:20 No.3532991 Report

Quoted By: >>3532992 >>3533002

I like to shoot my film at 1600 ISO, my flash unit only goes up to 800. Can I use a shutter speed of 1/125 instead of 1/60 to compensate for the high ISO?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 22:10:28 No.3532992 Report

Quoted By: >>3532993

>>3532991
no

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 22:13:36 No.3532993 Report

Quoted By: >>3532996 >>3533002

>>3532992
Explain

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 22:26:41 No.3532996 Report

Quoted By: >>3533007

>>3532993
Not that guy but it's actually a fairly complex topic. Please read some words from everyone's favourite.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

giannis

giannis Sun 08 Sep 2019 22:39:31 No.3533002 Report

Quoted By: >>3533007 >>3533013

>>3532991
>>3532993
Shutter speed doesn't affect flash exposure, only aperture.
Flash duration is anything between 1/500 and 1/10,000, depending on the flash power level (the higher the power, the longer the duration). So any shutter speed slower than that doesn't affect flash exposure no matter what it is, it only affects the ambient exposure (parts not reached by flash).

On top of that you have the thing that focal plane shutters have a fixed fastest sync speed that is able to sync with flash, any higher than that and only a band of the film will be illuminated by the flash. Usually that's far below the shutter's max speed, usually it's something around 1/60 for older SLRs, 1/125 for newer ones and maybe 1/250 for the top end pro SLRs of the 90's and later.
Leaf shutters sync at any speed.

In a nutshell, you control flash exposure by aperture, not shutter speed. Or alternatively, flash power level or ND filters.

In your case, there's no ISO1600 film, so you're probably pushing a negative film. Pushed film can really use the extra exposure, so probably you're better off shooting it as is, even if your flash offered an ISO1600 option.
But if you don't want that, just close your aperture down 1 stop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 23:00:05 No.3533007 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532996
>>3533002
Thank you both. Really useful info

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 75970011.jpg, 884KiB, 1545x1024

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 23:04:56 No.3533008 Report

Quoted By:

Still loving just plain old Ilford HP5. I enjoy Tri-X too for the deep blacks and good contrast, but something about the soft look of Ilford is pleasing to me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1564765658444.gif, 494KiB, 500x259

Anonymous Sun 08 Sep 2019 23:16:50 No.3533013 Report

Quoted By: >>3533017

>>3533002
My god. Read what you have written.

Shutter speed affects shutter speed.
Aperture affects aperture.

You control "exposure" by managing your variables. ISO, shutter speed, aperture, ambient light, strobe light, ect. ect

The best advice is to RTFM for your camera, strobe, and film. The test, test, test until you know what works with your equipment in the environment your shooting in. FML.

giannis

giannis Sun 08 Sep 2019 23:27:54 No.3533017 Report

Quoted By: >>3533031

>>3533013
>Shutter speed doesn't affect flash exposure, only aperture does.
Better now?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1565900570951.png, 510KiB, 700x700

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 00:04:03 No.3533031 Report

Quoted By: >>3533036

>>3533017
No, not in the slightest.

A culmination of all your variables affects [flash] exposure. Learn2camera

giannis

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO (You).jpg, 285KiB, 1024x768

giannis Mon 09 Sep 2019 00:11:48 No.3533036 Report

Quoted By: >>3533039

>>3533031
Ah ok I see it now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1549811571305.png, 244KiB, 392x399

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 00:15:56 No.3533039 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533036
Damn, you got me. But seriously though, RTFM.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 07:41:40 No.3533113 Report

Quoted By: >>3533173

I bought a roll of Kodak Portra 400. I'm very used to using manual on a DSLR, and I usually adjust my ISO between 100 and 1000 depending on the time of day.

Am I right to assume that I can shoot during golden hour and at night using the same knowledge I have of adjusting the aperture and shutter speed on a DSLR while using a film camera? I intend on keeping it at 1.8 - 2.8 and keeping the shutter at ~1/160. I just want to make sure that my photos are correctly exposed and I don't mess up the shutter speed. Should I just stick to aperture priority if I'm still new, uncertain, and don't want to waste shots?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 11:37:02 No.3533173 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533113
Aperture priority is probably a good idea, but if your camera has aperture priority surely it has a light meter that will tell you the correct exposure too right?

