/p/ - Photography » Thread #4426409

[74 / 17 / 1]

147KiB, 803x1097, 1_oWpaBmijST3ofuIW3ZldxA.jpg

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 19:23:47 No.4426409 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4426416 >>4426417 >>4426418 >>4426443 >>4426454 >>4426528 >>4426669 >>4426875 >>4427391 >>4427428 >>4428881 >>4428950 >>4429270 >>4434507 >>4434589 >>4435623

I really hate camera scanning. I've sunk 2k USD into my setup and it's technically near perfect. The output is stunning. The scans are sharp. The colours are accurate. But I just HATE IT. I miss my dedicated 35mm scanner. I miss the old ewaste hunk of plastic with all the temperament of an 25+ years old technology.
I also hate scanning with border but EVERYONE loves it. It's all so fucking gay. I hate film fags and I hate people who only like a photo because of muh borders and muh tonez and muh sovl. But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
FUCK

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 19:34:52 No.4426415 Report

Quoted By: >>4439365 >>4439371 >>4439387

>filmfags dropping thousands on a digital camera to take pictures of film
lmao

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 19:37:22 No.4426416 Report

Quoted By: >>4426417

>>4426409
This shit is why I sold all my MF film gear
>Oh boy I can finally get the whole 100mp out of this 6x9
>No one fucking cares
>No one can tell its film except for 10 photo gear nerds on the internet
>No one wants a print bigger than 8x10 of literally anything
>I can't even tell it's film if it's been too long and I didn't sort them between digital and film
>is this a d750 in the shade with daylight wb, or kodak gold? i can't tell, i must ZOOM

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 19:55:41 No.4426417 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426416
i love my b750
>>4426409
well drop some of the pics, at least.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 19:59:39 No.4426418 Report

Quoted By: >>4426578

>>4426409
>But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
this sounds like a problem of being an external validation faggot who is not shooting for yourself and your own satisfaction, but rather for likes and forr the opinions of others. you are no better than the teen girls who post selfies to bait engagement. you get what you deserve, scum.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 21:02:22 No.4426443 Report

Quoted By: >>4426562 >>4426701

>>4426409
Wat. Why do you need to keep the border. If you don't want it, crop it.

Film is annoying to work with? So don't. Pick muh tonez.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 21:43:37 No.4426454 Report

Quoted By: >>4426562 >>4426680 >>4426743

>>4426409
>>>technically perfect
>continuous lights source
>AA filter cam
>70mm lense
Last true scotsman here, 61mp sony and 105mm sigma, illuminated with (full-spectrum & instantaneous) flash are obviously superior setup for 35mm; I only switch back to the 70mm for MF stitching.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 May 2025 23:15:00 No.4426464 Report

Quoted By: >>4426562

i have my eye on the valoi 360. how do you like it? do you think it would be usable without the advancer? i'm a little concerned about dust so the advancer + dusting attachment seems smart but it's so expensive

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1717494347382578.jpg, 995KiB, 4000x3000

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 02:04:05 No.4426476 Report

Quoted By: >>4426478 >>4426490 >>4426562 >>4428950 >>4433322

Reject scanning, embrace printing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 02:13:11 No.4426478 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426476
Based.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 03:57:25 No.4426490 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426476
based anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 07:30:24 No.4426528 Report

Quoted By: >>4426538 >>4426562

>>4426409
> But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist

Maybe try having friends/family that appreciate your work. If you don’t… why even bother having this hobby

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 08:16:36 No.4426538 Report

Quoted By: >>4439189

>>4426528
I love seeing big numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 10:28:46 No.4426562 Report

Quoted By: >>4426645 >>4426665

>>4426443
but bitches love borders (only when it comes to film tho)
>>4426454
calm down, it's a random pic off of the internet
I use a pixel shift Pentax K-1 with the 100mm Pentax WR macro, self printed tonecarrier with the whole roll holders and an rgb narrowband light from that github project
I could dig even deeper as now film flatness is the most limiting factor but diminishing returns
>>4426464
it's shit. Buy or print the tone carrier (the tonecarrier is an half assed project made by a bong retard but it's still the best thing out there unless you wanna spend 3k € for that one bullshit autoadvance magnetic rig)
>>4426476
and do what? send my photos to hoes by mail?!
>>4426528
they are all normies who love doomscrolling and always bug me about my most recent rolls not being on insta yet

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 11:45:09 No.4426575 Report

Quoted By:

