[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 124 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]



File: XPanExpand-.jpg (1.04 MB, 1600x1280)
1.04 MB
1.04 MB JPG
Panoramic Edition

Old thread >>3289591
All film related questions and general film discussion is to take place in this thread

Please post photos, we want to see beautiful grainy goodness!

>posting in /fgt/ doesn't make you gay, unless you use the cropped panorama mode on your memeju

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
PhotographerJeremy Allen
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 11:13:29
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3292886
If I wanted to get prints of my negatives do I need to do it the old fashioned way with a card marking the frame # and etc or can I just do a high quality scan and send the TIFF to print?
>>
>>3292918
Most people do it the digital way as you described. So yeah, get a high quality scan done, edit it as you wish and then take it to a printer. Don't think there's too many labs left that are still making C-type prints with an enlarger
>>
Didn't get an answer so I'll ask again,
What does the AE-1 Program do that I can't with my AE-1?
>>
>>3292938
Auto exposure
>>
>>3292938
Google, my good bitch
https://www.casualphotophile.com/2015/09/17/canon-ae-1-program-vs-ae-1-camera-review/
>>
File: 1 Reduced.jpg (452 KB, 1000x663)
452 KB
452 KB JPG
This lizard was acting really weird in the back yard.. It kept alternating between laying like this and coiling up

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.18
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height663
Unique Image ID8b32fc465da474310000000000000000
>>
File: 2 Reduced.jpg (470 KB, 1000x666)
470 KB
470 KB JPG
>>3292947
...Like this. Very strange

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.18
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height666
Unique Image ID44b70b2c1f78e24f0000000000000000
>>
>>3292947
>>3292949
my man retarded
>>
Is portra actually that bad for landscapes? I have a chance to get a ton of portra 160 but I only do landscapes really, never portraits
>>
>>3292969

I haven’t ever gone specifically shooting landscapes with it, but the snapshots I have of Portra 400 look fine.

I really love the colors. I will try digging some examples up when I get back home.
>>
>>3292970
Ok cool thanks. I'm just not sure about how it renders like greens and blues
>>
>>3292947
>>3292949

it was dying, my dude.
>>
>>3292969
Use kektar, Portra 160 is surprisingly grainy and the colors are bland without a cirpol.
>>
File: Service Station.jpg (238 KB, 2048x1285)
238 KB
238 KB JPG
Okay, guys. I bought a Contax IIIa with the Sonnar 1.5. Mine turned out to operate perfectly at all speeds and the lens had only minor haze that isn't noticeable.

Here's the best shot off the first roll.
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-007-2.jpg (1.06 MB, 1228x1365)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
T-Max 400, pushed two stops
Nikon F3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:37
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-015-6.jpg (961 KB, 1818x1228)
961 KB
961 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:37
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-021-9.jpg (903 KB, 1818x1228)
903 KB
903 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-019-8.jpg (858 KB, 1818x1228)
858 KB
858 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:38
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-003-0.jpg (980 KB, 1818x1228)
980 KB
980 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:37
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-023-10.jpg (1.02 MB, 1228x1818)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:39
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-025-11.jpg (1008 KB, 1228x1818)
1008 KB
1008 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:39
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-037-17.jpg (845 KB, 1818x1228)
845 KB
845 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:40
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-039-18.jpg (932 KB, 1818x1228)
932 KB
932 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:41
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-047-22.jpg (857 KB, 1183x1751)
857 KB
857 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:41
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-051-24.jpg (627 KB, 1192x1177)
627 KB
627 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:42
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-057-27.jpg (1000 KB, 1818x1228)
1000 KB
1000 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:43
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-059-28.jpg (910 KB, 1818x1228)
910 KB
910 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:43
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-065-31.jpg (983 KB, 1640x1108)
983 KB
983 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:44
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-067-32.jpg (926 KB, 1176x1241)
926 KB
926 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:44
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-071-34.jpg (878 KB, 1818x1228)
878 KB
878 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:45
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: 0411ros-R1-069-33.jpg (1.05 MB, 1228x1818)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:16 13:54:44
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3293003
>tmax pushed two stops
>in broad fucking daylight

what did he mean by this???
>>
>>3293028
>wider apertures for easier zone focusing
>faster shutter speeds to freeze the action
are you new to street photography?
>>
>>3293008

This is the best one.

The rest are unbelievably boring or painfully framed.
>>
>>3292969
I use it for landscapes, it's neat if you want a specific effect. With portra ektar provia Velvia I have 4 options for any light and colour.

Now I only need 2 more backs.
>>
>>3293003
why did you just post 40 images of fucking nothing in a general thread? Make your own thread so we can hide it summarily.
>>
>>3293032
>wider apertures for faster zone focusing

Are you fucking retarded
>>
is ektar 100 in a P+S (nikon lite touch, nice sharp lens) a waste? going hiking and don't want to bring only other option, a bulk SLR
>>
>>3293024
next time make your own thread or /rpt/
>>
my film camera has a busted metering system. can i use a iphone light meter app. I dont want to buy a light meter since i only shoot film 3-4 times a year
>>
>>3293115
sunny 16 brah
>>
File: photo ad_sunset.jpg (85 KB, 500x690)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
>>3293118
thanks bro

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2007:12:08 21:01:18
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width500
Image Height690
>>
>>3292926
Hey, I'm in Ireland. What was the other lab you used so I know to stay away?
>>
I've found Ricoh FF-1s and Minox 35 GT at similar prices. Is there any difference between them that would sway you one way or another when buying?
>>
>>3293032
>street photography?
>shooting people's backs
>>
>>3293003
>>3293004
>>3293006
>>3293008
>>3293009
>>3293011
>>3293012
>>3293013
>>3293015
>>3293016
>>3293017
>>3293019
>>3293020
>>3293021
>>3293022
>>3293023
>>3293024

There are way too many, this isn’t an /roy/ thread.

Also, next time try culling your shots a little. Most of these lack a subject or have a boring one. Some are so poorly framed they look like misfires.
>>
File: 20180515-000204260013.jpg (654 KB, 1800x1318)
654 KB
654 KB JPG
>>3293008
I also took a black and white pot of a dog in a car.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 18:51:59
>>
File: 20180515-000204260010.jpg (682 KB, 1800x1318)
682 KB
682 KB JPG
>>3293382
And some more stuff. FP4, Bronica ETR

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 18:57:24
>>
File: 20180515-000204260012.jpg (740 KB, 1800x1318)
740 KB
740 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 18:54:11
>>
File: 20180515-000204260003.jpg (534 KB, 1800x1318)
534 KB
534 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 19:01:05
>>
>>3293003
>>3293004
>>3293006
>>3293008
>>3293009
>>3293011
>>3293012
>>3293013
>>3293015
>>3293016
>>3293017
>>3293019
>>3293020
>>3293021
>>3293022
>>3293023
>>3293024

these all reek of burque burnout my guy.

it's something that i've consistently struggled with for a while myself. when i was 10 years younger, i always tried to get my daido on and go downtown to shoot 100$ street photographies. i usually ended up with a bunch of photos just like yours. the cruel reality of albuquerque is that unless you're willing to shoot the down-and-out bums, there just isn't enough pedestrian traffic in this town to get good street photography. it's a challenge to find a photographic identity for this city, like all car-centric, commercial blight towns that propagate all over the western expanse. Everyone drives everywhere, and when they do drive, they're just driving to a wal-mart or a target or starbucks, and they're in and out of their car very quickly. So what the hell are you supposed to do?

what albuquerque photographers are you following on IG?
>>
File: img298.jpg (3.11 MB, 4579x2923)
3.11 MB
3.11 MB JPG
Nikon N4004, Nikkor 18-55 and Ilford Pan 400.
Bratislava, Slavín.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution3200 dpi
Image Created2017:09:25 03:07:59
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4579
Image Height2923
>>
>>3293095
whoops meant smaller apertures
>f/16 f/22
>>
>>3293105
It's only a waste if you think it is a waste
>>
>>3293386
aside from my friends who are also photography enthusiasts... no one really. Although I wouldn't cal them Albuquerque Photographers, rather just... well they have their thing like portraits, landscapes and stuff like that. I do like how they came out, with the half assed composition too.
>>
>>3292992
>>3292970
>>3293039
Would it be better than expired kodak max lol
>>
Is a somewhat beat up leica iiif with a super fogged summar 5cm worth 250$?
>>
>>3292925
Yeah the usual for c41 nowadays is to scan it in a frontier then laser-c41 in it.
>>
>>3292886
What film is this? Its dated at 2005. My guess is either rebranded afga or superia

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6
Camera Software11.1.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationRight-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 20:14:17
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness1.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3264
Image Height2448
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3293427
Did Kodak allow rebrands of Gold?