If not you can always download a lightmeter app for your phone that will tell you the correct exposure, just set the iso and your desired aperture and it will tell you what shutter speed to use

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 12:00:04 No.3533179 Report

Quoted By: >>3533181 >>3533206

what is the best 35mm film to use for shooting dick pictures and nudes in natural lighting?

I want good skin tones mostly and good colors.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 12:04:46 No.3533181 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533179
portra 400 overexposed a couple stops. Will be very low contrast and muted, great for skin

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CF215876-604D-4765-93C5-80B81603 (...).jpg, 1MiB, 3724x2095

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 12:29:12 No.3533188 Report

Quoted By: >>3533204 >>3533205 >>3533302 >>3533356

Anons help me figure this out, I could swear to god I put this roll on the metal spool perfectly, why did this happen? This is happening with a lot of my rolls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:44:09 No.3533204 Report

Quoted By: >>3533356

>>3533188
This happens when the film presses up against its self making it so the chemicals don't develop it properly, it's 100% a loading problem.
>metal spool
Explains it, it's really easy to wind the film onto the same loop twice with metal reels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:44:41 No.3533205 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533188
I hear this happens when you've got a small penis

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:45:14 No.3533206 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533179
Velvia 50 pushed 2 stops

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO R1-5A.jpg, 594KiB, 1183x1751

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:48:06 No.3533207 Report

Quoted By: >>3533211 >>3533218 >>3533283

My first roll. Any tips to make my portraits look less shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:51:46 No.3533211 Report

Quoted By: >>3533213

>>3533207
She's qt, did you get to hold hands?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:55:09 No.3533212 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532664
Buy light seal foam, replace. It costs next to nothing on ebay, just takes to fit it all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 13:58:36 No.3533213 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533211
Hell yeah.
For some reason girl seem to LOVE being shot on film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_20190907_121258-01.jpg, 665KiB, 1365x1024

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 14:02:31 No.3533215 Report

Quoted By: >>3533227 >>3533308 >>3534203

I've picked up a Canon /p/ recently. It was recently serviced and is in excellent condition.

I already have the Jupiter 50mm f2 and Jupiter 35mm f2.8. I kind of want to sell the Jupiter 50mm and pick up the Jupiter 50mm f1.5 or the Canon 50mm f1.4. Anybody had experience or sample photos with either? The Canon would probably work better with the /p/, I had to readjust the rangefinder a bit for the Jupiter lenses. Plus it's sexy af.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 14:28:00 No.3533218 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533207
Open the aperture up more and learn how to pose people? This isn't really a film related post

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KODAK-PORTRA-160NC-L.jpg, 12KiB, 320x256

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 14:28:35 No.3533220 Report

Quoted By: >>3533227

I bought some Portra 160NC that expired in 2002

What speed should I be shooting it at?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 14:48:19 No.3533225 Report

Quoted By: >>3533357 >>3533623

Hello /p/ noob from /out/ here.

I have an Olympus om10 in my house, I send it to maintenance not so long ago I want to ask if it is a good camera for /out/ activities. It is adequate for harsh conditions like weather, humidity, below 0 c temperatures and things like that. If not, is there a way to adapt it to resist some of them.

Thanks in advance. Cheers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 14:51:11 No.3533227 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533215
Owned the Canon 50 1.4 in the past but I didn't feel like it preformed very good, well it did have a lot of dust in it so idk. I've been considering getting a Nokton 1.5 for the P since I've always had shit luck with older lenses and just want something that'll work. But then again I don't really shoot the P that often since I got a CLE.