>digital camera scaning instead of flatbed
enjoy your low tonal range and shitty optical density

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 12:04:06 No.4426578 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426418
you gear collecting fags are so lame man seriously. photos are a medium. they are meant to share communication with other people. you are a funko collecting child. fuck off

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 18:47:37 No.4426645 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426562
>and do what? send my photos to hoes by mail?!
Yes?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A7R00326_EOS30VRetro80S.jpg, 521KiB, 2048x1367

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 21:08:43 No.4426665 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426562
>I use a pixel shift Pentax K-1 with the 100mm Pentax WR macro, self printed tonecarrier with the whole roll holders and an rgb narrowband light from that github project
Oh wow, your setup is trash. The sticks and rocks really deserve more from you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 May 2025 21:39:10 No.4426669 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426409
we get it anon you don't enjoy what you do and you are a little e-attention whore

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 00:00:36 No.4426680 Report

Quoted By: >>4426743

>>4426454
Why is a flash preferable to a continuous light source?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1741905337595512.jpg, 399KiB, 900x647

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 02:50:56 No.4426701 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426443
to see the sprocket holes

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC07134editSMBDR.jpg, 918KiB, 1600x1600

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 11:25:43 No.4426739 Report

Quoted By: >>4428950 >>4433323

I dunno I scan with an original Sony a7, a Canon FD 50mm macro, and Nikon es-2. It's quick, easy, and blows using a dedicated film scanner away. It's yer fault you blew $2k on a finnicky way to scan OP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 12:27:22 No.4426743 Report

Quoted By: >>4426753

>>4426680
see
>>4426454
>(full-spectrum & instantaneous)
Vibration is the mind-killer, flash defeats it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 14:43:50 No.4426753 Report

Quoted By: >>4426862

>>4426743
Isn’t it harder to control exposure with flash? You’d probably want to tweak it (or stack it) to get the most dynamic range. Might salvage underexposed negatives.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 84811cc6cf206296367967a5e49712ba.jpg, 196KiB, 1000x1000

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 14:54:28 No.4426756 Report

Quoted By: >>4426906 >>4426927 >>4427391

im so glad i went for the model that just screws into the lens

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A7R07561Tasmania30v35mmRVP100Roll3.jpg, 743KiB, 2048x1370

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 22:07:32 No.4426862 Report

Quoted By: >>4428950

>>4426753
>Isn’t it harder to control exposure
No? Most flashes adjust in 1/3 stop increments.
Negs are far lower dynamic range than modern digicams, you want to do everything possible to maximise the dynamic range at capture to avoid the impact of digital noise in your final edited output.
Even velvia shot with a flash doesn't exceed the dynamic range of a decent camera when you scan it with one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 13 May 2025 23:05:43 No.4426875 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426409
seems like money doesn't buy you happiness after all heh

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 May 2025 03:39:26 No.4426906 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426756
This, except there's no 120 equivalent

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 14 May 2025 04:09:08 No.4426927 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426756
unrel but the 'carbon fiber' wrap on that camera is halarious

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 06:32:29 No.4427391 Report

Quoted By: >>4427424

>>4426756
how well does this work, and do you need a separate light source? I have a Canon rebel I could use for this

>>4426409
I have an old flatbed and the colors are great plus I get more shadow detail than lab scans but it's also super soft and grainy. I'm considering dropping hundreds on a dedicated 35mm scanner but I can't afford $700+ for something like the Primefilm XA

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_6644.jpg, 3MiB, 2643x2643

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 06:45:39 No.4427393 Report

Quoted By: >>4427394 >>4428884

>40 euro cs lite
>100 euro 1:1 macro lens
>200 euro 18mp dslr (I already had this one)
>20 euro second hand tripod

What are you guys even doing? 35mm film is like 10 mp, dont get weird about it. 100% crop related

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tumblr_6f7d93f6c1c11ad8196e3a645 (...).jpg, 35KiB, 500x501

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 06:47:04 No.4427394 Report

Quoted By:

>>4427393
>35mm film is like 10 mp, dont get weird about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 12:23:53 No.4427424 Report

Quoted By: >>4427478

>>4427391
Works great, the light source is part of the attachment

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO i hate you and hope you die.jpg, 220KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 12:53:57 No.4427428 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426409
I think your setup is neat OP. And I like the black bordes :) especially if they say kodak or fujifil on it :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 19:55:05 No.4427478 Report