If so gold 200.
>>
I'm so fucking close from falling for the film meme but I won't do it
>>
>>3293429
do it bitch

you know you'll like it
>>
>>3293429
it’s a bunch more shit to obsess over, how can you resist?
>>
>>3293429

It’s not a meme, it’s just expensive photography. Don’t treat film with any mysticism and it’ll just be another medium you can be terrible in.
>>
>>3293409
>I do like how they came out, with the half assed composition too.

don't be so hard on yourself, buddy.
>>
Looking at getting a Leica M for landing my dream job, how are the Voigtlander M mount lenses? I figure I can probably pick two up for the price of one Leica lens. I mostly only shoot 35 or 50mm, sometimes 24mm.
>>
>>3293529
The voightlander 24mm is pretty good. It's really close to the Leica lenses.
>>
>>3293503
Lmfao suddenly photography? I would have avoided that on name alone.
>>
>>3293429
Good gear is cheap and you pay for what you shoot. But every shot costs you money.

It's like a razor and blades.

With a digital camera you pay for all the shots you're going to take when you buy the camera.

With an old film camera, so long as it works, you're just paying for the maintenance and what you shoot.

If you're a tight cunt like me it makes some sense.
>>
File: IMG_0187.jpg (993 KB, 2446x2353)
993 KB
993 KB JPG
Can any film historians tell me when 4x6 became the printing norm? I saw this in an envelope and thought it was interesting. Most of my childhood pics are 3.5" x 5"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 6
Camera Software10.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:18 18:59:08
Exposure Time1/24 sec
F-Numberf/2.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating250
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness1.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.15 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2446
Image Height2353
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
does the film lab look at my photos and judge them
>>
>>3294012
If it's more than a press x to run the machine place, yes.

Mostly if you get scans though.
>>
File: Italy_003.jpg (956 KB, 1600x1064)
956 KB
956 KB JPG
Can someone tell me why my scans are coming out so boring and flat? Even the original prints look better than this. This was scanned with a V600 at 4800 dpi

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6881
Image Height4575
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution4800 dpi
Vertical Resolution4800 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:05:18 21:20:26
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1600
Image Height1064
>>
>>3294070
1. This is terrible scan, no detail whatsoever
2. Overcast day
3. Scanners will usually give you a very flat image so you can edit them as you please
>>
File: italy_low.jpg (236 KB, 1587x1009)
236 KB
236 KB JPG
>>3294072
how am i supposed to fix the scan? every negative comes in at slighly out of focus. the v600 doesnt have dual lenses or whatever

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAJ
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3294074
The better scanning holders have adjustable height so that's an option. Or get a better scanner, especially if you only do 35mm
>>
File: italy_low2.jpg (130 KB, 1334x1169)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
>>3294075
maybe its the scanner. this is 100% at 6400 dpi. thats too bad i just bought it the other day

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAJ
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: pee-web.jpg (2.51 MB, 1009x1500)
2.51 MB
2.51 MB JPG
>>3294076
It's the focus, the film is too close to the glass. you can try making little shims under the film holder until it's in focus. If you only just got it maybe return it since it's '''faulty''' and then buy a used Plustek. They're the best 35mm scanners without spending crazy money

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: italy_low3.jpg (166 KB, 2049x1262)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
>>3294077
I wish I could live focus. I have no way of knowing if its in focus until its completely scanned

and lastly, same image scanned at 9600 dpi. still fuzzy. Unless thats as good as the film is? it was kodak gold 400 from 1993

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAJ
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3294078
just make shims for your holder

when I used to work at a lab I cut stacks of bad prints and layered until it was sharp and then taped the whole thing together
>>
>>3294076
yeah id say that the negatives are not at the optimal height for scanning, a flatbed should resolve more than that. If not and that is optimal sharpen in post and correct colours. don't print larger and don't post huge files online. should be fine.
>>
>>3293400
>not using a 2x teleconverter on a 24mm and stopping down to effective f/44
>>
>>3294076
>this is 100% at 6400 dpi.
Anon are you serious? Consumer flatbeds rarely touch real 2000dpi, let alone 6400. Lack of adjustable focus is the first reason, subpar optics the second, and subpar transport motor for the CCD strip the third.

Don't bother scanning that high, you don't get any extra info, just bloated filesize and wasted time.

Also make sure to use the correct profile fo your film, and also set the blackpoint and grey point. This will improve contrast and colour.
>>
Can you use demineralised water in the final wash for B&W? Picked up a 5L jug bc the store didn't have any distilled water.
>>
>>3294070
First thing to do is set the scan resolution to 2400 dpi. Any larger than that comes up with worse sharpness because all it does is upscale the scan result. 2400 is the absolute limit of the scanner. With 35mm you are actually better off scanning the physical prints if you got any, than the negative.
>>
File: canon-p-test.jpg (1.11 MB, 996x1500)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
>>3294130
Yeah absolutely. I've always used tap water for everything in B&W processing, had no issues. No real reason to use distilled/demineralised water unless the stuff that comes out of your tap is really hard

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
>>
File: IMG_20180519_082339911.jpg (2.15 MB, 2340x4160)
2.15 MB
2.15 MB JPG
How do I get this crap off my lens. Cleaning with the usual method doesn't work.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Makemotorola
Camera ModelMoto G (5)
Camera Softwarecedric-user 7.0 NPPS25.137-93-8 10 release-keys
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:19 08:23:39
Exposure Time1/838 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/2.0
BrightnessUnknown
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length3.59 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2340
Image Height4160
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationLow
SharpnessSoft
Geodetic Survey DataWGS-84
>>
What's the best way to dev Fomapan 200? I have it rated at 100, and was thinking of using D76 as I have a huge surplus. Any suggestions?
>>
File: video-1526711244 (1).webm (2.39 MB, 576x320)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB WEBM
I have this old camera that used to work before, now the shutter just stuck and doesn't go all the way up whenever i push the trigger
>>
>>3294155
The camera is Petri MF-101 A. anybody has any idea how to fix it?
>>
>>3294155
Unless that's a very nice/expensive camera, I would suggest buying another body. Fixing the shutter issue will cost you many times more what buying a replacement body will
>>
How many people here develop their own film? Asking for a friend
>>
>>3294144
>No real reason to use distilled/demineralised water unless the stuff that comes out of your tap is really hard
My tap water in the final wash usually leaves streaks, using fotoflo with tap water = significantly less streaks but still some there.