>>3533220
17 years expired so that's about 1 and 2/3 stop over exposure so ISO 50 should be good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 15:19:48 No.3533238 Report

Quoted By: >>3533446

>got confused why my new camera jammed somewhere mid roll
>was an idiot and put enough force on it to rip the film out of the canister it seems
Didn't realize I had a 24 exposure roll instead of a 36 one. In the dark bag it goes I guess. Hope I didn't damage anything else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 15:53:07 No.3533244 Report

Quoted By: >>3533284

What are some good websites to look at for equipment? Im really knew to film. Google gets nothing but articles but no sites that sell cameras, lens, film etc where should I be looking?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO konica-c35ef.jpg, 195KiB, 1280x960

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 17:05:33 No.3533280 Report

Quoted By: >>3533626 >>3533631 >>3533651

anyone used this bad boy? how inaccurate exposure is with modern ~1.5V silver oxide battery?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 17:21:08 No.3533283 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533207
On a technical level: move their face into the shade, open up aperture

Compositionally: idk, but you’re right. It’s pretty shite

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 17:25:57 No.3533284 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533244
Just go and ask if your granny has some compact turd in her drawer.

giannis

giannis Mon 09 Sep 2019 18:30:21 No.3533302 Report

Quoted By: >>3533356

>>3533188
Stuck together film mate.
Where the emulsions touch, the developer and fixer can't reach. So all the silver remains on the film on those spots, and when you expose it to light to gets solarised and darkens.

I prefer plastic spools for that reason. They're easier to load (when absolutely dry), but more importantly either the film loads properly or it doesn't load at all. With metal reels, you can miss a loop and never realise until it's too late.
Metal makes sense if you develop a lot with just a few reels and don't want to wait for the reels to dry between rounds.

giannis

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Xtra400_ (32).jpg, 498KiB, 1200x794

giannis Mon 09 Sep 2019 18:45:28 No.3533308 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533215
>Anybody had experience or sample photos with either?
I have the original f/1.5 in contax mount.
It's my favourite lens for people.
Beautiful bokeh *at all* apertures due to the 13-blade aperture, and of course due to the optical formula.

My fav characteristic of the lens is the bokeh and how it sharpens down a lot and becomes far more contrasty when you stop down (even a single stop).
The field curvature is a flaw turned into bonus when shooting people, cause it isolates them better.

Wide open it's soft, only use for effect or when you absolutely need the speed, cause even half a stop down it gets much sharper.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO X370Retro80s_00511.jpg, 526KiB, 1542x1080

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 21:39:10 No.3533356 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533188
>>3533204
>>3533302
As you're loading, periodically push the film in and out of the reel, like you slackening or tightening it. If it binds and you can't shimmy it, it's skipped a wire. You should be able to shunt it in and out of the reel a few mm, at all points in loading it. Same with 120.
Can't seem to find a video demonstrating it, but I saw one once, and it was like a lightbulb coming on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 21:41:17 No.3533357 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533225
A free, working camera is definitely the best choice for a harsh environment.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20190910_023019.jpg, 4MiB, 4608x3456

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 00:33:20 No.3533417 Report

Quoted By:

Doing a quick little upgrade on my 7000 memenolta
>Grip plastic falls off on every 7000 ever made
>Have cartier ray leather wallet
Lets see how it goes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 02:30:42 No.3533446 Report

Quoted By: >>3533611

>>3533238
Honestly don't know why companies still make 24 exposure rolls when 36 exposure rolls are always cheaper per shot

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KARBADHR5TJT1905.jpg, 790KiB, 1440x950

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 04:26:55 No.3533483 Report

Quoted By:

Muh HR-50.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KARBADHR5TJT1912.jpg, 646KiB, 851x1280

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 04:28:00 No.3533484 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO KARBADHR5TJT1921.jpg, 559KiB, 851x1280

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 04:29:02 No.3533485 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 05:09:21 No.3533499 Report

Quoted By:

>>3530468
Ayy thanks for the heads up

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 000373610018.jpg, 4MiB, 3089x2048

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 05:50:04 No.3533509 Report

Quoted By: >>3533511 >>3533622 >>3533849

Lab scan...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO test234.jpg, 744KiB, 3295x2080

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 05:52:27 No.3533511 Report

Quoted By: >>3533514 >>3533622 >>3533849

>>3533509
And 10 minutes tweaking and scanning with epson v600. Am I being ripped off?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 06:11:40 No.3533514 Report

Quoted By: >>3533620

>>3533511
>Am I being ripped off?
>NORITSU KOKI
Obviously

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 12:03:35 No.3533587 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531878
>taint

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 13:34:37 No.3533609 Report

Quoted By:

>>3531039
Definitely worth it.