Quoted By: >>4427480 >>4427482

>>4427424
>tfw compatible lenses are $200+

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 20:03:53 No.4427480 Report

Quoted By:

>>4427478
>short macro lenses are more than $200
>super sharp flat field lenses that are literally scanning optics are more expensive than ttartisan "character" lenses
yes?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 20:15:40 No.4427482 Report

Quoted By: >>4427486

>>4427478
basically any macro lens 50mm equiv or greater, several options under $200
same as you'd need for OP's setup anyways, this just takes up less space and lets you skip the alignment part of setup

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 20:27:49 No.4427486 Report

Quoted By: >>4427487

>>4427482
the box on the JJC digitizer only lists a few specific lenses, at least for Canon cameras. I don't know if I could get away with a different macro lens because the kit might not have the adapters for it

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 20:32:56 No.4427487 Report

Quoted By: >>4427488

>>4427486
it just attaches via filter thread, so any macro with an appropriately sized thread, or a different macro with a filter size adapter
the reason i mentioned 50mm equiv is that wider macros will be a bit too far away for good macro capture, even with the smallest tube part

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 16 May 2025 20:35:13 No.4427488 Report

Quoted By:

>>4427487
I thought it just clipped on or something. I have a crop sensor DSLR, does that make a difference to what lens I'd need to get?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 May 2025 22:16:50 No.4428881 Report

Quoted By: >>4428950

>>4426409
Honestly film dslr/mirrorless digitisation is a shit show. Products in stock / out of stock / easy to find / hard to find.Spent 2K on my full setup including buying the cheapest high mp camera I could find. Can scan 35mm with / without borders, 645 up to 6x9.I would totally avoid negative supply, they are an absolute garbage company, their stand is wobbly, their first gen film holders are crudely made, their light developed a hot spot and had to be returned after only 2 months. If I was to do it again and cheaper I would have bought a used copy stand instead of a new copy stand.I would have bought a 5DS instead of a A7RIII as it’s cheaper and has more MP. Maybe I would try out the film holder from clifforth.co.uk as it’s more affordable and looks like it does the job better than the negative supply stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 May 2025 22:29:47 No.4428884 Report

Quoted By: >>4428957 >>4428958

>>4427393
You spend more money if you want to dslr/mirrorless scan medium format film as medium format film has a lot more resolution than 35mm. Thus medium format film requires a higher mp more expensive camera to get the resolution out of the film. But honestly you only need the extra resolution if you look to print quite large. If you're just posting stuff online, then don't bother with high high megapixel. I have printed some 70x70 prints, which is quite large and I would say that is the most I would want to print to with a 42mp direct mirroless scan from the negative. Any larger than 70x70 and I would do pixel shift but that would probably kill my 5 year old macbook. The whole process is a pain and frankly too expensive to be honest. You could do pixel shift from an 18 megapixel camera but that frankly will be awfully painful to do to get to 80MP having to stitch 5 photos together would be a nightmare.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1728922085128205.jpg, 451KiB, 2180x2906

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 05:50:45 No.4428950 Report

Quoted By: >>4429051 >>4429558

>>4426409
>I hate using modern equipment to work with an antiquated technology
Lmao
>>4426476
Wish my photos were good enough to justify printing. Any enlarger recommendations?
>>4426739
I think I'll pick up the ES-2, especially since I'm studying abroad
>>4426862
How do you suspend the film holder above your flash? Hard to believe you're getting good diffusion at such a short distance
>>4428881
I got Negative Supply's V1 film holders with the light source and honestly no complaints, got them second hand for a good price. The clamping system on the 120 holder works really well for ensuring emulsion flatness

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 06:17:01 No.4428957 Report

Quoted By:

>>4428884
> Thus medium format film requires a higher mp more expensive camera to get the resolution out of the film.

Idk if this is an unpopular opinion but with The Darkroom Lab in the US and Silbersalz in the EU there already is robust infrastructure for high resolution scanning of 35mm. Scanning yourself really is only worth it when you go for medium format

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 06:20:35 No.4428958 Report

Quoted By: >>4429272

>>4428884
> I would do pixel shift but that would probably kill my 5 year old macbook
I don’t think so. A MacBook with an m1 should do fine. Even with a fuji gfx100 pixelshift which would turn out to 400mp - editing in PS would be cumbersome but i bet the macbook can do it

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1720346401621948.jpg, 303KiB, 2896x2172

