Someone Step Up and Make a New Thread Already EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: If you were going to try one antiquated/non-traditional printing process (gum bichromate, collodion, oil print), which would it be and why?Previous thread: >>4504208
oh good now I can post all my half-baked snapshits
>>4507355
>>4507356
>>4507357
>>4507358I should do some b&w some time
I should have used my other camera because the om2 was clearly not designed with that activity in mind
Are Nikkor lenses actually worth buying Nikon cameras?Shooting with Pentax is just so much cheaper. The bodies are cheaper, the lenses are cheaper, accessories are cheaperWhy touch any other brand if you aren't made of money?
>>4507347>Someone Step Up and Make a New Thread Already EditionSorry, I'm the recent regular baker but I had an irl irregularity (crunch at work) and was basically offline for the last 10+ days. Thank you for your service. >>4507364Not sure what you're really trying to say or ask here. But Nikon is an optical company first. Not "camera lens" company, but an optical company - binoculars, rifle scopes, microscopes, other precision instruments, and IC lithography steppers which are the God tier of optical instruments. So what I'm saying is that Nikon knows lenses, they're not an afterthought for them. For about 1.5-2x the price of equivalent 3rd party lens for the mount your get superior optical quality, lens coating, build quality, lowest sample variation, and so on. And until a decade ago about 99% backwards compatibility going 50+ years back to Nikon F.Make your own decision about what matters to you, but if you're asking about value for money then yes, it's absolutely there and absolutely worth the premium.
>>4507364nikkor lenses are pretty good but.. u can get sharp shots out of post-80s AF first party zooms so... i think it only matters if ur exclusively shooting very old tech
Still working on my darkroom camera but a bit slow since I also have been organising an exhibition that is happening right now. Did some more darkening of internal parts and sealed some edges of moving parts, the image projected is looking more and more crisp. Also made the hole where the arm sleeve goes and I found some fabric that is light tight in my junk, I just need to sew it into a sleeve and attach it to the lid of the box.
Split prisms suck ass for lenses slower than f/2,8.
>>4507388Ok
>>4507388If you have the wrong one installed, yes. There are different split prisms for different lens speeds. Only taking a Stylus Epic to Mexico City was a 10/10 idea.
>>4507388You always focus wide open, the aperture only closes down when you shoot. Have you never used a camera? Did your dof preview get stuck?
>>4507388>>4507401skill issue
>>4507401Sick creepshots bro, you should go to the beach too
>>4507403Ah disregard my idiot post, I misread
>>4507365>Sorry, I'm the recent regular baker but I had an irl irregularity (crunch at work) and was basically offline for the last 10+ days. Thank you for your service.All good, m8. Shit happens. Can't fault you for prioritizing real life over the Tibetan Collodion Wet-Plate forum.>>4507371Good stuff, anon.. Looks like a fun little project. Making me want to give one a go after I finally get around to learning how to into darkroom at home.
>>4507404I mean, kinda but that's also why there are prisms.made for slower lenses. Every camera with an interchangable prism will discuss this in the manual. >>4507405Uhh, I know the people in those photos dumbass. Nice projection
redid these two
>>4507426sorry for the scanner being so dusty
>>4507401Our Olympuses are starting to get old :(>>4507416It's not an issue with primes, I just want to do some macro shots on the old F body with the 70-180 mm ED lens.
>>4507347Some Fomapan 400/Holga 400 shots
>>4507388I have grid focusing screens both for my Nikon FM2 and Mamiya 645, I can't level for shit, it's very useful while shooting on tripod in dark
>>4507452I like this one a lot, the contrast is pretty cool
>>4507454that last one posted upside down, oops.
>>45074554Chan really isn't playing nice with the photo orientations today.
>>4507456last one I liked from this batch
>>4507457last last one, I forgot it
>>4507452>>4507454i like your pictures but these two especially. Thought about giving Fomapan 400 a try before but now i will definitely get some some day>>4507456that happens when rotation is done via exif metadata or whatever. 4chan strips that so the "raw" orientation is used
>>4507472Thank you! I like your photos too. There unfortunately aren’t too many interesting buildings near me, or I would take way more in city photos. I am hoping to finish a roll of 120 6x6 night sky long exposures this weekend, so if those turn out any good I’ll post them.