Also hows the Canon P going? thinking about picking one up or a Canon 7
>>
>>3294163
Yeah I love it, great camera. They're cheap and very well made and give you access to a great lens catalog since it uses the Leica thread mount. The 1:1 viewfinder is amazing, perfect for 50mm lenses and you can shoot with both eyes open. Just make sure your example has a good rangefinder patch

The Canon 7 is very similar/the same mechanically, but more of an ugly duckling. That big selenium light meter is a bit of an eyesore and hardly ever accurate these days.
>>
>>3294155
>>3294156
My suggestion is to change the batteries. I had a SLR camera before that seemed broken (shutter didn't work, winding lever didn't move), and a battery replacement did the job.
>>
>>3294157
im just looking for a quick fix. maybe i could fix it myself.
>>
>>3294187
the screwdriver set you'll need to open the camera will cost as much as a new one lol
>>
>>3294162
Probably most of /fgt/, I dev BW, C41 but haven't tried E6 yet
>>
Anyone wanna trade cams? All film tested and working
>>
>>3294245
I'll give you a K1000 for a Leica M6
>>
>>3294245
I've got a Nikon F-501 to spare. AF kit lens as well, but the focus mechanism is fucked so it doesn't AF properly (if it ever did). MF works, kinda. First SLR tier, prolly cost a thousand back in the day. Motor drive. Eats triple A's like candy.
>>
>>3294110
The only reason i scanned that high was to show the fuzziness was not a DPI error but a focus error. I might as well return this V600 and get a Plustek. I only have a handful of 120 negatives anyways so im better off with a pure 35mm scanner instead.
>>
>>3294162
I think a good number but probably not most. I’d like start one day, maybe once I start shooting 4x5 as it’s impractical and expensive to have a lab do it.
>>
>>3294141
>With 35mm you are actually better off scanning the physical prints if you got any, than the negative.
what are you serious?
>>
>>3294151
looks like it's either the lens coating degrading. You probably can't fix it. How much does it affect the image quality?
>>
where did it go wrong?
>>
File: apsrol3.jpg (240 KB, 2138x1361)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
>>3294318
forgot picture

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D1X
Camera SoftwareNikon Editor 6.2.0 W
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern768
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2012:09:15 11:46:56
Exposure Time1/3 sec
F-Numberf/10.0
Exposure ProgramManual
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length60.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2138
Image Height1361
ISO Speed Used125
Color ModeCOLOR
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceAUTO
Image SharpeningNORMAL
Focus ModeAF-C
Tone CompensationLOW
Lens TypeUnknown
Lens Range60.0 mm; f/2.8
Auto FocusSingle Area, Top Selected, Center Focused
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Color ModeAdobe RGB
Lighting TypeNATURAL
>>
>>3294319
Worse in nearly every way to 135-36: cost more, smaller frame, more moving parts, needed fancy new lab machines, no support for home processing, cameras were expensive and incompatible to 35mm gear, and so forth. It found some use in zoom compact cameras (like the size you'd put in your purse, coloured pink and with maybe a fancy faux-engraving on it, you massive faggot) but that was mostly it.
>>
File: IMG_0800.jpg (662 KB, 2048x1536)
662 KB
662 KB JPG
>>3294245
sorry forgot to post a pic of my lot

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1536
>>
>>3294288
Im interested see anything I got you like?
>>3294326
>>
>>3294325
That reminds me, I moved from 35mm to medium format recently. The simple paper backed rolls are so much easier to work with than the metallic cartridges. No more messing with a bottle opener to get open the cartridge.
>>
Learned how to develop film back in school, wanna do it at home now, starting with BW, anyone got a good online shop in europe (preferably germany) to buy everything? maybe even some suggestions what chemicals I could use? iirc we had ilford stuff only in our school lab
>>
File: IMG_1807_l.jpg (451 KB, 750x1000)
451 KB
451 KB JPG
I've asked this before but never got a good answer. A few years ago I too some Fuji 200 non expired film to get developed. When I got it back it was sticky and smelled like vinegar (unwashed chemicals?) but what was odd was the film turned green instead of orange. Any idea what would cause this?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone 4S
Camera Software6.1.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2013:04:10 13:59:47
Exposure Time1/20 sec
F-Numberf/2.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating320
Lens Aperturef/2.4
Brightness0.6 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.28 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width750
Image Height1000
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: oddscans.jpg (755 KB, 2400x687)
755 KB
755 KB JPG
>>3294386
the pictures themselves were pretty trashed. I've rescanned them every 2 years and it seems like the film is breaking down because each scan the picture looks worse than before lol

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1671
Image Height1012
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1200 dpi
Vertical Resolution1200 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:05:19 12:08:56
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2400
Image Height687
>>
>>3294342 www.fotoimpex.de and
www.macodirect.de
I've ordered from both without problems (but not recently).
>>
>>3294393
Could be bad stabilizer. It's supposed to prevent color degradation.
>>
>>3293991
Pictures of me from around 1997 are 4x6, and my parents were far too poor to pay for an upgraded size, so I'd say early to mid 90s?
>>
>>3294096
>he doesn't stop to a minimum f/256
>>
>>3294393
If it smells like vinegar and they're breaking down slowly, then it's probably a fixer problem.
>>
>tfw my lens only stops down to f/32
>>
File: videon.jpg (74 KB, 650x368)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
I randomly bought one of these on Etsy (yeah I just wanted a stereo camera quickly - I have a DSLR now). I took some photos with it, took them to the lab and naively expected them to be able to deal with the non-standard pic format so they came back cropped and fucked.

The photos were all terrible anyway because I knew nothing about photography at that point.

Now I've been using a DSLR I feel I know enough to give this thing a try again - the only thing is being able to get the film developed.

Where in Britain would develop films from this without the machine automatically chopping up the film like a standard 35mm picture format?

Would this be a seriously specialist thing?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Width650
Image Height368
>>
>>3294455

develop it yourself, lad.
>>
File: myface.jpg (180 KB, 588x452)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
>Panorama thread
>124 replies
>Literally zero actual panoramas

We are living in post-/p/ism

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2018:02:06 16:10:33
Unique Image ID0D2C9AD6B0BC4209A245822D0824D053
>>
>>3294463
If I ever get my hands on a 6x14 or 6x17 I'll gladly post but until that day, no such thing.
>>
File: image.jpg (777 KB, 2208x648)
777 KB
777 KB JPG
>>3294465
Just stitch my dude

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2208
Image Height648
>>
>>3294479
Not a fan of stitching, 6x17 appears neat to me since it actually acts like one picture. You get the natural vignette of such a wide frame with near any lens, you get a nice 4 shots per roll and csn fit them in sheets 4 at a time.

Doing it in Photoshop feels like removing most of the fun.
>>
>>3294329
Every single thing in this whole haul is better value than the F-501, given how much I don't like its mid-late 80s plastic looks. Except for the Holga. But yeah, I'm interested in the T70 w/ a fifty (assuming that's what's on there), or one of those silver-top Canons. N. yurp tho, shipping's gonna cost a bunch. I'd recommend having a good look at the F-501's specs; in particular the prism has unforgivably poor coverage for a camera like that.

>>3294386
Wasn't properly washed or stablizer bath had run out of magic. C-41 fixer is sodium thiosulphate, i.e. "slow" fixer, and does end up smelling like vinegar in e.g. poorly washed fiber prints. Year-over-year degradation usually comes from microbes etc. eating the dyes and the gelatine base, which stabilizer would prevent by infusing the matrix with formaldehyde.

>>3294342
Rodinal + Ilford Rapid Fix + Ilfostop (optional) + WAC (optional) is the usual beginner's combo. If you want to be a bit more ambitious, add HC-110 or substitute Rodinal with it. Also get plenty of storage sheets, that shit adds up.
>>
On the topic of sheets, how do you all deal with 6x7 not fitting a roll on a sheet?
>>
>>3294342
Rodinal, D76 or whatever Ilford stuff you know.
Local store vinegar or citric acid for stop bath (use diluted to 3% of acid).
Some fixer.