Yes, re-use the chemicals. Pour them back into the same container, but be careful to not cross-contaminate because bleach/blix can destroy developer pretty easily.

Out of a 2 liter kit you can generally get over 30 rolls without too much adjustment. I got 45 rolls out of mine by extending the dev times after I noticed a color shift.

Scanning can be done with a light table and DSLR or with a scanner like the V600 or Plusteks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 13:41:05 No.3533611 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533446
It was a roll of Agfa 200 I got given for free when I bought a camera at a local thrift shop. I guess the business model was that 24 exposure rolls were for people who just wanted a roll of film and didn't care how many frames was on the roll as long as it was any.
I have heard on here there used to be 12 exposure rolls as well which is a little over the top but it makes sense. Sometimes when I shoot 120 I am quite happy I can develop the roll right away after just 10 shots in the case of 6x7.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 13:59:52 No.3533620 Report

Quoted By: >>3533957

>>3533514
Is that a shit scanner? My lab uses it too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 14:02:23 No.3533622 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533509
>>3533511
Well you're relying on a lab scan instead of your own vision. Obviously it would be better to take control of every aspect of the process if you have an idea how it should look. Most of the time labs are pumping shit out and don't care about making something look good. They assume if you're outsourcing it to them then you don't care. And unless you have a good relationship with them they won't know shit about how you like your photos processed. They're not mindreaders.

Ask the lab to save to TIFF or another editable format and tweak yourself in Lightroom. Or do your own scanning like you are now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 14:19:31 No.3533623 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533225
I had an OM-1 that seized up on me once due to cold weather, but that was something like -30C. Different camera, obviously, but this is just to say it depends on how extreme the conditions are

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 14:47:26 No.3533626 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533280
I can answer my own question, in case someone other is wondering the same.

On heavily overcast day:
>Full SR44 battery (1.59V) - needle stops between f8-f11
>Full ZA675 battery (1.39V) - needle stops between f5.6-f8

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 14:52:30 No.3533631 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533280
I can answer my own question, in case someone other is wondering the same.

On heavily overcast day and ISO400:
>Full SR44 battery (1.59V) - needle stops between f8-f11
>Full ZA675 battery (1.39V) - needle stops between f5.6-f8
Shutter speed is probably 1/60.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l300 (1).jpg, 3KiB, 300x248

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 15:48:45 No.3533651 Report

Quoted By: >>3533671

>>3533280
Just get a copper adapter to bring it down to correct voltage. They're up on AliExpress, ebay etc cheap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 16:45:34 No.3533671 Report

Quoted By: >>3533677

>>3533651
I already bought zinc-air batteries which has correct voltage. 6€ for 6-pack. Silver oxides are usually 3-4€ per battery.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO LRM_EXPORT_263607063039118_20190 (...).jpg, 2MiB, 2048x1358

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 16:48:38 No.3533673 Report

Quoted By:

First roll of film and actually first photos ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 16:53:20 No.3533677 Report

Quoted By: >>3533682 >>3533685

>>3533671
Zinc-air isn't the correct voltage. It's 1.5v when these cameras required mercury batteries at 1.35v I believe. You're supposed to put the zinc-air into that adapter or use a Wein Cell battery for the correct voltage.

https://wemakethings.net/2014/02/04/konica-c35-modern-batteries/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 16:59:09 No.3533682 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533677
zinc-air batteries are replacement for old mercury batteries so they have too ~1.35V

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 17:10:01 No.3533685 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533677
zinc-air batteries are replacement for old mercury batteries so they have too ~1.4V

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 17:49:25 No.3533698 Report

Quoted By: >>3533776

>>3531500
I'll probably sound dumb, I'm a newfag, but why is there digits on your picture?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 17:51:52 No.3533700 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532146
Noice

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 17:53:18 No.3533701 Report

Quoted By:

>>3532531
really like the colors, awesome

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 17:59:00 No.3533704 Report

Quoted By: >>3533947

>>3532632
What film are you using?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 20:21:30 No.3533776 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533698
date printing back

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO f360modena.jpg, 128KiB, 1207x800