>>4507458>>4507460>>4507488nice
>>4507484>Thank you! I like your photos too.lmao reddit faggot. >thank you sooooo much for attention i really needed this! pathetic
Does anyone even shoot film anymore? For those that do, how you know which film to pick from? There are so many. Do you read reviews or just try everything and stick with one you liked?
>>4507505>No photos seething because he doesn’t actually take photosPost something or fuck off fag
>>4507484>I am hoping to finish a roll of 120 6x6 night sky long exposures this weekendthat sounds very cool. i've always wanted to do that but the light pollution where i live is pretty bad. What film are you going to use and how do you want to take these pictures?>so if those turn out any good I’ll post them.post them regardless. the "technical" aspect to those sounds cool enough to be posted
>>4507506>Does anyone even shoot film anymore?Is this a trick question?>For those that do, how you know which film to pick from?Whatever is the cheapest. Fomapan 100 or Kentmere pan 100 usually.
>>4507505miserable reddit faggot contributing nothing to this thread as always
How do I learn to shoot film in the evening and at night?I've recently switched to a camera that doesn't have a light meter and been getting some pretty good daytime shots with sunny 16.But I've had this idea for a while, that I would like to get some cheap BW film and push it to 800 or even 1600 to take some low light pictures without a tripod, but I have no clue how to even approach that.Am I just screwed without a light meter?
>>4507523i have never personally used this film or shot without a lightmeter but this sounds very promising for your situation
>>4507523jesus christ don't push film if you're gonna shoot on tripod. Only thing pushing does is increasing the contrast of the negative - in low light or night scenery the contrast will be already pretty big. You don't need a fast film on tripod.>>4507525DO NOT DO THISFoma 400 is barely a 320iso film in compensating developer, Foma writes bullshit in their data-sheets don't trust them. Pushing this film is useless you will have completely transparent shadows. Never trust retards in the internet telling that they have "good results" pushing foma. "Good results" for most people is that anything appeared on the negative, even though half of the frame is transparent and highlights are cooked.
>>4507532>jesus christ don't push film if you're gonna shoot on tripodI think you misunderstood my post. I want to push so that I can shoot without a tripod and don't need to shell out on a fast film for now
>>4507537Hp5 can be pushed to 3200 with pretty good results.
>>4507514Beautifully shot and very fluffy
Having an issue deciding which camera to take with me on my hike today My ME super is great but I just got it a couple weeks ago and haven't had a roll from it developed yet so I'm still "testing" it. I also only have the kit lens with it so I'm stuck at 50mmMy Minolta 5000i that I got from my parents is flawless but bulky and probably wouldn't be that fun to take on a hike. I have a prime 50 and a 38-80 zoom with that one
>>4507573How is the light meter on yours?ME Supers are gorgeous cameras and fun to take around, but their light meters are pretty notorious for shitting out by this point. Mine is to the point that even adjusting the ISO and exposure compensation isn't enough to counteract it. Still working up the courage to try taking it apart and trying to fix it myself.If you haven't had any test rolls developed yet, make sure you compare its exposure readings to a camera with a meter that you trust before taking it with you so that it isn't massively over/under exposing.
need to get more of those metal maze style film cassettes for my canon L3. or just splurge on this 3k leica m3 on facebook marketplace and get some of them ixmoo cassettes that are readily available used everywhere (like 20-40 dollars a piece but again theyre everywhere)the one for the canon theres one listing on ebay for 40 dollars from thailand and im tempted. thats the only listing there is online currently that works with the canon L series
>>4507580>How is the light meter on yours?Pretty good as far as I can tell. When I first went to look at it. I compared the reading it was giving me to a known good light meter I brought along. Either spot on with the meter or rarely slightly overexposing if the meter recommended a shutter speed the camera didn't have.I haven't had anything I've shot from the camera developed yet, so that's going to be the real tellI enjoy the camera for sure. Had an issue with Ilford 400 though where the lead would keep slipping out of the "magic needles" and unraveling on the spool inside the camera. I'm sure I've lost a few frames by having to reload the same roll multiple timesDidn't have that issue with ultramax 400 though and Ive noticed the plastic base on Ilford is SIGNIFICANTLY thicker than the Kodak.