Before doing experiments, develop film by book until you get consistent and clean results.
Scratches, streaks, dust, light leaks, uneven developing, bromide drag, drying marks and so on do not make snaps any better.
>>
File: italylow4.jpg (224 KB, 1746x950)
224 KB
224 KB JPG
>>3294078
>>3294080
I give up, I scanned the same negative crop (clock tower bricks) 8 times with different spacers under the film holder, directly on glass, spacers and film on glass, etc and it still looks the same or worse. maybe the picture was never sharp to begin with.
How do you guys shim your negatives, maybe Im doing it wrong.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerAJ
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: 6x17ACROS.jpg (569 KB, 2000x655)
569 KB
569 KB JPG
>>3294463
From Cuzco, Peru.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpcm
Vertical Resolution300 dpcm
>>
File: 6x17ACROS (2).jpg (716 KB, 2000x655)
716 KB
716 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpcm
Vertical Resolution300 dpcm
>>
File: 6x17ACROS (3).jpg (517 KB, 2000x652)
517 KB
517 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpcm
Vertical Resolution300 dpcm
>>
>>3294543
Really like the panoramic format here.
>>
>>3294536
I'll say it again, misfocus is only one of the reason consumer flatbeds have low resolution.

Even if focus is perfect, the *optical path* simply cannot reach that resolution. Imagine if you put plastic (or very simple 2-element glass) lens in front of a 24MP camera. The sensor has 24MP, and you'll get a 24MP file, but without real detail because it isn't resolved by the lens.

Scanners are like that, with a lens system and a sensor which consists of an RGB *strip* (and not a rectangle like in cameras), that is moved in very small steps across the frame.

Consumer flatbeds simply don't have a lens good enough to resolve the theoretical dpi, and the motor moving the sensor strip is not smooth and small stepped enough to achieve the theoretical dpi. That's all there is to it.

There's a website that tests the real resolution of various scanners:
http://filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html
This website (or similar ones testing real world resolution) should be your only criterion when buying a film scanner, you can completely disregard the advertised theoretical resolution.

In your case for instance (V600), the real resolution is around 1500dpi, which gives a 3.5megapixel file with real detail. Anything above that, is scanning blur.
>>
>>3294587
I wish I'd done a bit more research, because I picked up a v700 to cut my costs in half, and have spent hours scanning 1 36exp black and white roll (colour takes longer), but compared to my labs SP3000, these scans are so soft, I'm quite disappointed, but I'll keep trying, but I suspect I should have picked up a Coolscan or something
>>
>>3294587
Thank you for your directness. My dilema is that I dont shoot enough film nor is it my profession so spending $1000 on a Coolscan isnt practical, however I do have dozens of negatives both of my own and family, and grandparents from the 60s etc. I was going to return the V600 and get a Plustek 8100 however that site you linked gave it a poor review. I suppose spending up to $500 could be justified.
>>
Hey /fgt/ where's a good place to get my film developed and scanned around La Jolla/San Diego? My local place in LA develops and scans super cheap but I want to get some stuff done while I'm still here.

Shooting film is fun. Hopefully my shots aren't total garbage and I'll share a few.
>>
>>3294608
If you have a digital camera with interchangeable lenses I would suggest trying 'DSLR scanning'. Very high quality output and a good deal faster than using a scanner.

In my experience the Plustek scanners are a pain in the ass to use and take forever, but give you pretty decent results
>>
>>3294614
Where do you go in LA?
>>
>>3294594
>compared to my labs SP3000
That's a wholly different category though.
You can't expect that quality even from dedicated filmscanners (plusteks, etc.). Frontiers and Noritsus are $15-20k scanners attached to $100k minilabs/printers. They scan at ~24MP resolution, and achieve virtually all of it.

The good thing is, a dedicated film scanner can get you 80-85% there fir a fraction of the cost. The only catch is increased scanning time.

>My dilema is that I dont shoot enough film nor is it my profession so spending $1000 on a Coolscan isnt practical, however I do have dozens of negatives both of my own and family, and grandparents from the 60s etc.
Yeah fair enough.

What do you mean the PlusTek had a bad review?
It was tested at 3800dpi real resolution. That's 6 times the resolution of a V600 in terms of megapixels (twice the dpi means 4 times the resolution).

It's slow as the V600, but much higher resolution.
For the price I doubt there's anything better.

If you want something better in terms of resolution and speed, without spending Coolscan money, there's the Reflecta ProScan 10T, which actually is even higher in resolution than a Coolscan (5000dpi theoretical, 4100dpi real).
Or the Reflecta RPS10M, which is 4300dpi real and most importantly, you can feed it a full uncut roll and it'll batch scan it.

Both of those though are closer to $550-600 for the 10T and $800-850 for the RPS 10M
>>
>>3294666
>So we can't give a recommendation for the Plustek OpticFilm 8100 because other scanners of the same class like e.g. the Reflecta CrystalScan 7200 bring both a higher density range and - this enormously carries weight - an infrared-technology for the automatical dust- and scratch correction with them.

The 8100 is $300 on ebay. I cant seem to find reflectas as easily. That is only ~$100 more than the V600 I bought. if you say the Plustek will do a decent job I think that will be my only option in this price range
>>
>>3294675
Ah I see.
Yeah the reflectas can be slightly better, but for a higher increased price.

Also if infrared dust removal is something you definitely want, the 8200 has it. But keep in mind, it takes quite a bit of extra time to scan with dust removal one, usually roughly twice the time compared to having it off.

I have the 8100 and I'm pretty happy with it. The only "issue" is it takes time, close to 2 minutes per frame at high res, so if you add some adjustments in every frame (plus prescan), and add the time it takes to switch strips, it can be 1:40-1:50 hours for a full roll. I'm also using an Epson V850 and it takes comparable time, for quite lower resolution and sharpness.

>The 8100 is $300 on ebay.
Is that new or used?
I think you can order them for €260 new from the manufacturer, with warranty and Silverfast included.

If you're shooting 35mm only, a dedicated scanner is a much better option. For medium format a flatbed can be reasonable.
>>
>>3294653
Well I'll be honest I haven't actually used it yet but I'm planning on trying once I'm back home from school. Rocket photo lab in Studio City. It's a 15 min walk from home, I've apparently been walking by it for years without realizing it was right there.
>>
>>3294681
Thank you for that. It is 300 for new, I am in the US so I'd rather not order overseas if possible. Finding used Plusteks are equally difficult, even Amazon rarely sells them. I think I will try the 8100 and see how it goes and return the V600 once I am able to make a comparison.
>>
File: ilfordhp5400-1150785.jpg (2.04 MB, 2738x1825)
2.04 MB
2.04 MB JPG
Who here /grainy/? A lot of my film has been shot unmetered and hand developed while guessing chemical temps.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePanasonic
Camera ModelDMC-GX7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution238 dpi
Vertical Resolution238 dpi
Image Created2018:05:15 21:59:01
Exposure Time0.6 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Exposure Bias-0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length45.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Untitled-3.jpg (1.18 MB, 1440x990)
1.18 MB
1.18 MB JPG
>>3294587
taking the chance to shill my scan results again. I'm very happy with my 150$ coolscan IV

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution3200 dpi
Vertical Resolution3200 dpi
Image Created2018:05:11 20:01:16
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1440
Image Height990
>>
File: icerocgem008.jpg (752 KB, 1500x989)
752 KB
752 KB JPG
>>3294727
I developed and scanned some 30+ year old kodacolor 100 my dad shot, been sitting in the basement, digital roc is a big help when applied at the minimum

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.3 W
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4101
Image Height2704
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2900 dpi
Vertical Resolution2900 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018.05.19 23.54.42
>>
>>3294727
What's the caveat? Does it need a weird interface card or an antiquated operating system or something?
>>
File: icerocgem016.jpg (819 KB, 1500x1059)
819 KB
819 KB JPG
>>3294763
nope, usb, running on my windows 7 computer. Caveat is it can only do 6 shots at a time, not a whole roll like the fancy kind. but its motorized, so its still about as fast and easy as scanning with a v600