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 22:20:39 No.3533849 Report

Quoted By: >>3533857

>>3533509
>>3533511
and a 30 second edit of the wildly superior lab scan done by someone who isn't a cum-guzzling retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 22:35:59 No.3533857 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533849
This. Just edit your lab scans OP, that way you wont lose time messing with the shitty Epson

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Sep 2019 22:58:49 No.3533868 Report

Quoted By: >>3533905

>>3529755
got a rebel s2 at a thrift shop for $22 and its given me the best year of film ive had but ive never had a full manual so cant compare

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 00:15:50 No.3533905 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533868
If you like shooting it and you're happy with the results then it doesn't matter imo

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 00:33:20 No.3533909 Report

Quoted By: >>3533957

Going to my first concert(s)

Any film suggestion? I live on a remote island so I have to order shit so all I have right now is cinestill 800, tx 400 and Kodak 200 and some 400.

Never shot in (what I assume) will be very lowlight environment, any tips I can't just google?

Default settings, for example.

I have a Nikon F2 with a 50mm f2

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 02:34:43 No.3533947 Report

Quoted By: >>3534343

>>3533704
Ektar 100

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 03:20:06 No.3533957 Report

Quoted By: >>3533974 >>3533983

>>3533620
They aren't bad but it's a lab scanner, you get what you pay for. Depends on the lab but a lot of the people who work at them don't know shit about colour science.

>>3533909
Push the Tri-X to 3200. Your setting should be f/2 @ around 1/30-1/125 if you do so, dependinhg on the lighting. You might be able to get away with shooting the Cinestill too if the lighting is good. Also consider flash and trust your meter.
the_real_sir_robin did a video on the subject recently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-y5b-6deOw

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO photo_2019-09-10_23-35-49.jpg, 237KiB, 1280x855

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 03:43:52 No.3533965 Report

Quoted By:

>went to the shop
>left my camera on the checkout desk
>was looking fore some stuff somewhere near
>a bunch of wild vloggers appeared
>they're running around the shop making some recordings
>one of them noticed my camera and for whatewher the fuck reason opened the back cover
>and they're leaving the store
>noticing it too late to do smthing
What the actual shit is happening, I knew that Brooklyn is kinda a shitty place, but still can't understand this one

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 04:06:39 No.3533974 Report

Quoted By: >>3533983

>>3533957

Thanks a lot for the tips and video.

Now I just gotta get done with the colour film I already have in, live in a remote area, not much to take photos of.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 04:29:53 No.3533983 Report

Quoted By: >>3534089

>>3533957
>>3533974

Oh, and also, should I use a 50mm or a 35mm? The 50mm is f2 and 35 is f2.8. Both Nikkor pre-ai

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 08:56:24 No.3534064 Report

Quoted By: >>3534075

Is there anything to know about scanning 35mm slides with a DSLR other than just taking a good picture with a lighttable and no dust?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 09:48:01 No.3534075 Report

Quoted By:

>>3534064
Macro lens if you werent already aware of that

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 11:20:43 No.3534089 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533983
depends on how far away form the stage you are and if you want to bother with having a whole stop less of light

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 11:36:51 No.3534103 Report

Quoted By:

New gay shit
>>3534102
>>3534102
>>3534102
>>3534102
>>3534102

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 17:03:38 No.3534203 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533215
The Jupiter 8 is sharper than the Jupiter 3, and you won't fear breaking the focus ring as much. One could say the former is a daily shooter and the latter is for indoor portraiture and the display case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 18:15:31 No.3534226 Report

Quoted By:

>>3529755
I picked up a EOS630 like new for $35. from KEH. Great camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Sep 2019 21:43:31 No.3534343 Report

Quoted By:

>>3533947
thx brah

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1533176812951 (1) (4).jpg, 22KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Thu 12 Sep 2019 23:56:20 No.3534975 Report

Quoted By:

kys andy, reseller scum

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Sep 2019 12:52:13 No.3536157 Report

Quoted By:

Been shooting film for a while now, been loving it. Starting to get in the habit of just cutting out- and throwing away the worthless negatives I take (mostly stuff that's out of focus or with bad composition, etc).

Is that wise to do or will I regret that? I don't need these taking up space in my negative sleeves I think? Do you guys keep your negatives at all after scanning?

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

/fgt/ - Film General Thread