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 14:32:13 No.4429051 Report

Quoted By: >>4429139

>>4428950
>Wish my photos were good enough to justify printing. Any enlarger recommendations?
Printing will help you take better photos. It forces you to get things right in camera that scanning allows you to cheat. As for enlargers, I use a Beseler 45MXII which works great but it's a gigantic beast of a thing. If you shoot 4x5 or think you ever will shoot 4x5, I would get one of the Beseler 45s or an Omega D series. If you shoot a lot of 35mm, the Beseler is compatible with the "negatrans" carrier which allows you to scroll through a roll of 35mm with a knob instead of having to open the negative carrier and manually move the film to the next frame, which is neat. The Beseler 45s also have a motorized elevation system and voltage regulator built in which is nice, and they can pivot back to project onto a wall which would theoretically allow some truly massive enlargements. On the other hand, the Omega is a little more compact, and they were more prevalent back in the day so it may be easier to find parts and accessories, although Beselers were very popular with schools and now that most schools are scrapping their analog photography programs they are a good source of Beseler parts and equipment.

If you don't ever plan to shoot 4x5 or panoramic 120, then a Beseler 23 is also a great option.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 20:06:02 No.4429139 Report

Quoted By:

>>4429051
>Beseler 23
you mean Brenizer

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO compare.png, 3MiB, 1905x992

Anonymous Fri 23 May 2025 21:45:43 No.4429160 Report

Quoted By: >>4429244

this is a screenshot of two 100% crops. one is a dslr scan with a d810 bought used for 500$, a durst colorcopy 350 slide copier for $50, and an apo rodagon d 1x for 200$.

the other is with a flextight x5. you can find one on ebay for 23000
> 4-16s, vs 2 min per image
> 50mb vs 300mb file
> flexible raw file vs tiff

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 May 2025 03:40:20 No.4429244 Report

Quoted By: >>4429288

>>4429160
in my experience tiff is absolutely fine and gives a similar latitude to RAW files (probably depends on the settings for the tiff file)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 May 2025 05:29:57 No.4429270 Report

Quoted By: >>4429553

>>4426409
I dropped thousands on Coolscan, Plustek, a Sorny A47xyz3 and a pile of macro lenses & enlarger rigs, dupe rigs, and building me own linear rail focusing rig, and you know what? My best fucking results have come from a Nikon Z7, cheap ass FTZ adapter without AF, and a 1990’s 55mm Macro lens & cheap plastic ES2 slide & net holder. All that effort wasted, for this fucking rig to mop the floor with them. Shot at its sharpest f11, simple 3 exposure bracket, one centered histogram, +/- 2 exp, merged as hdr in Lightroom. Consistently better images than I’ve ever gotten with any single camera. And no they’re not gaudy over saturated hdr shit like the early days of hdr, you just get everything & no noise. And it’s pretty fucking speedy too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 May 2025 05:31:53 No.4429272 Report

Quoted By: >>4429273

>>4428958
I don’t on a 2011 17” MacBook Pro. If you have an M1 your machine is about 48 times more powerful than that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 May 2025 05:32:54 No.4429273 Report

Quoted By:

>>4429272
“do it” not “don’t” ffs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 May 2025 07:23:00 No.4429288 Report

Quoted By: >>4430363

>>4429244
mostly, tiffs have a gamma curve applied, giving me color shifts in the shadows and highlights when editing.
also using the flexcolor software is so clunky and finicky to use and you have to do alot of adjustment in it to get tiffs with any good latitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 May 2025 12:58:33 No.4429553 Report

Quoted By: >>4429555

>>4429270
Why would you do exposure bracketing, are your negatives that high contrast? Otherwise you'd get better multi-exposure noise reduction results by only using ettr images

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 May 2025 13:09:55 No.4429555 Report

Quoted By:

>>4429553
I never had a histogram from a film scan be too wide for my old dslr. I think anon is just deep into the hifi gold plated audio cables style mumbo jumbo about film

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A7R07411TasmaniaFEMilvusRVP100.jpg, 2MiB, 1374x2048

Anonymous Sun 25 May 2025 13:14:28 No.4429558 Report

Quoted By:

>>4428950
>How do you suspend the film holder above your flash? Hard to believe you're getting good diffusion at such a short distance
What short distance are you talking about?
Cut a hole in a box m8, paint the inside of the box white, ziptie flashes inside; it's not rocket science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 28 May 2025 02:51:16 No.4430363 Report

Quoted By:

>>4429288
does your scanning software not have an option for linear TIFFs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jun 2025 07:51:34 No.4433322 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426476
Based evil lair

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 07 Jun 2025 07:53:33 No.4433323 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426739
Gorgeous anon

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jun 2025 14:38:47 No.4434418 Report

Quoted By: >>4434541

I already develop but I'm looking at attempting scanning myself at home. I have a Fuji x-t20 but no macro lens or film holders yet. Any recommendations for an apsc sensor? It always looks like a shitloads of attachments are needed for this

>Macro lens (that isn't 1:1 for apsc)
>Extension tubes
>Film holder/es-2

Anybody try the lobster holder or EFH?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jun 2025 19:14:23 No.4434507 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426409
this setup looks retarded, i'm sorry you wasted your money

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Filmforp019.jpg, 693KiB, 800x1200

Anonymous Tue 10 Jun 2025 21:55:19 No.4434541 Report

Quoted By: >>4434562 >>4434568

>>4434418
Fuji's an exception to the norm because their dedicated X-mount macros aren't very good, but if you can get one very cheap secondhand it would still be fine.
Easy camera to adapt to though, so any micro-nikkor, fd 50/3.5 etc will work great.
A 12mm extension tube will be plenty to fill the frame with a 35mm neg.
I scanned for years without any actual film holder, I just used a piece of picture frame glass with sticky tape to build up a guide to slide the film through.
A LCD screen showing a blank Word document was my backlight.
Still better than any lab scan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 10 Jun 2025 23:40:07 No.4434562 Report

Quoted By: >>4434567 >>4439168

>>4434541
That is not "better than any lab scan". If you want to dslr scan, get a modern macro lens at least. Dslr scanning can beat flatbeds but against Coolscans, Frontiers or Plusteks, dslrs lose. Not to mention Drum scanners.
There's just too many variables with dslr scanning. LCD Backlights are inconsistent in brightness and any vibration in your setup will reduce sharpness.
Dslrs are fast and easy, but they can't compete with a competent lab.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jun 2025 00:13:37 No.4434567 Report

Quoted By:

>>4434562
A D810 can equal a drum scan's detail. They're overrated unless you're after the unique color rendition. Competent labs use medium format digital cameras as their highest end scanning option now/

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jun 2025 00:14:47 No.4434568 Report

Quoted By: >>4439168

>>4434541
im not sure if its your skill, your lens, or the scan but this looks terrible

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 11 Jun 2025 01:42:51 No.4434589 Report

Quoted By: >>4439187

>>4426409
>But if it's not on instagram then in feels like the works doesn't exist
>shooting for external validation and not himself like some kind of woman
Yeah buddy sorry, no amount of money, gear, or “muh technique” is going to fix that bitchboy need for external validation. Sucks to suck.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 13 Jun 2025 21:20:40 No.4435623 Report

Quoted By: >>4436103

>>4426409
Call me a jackass, because I AM one, but if you're shooting film without your process being analog from end to end you shouldn't be shooting film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 15 Jun 2025 09:47:13 No.4436103 Report

Quoted By:

>>4435623
you're such a jackass omg

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_5219.jpg, 2MiB, 2048x3071

Anonymous Mon 23 Jun 2025 23:53:52 No.4439168 Report

Quoted By:

>>4434562
>That is not "better than any lab scan"
>>4434568
>im not sure if its your skill, your lens, or the scan but this looks terrible
Maybe it's the 800px you dummy, or that the tap handle is literally the only part of the photo in focus, or that it was taken on a 1950's leaf-shutter rangefinder at minimum focus distance in full sun on tri-x and developed in rodinal.
Have you ever seen B&W scanned on a minilab in autopilot? It really is below any acceptable standard.
Here's the raw re-edited a little bigger for you.

cANON

cANON Tue 24 Jun 2025 00:36:26 No.4439187 Report

Quoted By:

>>4434589
>fix that bitchboy need for external validation
He could always turn gay.

cANON

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO King_of_the_Hill_Holocaust_Ovens (...).png, 842KiB, 792x822

cANON Tue 24 Jun 2025 00:41:22 No.4439189 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426538
Does it matter if they're arbitrary?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Jun 2025 14:52:02 No.4439365 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426415
fpbp

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Jun 2025 15:16:00 No.4439371 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426415
Yeah, so?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 24 Jun 2025 16:35:18 No.4439387 Report

Quoted By:

>>4426415
>nooooooooooooo don't show your photos to people
retard

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