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNikon
Camera ModelNikon COOLSCAN IV ED
Camera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.3 W
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3811
Image Height2692
Number of Bits Per Component16, 16, 16
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution2900 dpi
Vertical Resolution2900 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018.05.20 00.45.22
>>
>>3294764

fuck yeah to the coolscan,

we have both of these at uni and i sware by the coolscan.

its much sharper - and faster
>>
File: Color 111252017111.jpg (1.45 MB, 2000x1324)
1.45 MB
1.45 MB JPG
>>3294765
one thing I am looking for is software to replace nikonscan, since it has a tendency to crash. I've tried vuescan, but it doesnt work well with the sa21 motorized adaptor. I haven't seen any silverfast 8 torrents. Any software I may be missing?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2017:11:25 20:08:58
>>
>>3294479
Awesome. Can I have this in wallpaper res? 1080px short size
>>
>>3294411
>>3294498
>>3294514
nice, thanks.
I'm gonna order the chemicals and a small Jobo tank then. my uncle has a Jobo processor somewhere, but I guess I'll do the first ones by hand to get back into it
>>
File: img040.jpg (155 KB, 3415x824)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>3294463
This is my view when I work 3rd shifts.
>>
File: img039.jpg (204 KB, 3303x968)
204 KB
204 KB JPG
>>3294824
And another one, both shot on Fujicolor c200.
>>
On the topic of Nikon Coolscan, how does the 9000 compare to Noritsu SP3000 lab scans, quality wise?
>>
>>3294824
>>3294825
C200 in what? That's too long to be xpan format. Doesn't look like film at all to me
>>
>>3294907
I scanned it myself but 5 shots, these 2 included came out in a different resolution, don't really know why. The other shots came out fine.
>>
>>3294914
What camera? They're a weird format
>>
>>3294922

Minolta X-700, long exposure like 2-3 deconds
>>
File: img030.jpg (442 KB, 3304x2135)
442 KB
442 KB JPG
>>3294922
Same roll btw
>>
>>3294948
>>3294951
>>3294922
Imma go out on a limb and say that it is stitched together
>>
Any recommendations for a medium format camera that's not a TLR?
Been using my Yashica mat for a few months and fucking love it but want to move away from the square format.

Budget roughly £350
>>
New vandan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8AlFszdyE4
>>
>>3294992
What do you intend to use it for? I got an RB67 to complement my Yashica-Mat and it’s great. Interchangeable lenses and backs, works well with filters, kino 6x7 format, plus you’ll pretty much be drowning in pussy.
>>
>>3294992
>£350
Get a folder. If in doubt, try a Moskva (~1/10 of your budget).
>>
Ikelite housing for N60, or N6006. Where do I find one?
>>
>>3295010
Terrible advice
>>
Destroyed two rolls of film by trying to load two 120 on a 220 reel today. Pretty much every frame is unusable. I think I managed to slide them in overtop of eachother.
>>
File: IMG_0802.jpg (692 KB, 2048x1536)
692 KB
692 KB JPG
>>3294498
yeah we could both pretty much just buy those cams off ebay for what it would cost to ship safely.


Ive been thinking about listting my rapid M but I have no idea what its worth I see rapids listed for 200-1000 right now its hard to appraise your own.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2048
Image Height1536
>>
File: 000200930010.jpg (902 KB, 1255x1024)
902 KB
902 KB JPG
Rip Acros

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareEZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1255
Image Height1024
>>
>>3295067
Truth. Marvelous things, but ugly and therefore not worth shipping anywhere. Oughta give it away on the local craigslist or offer a trade for AE-1 program, premotor Minolta, or some such quasi-disposable plastic SLR from five years earlier.

I do so hate my F-501. Flawless condition, but unsatisfying, uncool, unchallenging, and unsophisticated.
>>
>>3295120

I have an F-501. (well, the U.S. branded N2020) The autofocus motor on mine is funky as hell too. It will randomly shoot to minimum focus distance and get stuck there. Won’t work again until I power off the camera, set the focus back to infinity, and then start it up again.

It is a decent enough camera otherwise. At the time of its release it was a single step down from the professional cameras of the time (F3 or F4 I think?). I have a 28mm and 50mm prime for it that I absolutely love. Great results. But with the weird autofocus I sometimes wonder if I should just get a manual focus screen and use it that way.
>>
>>3295066
>Destroyed two rolls of film by trying to load two 120 on a 220 reel today.
It's not terribly easy anon.
You have to be careful to leave the adhesive tape intact when peeling the paper off. And then to be precise while taping the second roll on the first, so the tape gets a good grip on the new roll.

Finally, you have to twist the reel slowly, keeping the film in place with every bakctwist and feeling it to make sure it's advancing properly. Normal procedure, just more carefully and slowly so as not to jam it. Reels must be absolutely dry.
>>
File: DSC_8650.jpg (548 KB, 1000x668)
548 KB
548 KB JPG
got this today for 18$ (original case and everything it photo), was this a good deal?
Also, it seems that the polaroid film was discontinued before I was born, so what can I do with this? I saw conversions from a quick search, but how realistic/hard is that?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern822
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution500 dpcm
Vertical Resolution500 dpcm
Image Created2018:05:20 19:52:18
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/5.6
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length90.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 1526836943013.jpg (2.06 MB, 1188x1791)
2.06 MB
2.06 MB JPG
Shot my first roll of Porta recently.

Really love the tones over Ektar

Gotta get my hands on some Kodak pro image 100 !
>>
>>3295347
no its all pretty much useless
>>
Scored this, 8x10 drum and roller, easel, 50 and 75mm lens, 35 and 2-1/2 carriers, bulk loader, and a contact maker.

For $35.
>>
File: IMG_20180520_210524.jpg (240 KB, 890x2048)
240 KB
240 KB JPG
>>3295364
Forgot photo
>>
File: DSC_8656.jpg (1.87 MB, 1899x1519)
1.87 MB
1.87 MB JPG
Dont know why I never posted this but, my professor gave me this setup this semester for free. I have never made a print before so I guess I will be teaching myself over the summer.
is this a decent starter setup?

(sorry for pic size, I will never post a pic over 1000 again, just doing so text is readable if anyone wanted to see it)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D750
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern822
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution400 dpcm
Vertical Resolution400 dpcm
Image Created2018:05:20 20:35:47
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/18.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating640
Lens Aperturef/18.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Compulsory, Return Detected
Focal Length26.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlLow Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
Do you guys process your own film? I'm thinking about getting back into 35mm and I was wondering if it was worth it to just process my own film or send it off to a lab
>>
>>3292947
>>3292949
its got testicular brain cancer metastasis i'm afraid.
>>
>>3295469
How often do you shoot? If you have a local lab with decent processing fees and you aren’t pumping out rolls weekly it’s often better to just have them do it. Unless you actually enjoy devving.
>>
>>3295469
>I was wondering if it was worth it to just process my own film or send it off to a lab
It depends on the expected volume of production: you can ask a lab how much would it cost you to have a 36 exp roll developed, and then scanned or printed, then compare it to the cost of the equipment divided by the number of rolls you expect to shoot.
C-41 chemicals are relatively cheap, around 20~30€ for 1L, and can develop at least 16 rolls, but expire in 6 months. Then you have to consider all the developing tanks and bottles for the chemicals and whatnot, which should set you back around 50~100€. Last but not least, assuming you want to scan the negatives, the cheapest 135 film scanner, the Plustek 8100, costs slightly more than 200€.
>>
>>3295350
>pro image 100
don't bother it's just gold 100 for the asian market
>>
Someone posted a trailer here at /p of a half documentary shot on a lumix maybe a G5. There was a old black guy in a city apartment smoking telling a story in the dark. Maybe the film won an award. I can't remember what it was called. Does anyone?
>>
>>3295546
wrong thread pal, you're looking for /vid/
>>
>>3295554
oh yeah
>>
>>3295282
Thanks for the advice.
I tried it some more with the two busted rolls in daylight today. Using the tape on the end of the film the edge simply became too thick to feed reliably on my reels. The reel has very little gripping surface on 120 film.

I used some generic clear tape instead of the thicker tape on the 120 film already and that worked marvelously. The reel feels much too densely packed to me when I have both rolls loaded, I'm going to try and develop some but I wouldn't be surprised if I get development problems again.
>>
>>3295384
That's excellent. from what I can see you have all the tools you would need aside from some trays to put your chemicals in and a rack or something similar for drying.
>>
Gee, I didn't expect Fotoimpex to sit on my order, and a few hundo of the realm, when their page said some products would be delayed for (at the time) five days. Now it feels like I'm the mark in a banking scheme.
>>
Is Olympus Mju or xa good as a first film point and shoot ? I just want something small, cheap and the color seems to look good.

Should I look at any other options ?
>>
>>3295700
They should both be fine. I’d recommend the XA over the MJU as it’s smaller and has a much nicer build.
>>
>>3295702
Any other models I should be aware of ?

In Asia and the market seems a bit different and randomly priced. Just want to compare some similar
>>
>>3295518
giannis said that its leagues above other cheap film and has wide exposure latitude

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-32_33
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:19 10:29:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3295700
If you can find a fixed focal length mju II for under $40 I'd definitely get it.
>>
>>3295745
They’re about $80-120 here
>>
>>3295731
What exactly are you after? Fast lens? Priority modes? Auto-focus? Aesthetics? There’s a lot out there but most of it is down to personal preference and budget.
>>
File: 9579-011.jpg (4.62 MB, 2944x3000)
4.62 MB
4.62 MB JPG
Hi /p/!

I've recently got bought Yashica Mat 124. I read about how detailed and sharp MF is, but my photos look rather blurred. Pic related is taken around f/16, focused on the lighthouse through the magnifying glass, yet nothing is sharp here. I'm sorry it is so so big, but I wanted to send you the original file for the review. It's Kodak Tri-X 400, developed and scanned in the lab.

Where do you think the problem is? Is it my skills in focusing? Am I spoiled by digital? Was it the scanning or, by any chance, the developing process?

I wish it's my fault and I can learn what to do, since I enjoy the camera but if SLR can give me results similar to this pic, I will most likely sell Mat 124.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital Imaging
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1300 dpi
Vertical Resolution1300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:17 20:17:57
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2944
Image Height3000
>>
>>3295888
Are both your negative and scams not to your delight or are they just not optimal scans?
>>
How do you convince girls to let you take naked photos of them using film?

Hard mode: I don't really know how to flashes
>>
>>3295982

Zippity Zop drop a pill in their pop.
>>
>>3295888
Could be a few things.

1. Your taking and viewing lens aren't synced.
2. Your scanner is shit
3. You can't focus for shit
>>
First serious roll came out and so far I’m very happy with my local lab for 35mm. This is colorplus 200, cropped for IG. But I have them a test roll of 120 portra 6x9 and some of the photos have a weird color cast. Not impressed on that front. And unfortunately they don’t do E6.

Here are a few favorites from the roll

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePhotoshop Express 6.4.1004
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:21 21:02:57
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2026
Image Height2026
>>
>>3296048

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePhotoshop Express 6.4.1004
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:21 21:06:19
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1516
Image Height1516
>>
>>3296049
Obligatory cat

I had never shot my Nikkor 55mm 1.2 pre-ai on film so I did all of these wide open with a variable ND on a Nikkormat so I could get a better idea of the lens’ abilities wide open. Way too soft, but for this cat picture for example, that works well. Next roll with it will probably be around f/4 to f/11 since I missed some good moments with the paper thin depth of field.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePhotoshop Express 6.4.1004
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2018:05:21 21:07:09
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2071
Image Height2071
>>
>>3295807
Something fairly simple to use, something small and experiencing the difference from digital.

If I enjoy it I may get a Minolta x700 since there’s many of them in this area. I like my digital camera and enjoy vintage lenses. I want to try film but I don’t want to invest too much time and energy.
>>
Why does film look so comfy
>>
>>3295982
>Hard mode: I don't really know how to flashes

You're fucked mate. I shoot quite a few amateur nude models, who have seen my work and want to shoot. It's been great because I've learned a lot about direction, light etc. I'm bored of shooting nudes now and I'm trying to hit the street.

My point is, it's not all that, and you have to be genuine. At least film has an authentic look to it. Some of the digital nudes I see look cheap and tacky. Shoot a Memtra 400 on a Contax t2 and you're a pro.
>>
>>3296082
how do u get into it?

what do u use the images for

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelQSS-32_33
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:19 10:29:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3295888
probably dirty negative/shit scan
>>
File: 33.jpg (115 KB, 1080x1349)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
>>3296089
I've always enjoyed portraiture and had been dying to take photos of people (I'm an introvert, but have a gf). I started off doing more arty pieces, like close ups of her body parts and so on, and a few girls liked it and the rest is history.

I don't shoot straight nudes like, say, boudoir shite. I hate that stuff, I just shoot Richard Kern style portraiture and mix it up with close ups and so on.

>pic related (not mine though, sadly)
>>
>>3295888
>developed and scanned in the lab.

some people get great results out of their local labs' scans, but that seems to be the obvious culprit if you're unhappy. yashica's should be able to pump out plenty of detail in 120.

if you have another lab nearby it could be worth a try to see if they handle your shit better, otherwise you're going to be at a fork in the road where you either decide to scan yourself and figure out that workflow, or give it up.

pic is from my fuji 645, i'm pretty happy with what I've been pumping out of a pretty bottom tier flatbed.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:09 21:21:12
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3296072
If you want a new experience to try something fun without spending a load I’d get a rangefinder with priority modes. Something like either the original XA (not the XA1, 2 etc.) or a Canonet QL17, or something from the Olympus 35 series. These cameras were incredibly popular back in the day so there are millions around and can be picked up for very little.
>>
>>3296072

I have a Minolta X-700, it is a joy to use. Might also want to look at X-500 or X-300, they can be considerably cheaper.

I also have a very nice rangefinder, a Minolta CLE. It is a good camera, but doesn’t play well with glasses.
>>
Why isn’t there a good 120 scanner? I don’t have room for a drum scanner. It’s the only thing keeping me from developing at home. Developing E-6 is less of a pain in the ass than getting decent scans on a shitty V600. It’s so offputting that I have a huge undeveloped film backlog.
>>
>>3296215
There is but it's expensive
>https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/890953-REG/Plustek_783064365642_Optic_Film_120_Scanner.html
I'm in the same boat as you I don't want to go and shoot MF anymore since I don't have a way to get good scans. Only way I've got decent scans is from DSLR scanning but that shit is a fucking nightmare to do on the regular
>>
>>3296221
>>3296215
I spent like 4 hours scanning a 36 exp roll of 135. I've got a few exposed rolls of 120 that I can't even be bothered scanning on my v700, because I'm not too happy with the incredibly poor resolution. Wank.
>>
I fell for the natura meme. Aperantly its just superia for asian markets
>>
>>3296236
Maybe that's true, but it's still damn good. Fine to be exposed anywhere from 400 - 2000 and dev'd normally, shit's magic.
>>
>>3296236

Yea, but Superia 1600 is awesome to begin with.

They are both dead now anyway.
>>
>>3296215
There are a number of smallish drum scanners. I have a Scanmate 5000 and I can fit it on my desk. The main issue is the fact it weighs 50kg, the units also really don't like being moved all that often. It will probably sit on my desk for a long time. You will need a petty huge desk for one.

I think drum size is the main limitation in their dimensions, my unit can just do a sheet of 8x10"

It's cheaper than a plustek 120 at least.
>>
>>3292886
I have some 30 year old Kodak film that I never got developed because it is nudes of an ex-gf. Always been at room temp. What are the chances of it still being good? Also I would have to develop it myself as she was 18 but looks really young so don't want to take the chance of sending it anywhere...at the minimum what do I need? Never developed film before and this is color?
>>
>>3296257
if she doesn't look like a child, I'm sure you'd be fine. But if you don't want to take the risk grab some fixer, stop-bath, wetting agent and some c41 developer, I've never dev'd colour so I'm sure someone else will chime in and say.

Also, they probably will come up fine if the roll hasn't been roasted. If there's any issue, it'll more likely be the colour will be weird, but you could convert to black and white and it'd be fine most likely
>>
>>3296259
How much would that cost?
>>
>>3296262
depends where you live. You'll need a dev tank too
>>
>>3296263
Canada...
>>3296259
No she looks like an adult with no boobs...don't know where I could send it out
>>
>>3296264
take it to your local, they'll scan and dev it for like 10 bucks, depending
>>
>>3296265
IDK...taking nudes with like close ups of vag....wouldn't they freak out?
>>
>>3296266
I dunno. I've dev'd some rather hardcore stuff. Not sex per say, but a lot of vag. The women down at the local Kodak place probably hate me but they do their job and remain cordial haha. Are you talking about spread eagle?
>>
>>3296267
Yup no hardcore just closeups....
>>
>>3296268
who cares man lol. You'll probably never see them again
>>
>>3296271
The problem is I don't see anything local...mail in only
>>
>>3296272
even better. You don't have to pick up the negatives
>>
>>3296257

Buy lab box, some c41 chems, and a sous vide to keep temps stable.

Should develop without issue (maybe some minor easily fixed discoloration) as long as it was room temperature and not summer car dash in the southern us temperature.
>>
File: MysteryFilm-0501.jpg (325 KB, 1333x2000)
325 KB
325 KB JPG
>>3296257
>30 year old Kodak film
>Always been at room temp. What are the chances of it still being good?
It's most likely going to have wacky colours, pic related is from a roll of fujifilm I developed that was shot in the 70s-80s in japan.
will post a few more

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Image Created2018:05:22 20:55:04
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-6.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: MysteryFilm-0502.jpg (289 KB, 2000x1333)
289 KB
289 KB JPG
>>3296285
mind you I don't know how this film was stored so your roll could be fine

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Image Created2018:05:22 20:55:08
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-6.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: MysteryFilm-0497.jpg (372 KB, 2000x1333)
372 KB
372 KB JPG
>>3296287
last pic, this is from a different roll I got from japan but as you can see the colours are still ridiculous

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Image Created2018:05:22 20:55:04
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-4.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: 15269870132362.jpg (523 KB, 1200x800)
523 KB
523 KB JPG
>>3296287

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution1000 dpi
Vertical Resolution1000 dpi
Image Created2018:05:22 13:32:56
Exposure Time1/4 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-6.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1200
Image Height800
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3296257
I did a 15-20 year old roll a week ago. I gave it 15 more seconds of developer because I was worried I would get nothing.

The colour almost came out correctly, the images were quite passable.

It might be ok.
>>
File: DSC08365.jpg (966 KB, 1920x2880)
966 KB
966 KB JPG
Anyone know where I can get some cheap (not lomo) 110 cartridges? Just gonna fill them with Ilford fp4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-6
Camera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.3
Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1920
Image Height2880
Compression SchemeUncompressed
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Data ArrangementChunky Format
Image Created2018:05:20 20:28:23
Exposure Time1/50 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness4.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Image Width1920
Image Height2880
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image ID101baa3a1d868d430000000000000000
>>
>>3296276
Lab-box doesn't exist, you fucking buffoon.
>>
>>3296345

August release though?
>>
File: 0213ros-R1-049-23.jpg (825 KB, 1818x598)
825 KB
825 KB JPG
Pano Stitch

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.3.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2018:05:21 15:55:11
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3296391
Good stuff. I should visit a country with some hills some day.
>>
>>3296285
I found a roll of Japanese 35mm film in about 1999 on my uni campus. Now and again I come across it and think about getting it developed for a laugh. I think I might just have to - I wonder what the hell is on it...
>>
>>3294456
I wouldn't know how at this stage. After my first failed attempt with this camera I've put it on the back burner. I'll have to put in another roll and try again some time - and probably get it developed by a lab who can deal with this format.

For all I know the camera might also be fucked so I'm not sure it's worth investing in a film development setup for it.

If I manage to get some good shots out of it second time around then I might consider it.
>>
>>3296500
its a kamikaze roll
>>
By film general, does this also cover videography? Might be working with a Panasonic ag450 soon.
>>
>>3296539
There’s one every thread...

You want /vid/
>>
>>3295698
It seems I was too harsh; all they needed was a little poke. And the goods are solid enough that I'm kind of disliking sounding like a hater on a public forum. Better selection of Adox & Paterson stuff than Maco too, guess that's where the own-brand competition makes them different.

Also, how into orthopan film in general? 80 speed, man, 80 speed I could shoot now that it's summer, but is it at all clever to spend this on wide open tree-trunk snapshits? (or brick walls, because mmyeah dark red brick?)
>>
>>3296510
Find your local photography group on facebook and ask if someone can help you delevop it. Be sure to mention it came from this camera and that the lab fucked it up.
>>
>>3295906
I've checked few others, the negatives look razor sharp under 8x glass. They appear to be much sharper than the scans, so maybe here lies the problem.

>>3296009
1. The photo was taken with f/16 or even f/22, I was focusing on the lighthouse, I think it would have to be a huge misalignment.

2. I have no way to scan so far, but I will try to scan at least few with my Brother scaner and DIY stuff I need. It's probably the least suited for this job, but if I'll get results similar to my pic, it would explain my problem.

3. This is one thing I would be able to fix easily. Still, the pic I've posted was taken with aperture that was quite slow and DoF should cover the lighthouse and much more.

>>3296110
It looks like it for now, I will use another lab and compare the results.

>>3296175
That's a comfy photo!

That's what I heard about MF cameras in general and was expecting something more. Yours have so much more detail, even the floor markings which I feel would not be visible in my case. I will try another lab and see what wil I get from it. If not, then I'll decide what to do, but the idea of developing and scaning was in my head lately, this might be the way to go.


Thank you all for the repsonses!
>>
>>3296500
Profane information, incomprehensible and dangerous to the human psyche
>>
Other than unique photo, where can I order FLEXICOLOR chemistry? Unique charges an absolute assload for shipping, and I feel unsafe having only one supplier but I literally cannot find anyone else who will sell me Flexicolor C-41 and RA-4
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0506.jpg (1.11 MB, 854x1280)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB JPG
Took some burds. I need to get better at approaching them, 300mm isn't long enough for my shitty stealth.
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0510.jpg (1.2 MB, 1440x961)
1.2 MB
1.2 MB JPG
>>3296745
>>
File: gm670.jpg (173 KB, 1024x588)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
Reasons not to get a Fujica gm670 as a MF rangefinder?
>cheaper than other MF rangefinders
>ILC
>6x7

Only negative imo is that there's no lightmeter

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3296135
Who's pic is this?
>>
>>3296806
Either Jason Lee Perry's or Larsen Sotelo's I think
>>
>>3296798
No negatives. If you can find a kit for under a G then grab it.
I'd say be aware that the rangefinder has probably desilvered a bit and it might be difficult to focus.
>>
>>3296807
thanks!
>>
>>3296745
This looks really good.

I've also been having a hard time getting pictures of birds, the longest lens for my system being a 238mm equivalent doesn't help much. Adding a 1.4x tele converter could make it workable.

A Canon 400mm F5.6L with some body with decent autofocus will probably be something I'll have to pick up on the side some day if I want to shoot some wildlife.
>>
>>3296744
Count yourself lucky to have that option, it's even harder to get it in Europe and the pricing is even worse.

I doubt we can even get Kodak RA-4 chemistry, the only stuff I see is Fuji and Tetenal.
>>
File: spaghetti policy.png (250 KB, 500x467)
250 KB
250 KB PNG
>thought that film was going to be really dank
>it's literally worse than pictures I take on my smartphone

no wonder all of these cameras that went for thousands in the 80s are worth $20 now
>>
>>3297047
the only film cameras worth getting are the the high ends 90s ones that have auto focus and shit
>>
>>3296307
Why not lomo
>>
>>3295758
that's still quite a good deal - they're usually 200-300 in the US
>>
>>3297047
>be shit at taking photos
>blame the medium
Film cameras don’t have facial recognition autofocus or AI-controlled colour correction, you’ve got to work hard to get good results.
>>
>>3297060

So... what?

>Nikon F4 and F5
>Minolta a5, a7, and a9
>Canon 1V
>>
Is it worth paying the upfront cost and begin loading my own bulk film?
>>
>>3297117
yeah if you want to go that high. my brother shot with a nikon F50 that at least had more control than a basic 1970s slr
>>
File: 20180502_012026.jpg (1.86 MB, 4656x3492)
1.86 MB
1.86 MB JPG
>>3297060
The only film cameras worth getting are the high end ones from late 70's to mid 80s.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelLG-H930
Equipment MakeLG Electronics
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width4656
Image Height3492
Image Created2018:05:02 01:20:26
Exposure Time0.3 sec
FlashNo Flash
White BalanceAuto
ISO Speed Rating100
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0520.jpg (1.32 MB, 1440x949)
1.32 MB
1.32 MB JPG
Shits from a little walk around town.
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0522.jpg (1.15 MB, 848x1280)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
>>3297156
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0525.jpg (940 KB, 851x1280)
940 KB
940 KB JPG
>>3297159
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0526.jpg (1.21 MB, 1440x968)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB JPG
>>3297163
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0527.jpg (1.14 MB, 1440x954)
1.14 MB
1.14 MB JPG
>>3297167
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0529 (2).jpg (1.25 MB, 1440x994)
1.25 MB
1.25 MB JPG
>>3297168
>>
File: X7FSPMNT0530.jpg (1.03 MB, 871x1280)
1.03 MB
1.03 MB JPG
>>3297172
Last one. Superia Premium.
>>
>>3297156
>>3297159
>>3297163
>>3297167
>>3297168
>>3297172
>>3297174
P comfy but really mundane subjects. Also holy shit gas is pricy in yurop


I picked this bad boy up for $5 at a thrift store yesterday. For some reason it wouldn’t power on for the first time until I had the flash popped out, but now seems perfectly functional.

Only spare roll I had sitting around was a 10year old roll of lomography redscale meme film so look forward to some extremely silly bullshit from my test roll in a couple days

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3297224
is that some chink ripoff?
>>
>>3297277
...no?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1289
Image Height715
>>
>>3297224
Comfy focal length.
>>
>>3297060
Film is only worth it with any certainty when the format or quality is outside what digital can do. Folding medium format (Zeiss Super Ikonta, Konica Pearl, Perkeo, Kodak stuff)? Worthwhile. Tiny 35mm rangefinder or autofocus compacts (XA, Contax T2/T3, Stylus Epic)? Still worthwhile, at least until they come up with curved sensors to solve the short rear focus problem which causes fringing on digital but not on film. Your standard run of the mill 35mm system camera has little place in 2018, unless you buy to use with the lenses for the system you already have because they're also good on digital like Contax/Yashica.
>>
How much harder is developing E6 compared to C41? Wanna get a Tetenal e6 kit
>>
I just bought a Yashica 35 Electro GSN, does anyone have any experience with it? What do yall think about the camera?
>inb4 its a shitty camera that you should sell on arrival
I got it for 80 USD
>>
>>3297465
It’s a great camera. $80 is a complete rip off though.
>>
So I've had this issue a couple of times (bare with me, I have about 6 months of experience, took up filming/editing as a sort of new found passion and have been self teaching myself and learning on the go basically) but last night I was recording some live music and I had slight light flicker.

Now I understand some of the concepts surrounding the "light flicker", that you have ntsc and pal lighting (50hz vs 60hz I believe) and you have to adjust your settings to that along with your shutter speed. I'm currently in Europe, so I had my camera set to PAL with a fps of 25 and shutter speed of 50 and I was still getting this flickering. Once I brought it down to 30 it basically went away, but I was worried I would get weird motion blur/movement if I recorded in 1/30.

What should I have done to appropriately deal with this situation?
>>
>>3297484
/VID/

FUCKSAKE
>>
>>3297433
very easy.

I developed my own E6 long before my own BW
>>
File: IMG_1307.jpg (59 KB, 640x427)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
Redpill me on the ga645
Is this the ultimate point & shoot?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height427
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3297494
there isn't really anything else like it, which makes a pretty compelling case on its own.

that said, the convenience of electric film advance/autofocus wasn't a big draw for me given you only get 15 shots on a roll. i was quite happy to go for the gs645s instead and manual focus/wind.

the lens is the same on both, and it is fantastic. you can't really go wrong with any of the fuji mf rangefinders afaik.

have a snapshit from mine that i don't think ive posted

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2018:05:09 21:22:51
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3296889
If you're interested in that style, I'd recommend checking out Harley Weir, Sotelo, Henrik Purienne, Jason Lee Perry, Jonathon Leder, Brooke Olimpieri and Danny Lane
>>
>>3297047
>Body
>Lens
>Skill
>Film
>Format
>Lab scanning technique
>Developing

ALL effects the outcome of what your image will look like.

My favourite cameras are from the 70s (AE-1) and the 90s (645AFD/RB67/MJUii. What I'm saying is git good, and learn how to use your equipment to your advantage. Film isn't going to the heavy lifting for you
>>
>>3297494
>Is this the ultimate point & shoot?
for me a point and shoot is one that you can have with you all the time without carrying some manpurse like a hipster (bonus bumboy points if the bag is leather)
so no
>>
>>3297506
>rb67
>90's

are you retarded
>>
>>3297510
No, but you are

>The RB67 Pro-SD or Professional SD as written on the body was released in 1990
>http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Mamiya_RB67
>>
>>3297511
except you just put RB67 in your post. The pro-sd is far from being the most common RB67 as well
>>
>>3297514
>UMMM ACKTUALLY

What did you think I was referring to when I said RB67 / 1990s? The Pro-SD

Later bo
>>
>>3297515
desu I figured you were a retard from the start because I bet you believe the pro-sd body is going to affect the outcome of the image compared to if you were using any of the other previous bodies, with the same lens obviously
>>
>>3297494
I’ve heard that it’s quite common for the electronics to fail and when they do they’re nearly impossible to fix.
>>
>>3297516
Dude you were wrong, why the fuck are you arguing about this? Don’t be an autistic bitch.
>>
>>3297523
because everything you posted is masturbatory shit gearfag advice
>>
>>3297521

That is true of pretty much every film camera with a circuit board.

Only choice is to replace the board with one from a working donor camera.
>>
>>3297524
I’m not the same guy asshole, just someone with common sense
>>
>>3297503
Thanks again! Really digging this.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.