I'm about to scan some old expired Kodak BW400CN that I developed in regular Ifosol3. I'll let you know anything comes out ok.
>>4507651came out much better than I imagined considering it's a C41 film and 20 yrs old. My cheap kodak scanner did Sepia until the end under color neg. then randomly adjusted to a B&W read but it worked well.
>>4507653the film seemed pretty thick and wanted to curl up something gnarly albeit I didn't let it dry very long
First time developing at-home. Then used a Nikon z7 to scan - set up some cardboard cut-out against a desklamp that had a diffuser on it already. I think it turned out ok
>>4507675Problem I found was though my Minolta XG7 at high shutter speeds does this. It only goes to 1000/s , but at 500/1000 it has some issues. Not sure how to fix that.
i consistently ruin shots with my leica m6. there's a lot of shots i would have gotten if it were a digital camera. >flaky, uninformative meter, "< o >" leds only tell you if you're within half a stop.>rangefinder viewing angles mess up composition, pic related>mechanically unreliable 1/50s flash sync>scanning + developing 35mm film sucks>heavy and not pocketablefor all the trouble i might as well just use medium format. considering switching to an m10r to keep my 28 35 50 kit. also considering just selling everything for a ricoh griv bc i shoot a lot of parties and cant be fiddling with settings. can anyone redpill me on this thx. trying to own less garbage
>>4507699if you don't like the process just sell it
>>4507356I really like this, the color reminds me of Boards of Canada's "Music Has the Right to Children" album cover.
>>4507699You’re meant to shoot without looking and make poetic references to japanese wabisabi culture (the lazy aesthetics, not the spicy horseradish)l2leica git gud scrub
guys guys guess what film this is
>>4507784Fomapan 100
Was able to shoot one of my new brass lenses with my sinar shutter and actual film. This is the Hermagis Eidoscope. Shot wide open at f5 with fp4. Pretty cool.>>4507784My guess is fomashart as well.
Thoughts on Pentax me super vs super program?I have an ME super and it's a great camera but I've heard that the super program has much better eye relief for glasses wearersThe super program also just seems like the same camera but a bit newer and an option for full program mode with A lenses
About a month ago I was talking to an old man about film photography, he told me he still had a lot of things from his photography career. Yesterday I saw him and he handed me a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII, was a fun surprise. He gave me the old battery along with it, I put it in and it still has some charge but I am not sure what to do with replacing it because it's not a common battery form factor and it's 1.35v on top of that. How do you guys deal with these issues?I don't need a battery necessarily, as the camera is fully mechanical but it's nice to have at least a working light meter.Pic related, it's a nice upgrade from my Rollei 35B and a little more refined than the Voigtländer Vito B I was eyeing earlier. Quiet funny how I ended up with something better and it didn't cost me anything.
>>4507820>it's not a common battery form factor and it's 1.35v> How do you guys deal with these issues?1.55V -> 1.35V
When I take photos in very dark, very bright, or backlit environments, labs always auto-expose the scans, which negates any sort of exposure compensation that I was using during the shot. Is there something I should be asking for when I drop off my film? Maybe a kind of "flat" colour profile which I can then adjust myself?
>>4507355this has such a nice feel to it
>>4507831Won't the voltage difference mess with the light meter? I read that many of these old cameras that use the 1.35v mercury cells do not have voltage regulation, so the meter will be thrown off.
>>4507885That's literally what that adapter is, a voltage regulator stepping the modern battery voltage down to 1.35V. Works like a charm in my Yashica.
>>4507789>>4507808Nope. All homegrown from emulsion to perforation
>>4507899You made your own film and coated it on polyester base? Pan or ortho?
>>4507899big if tru
immediately after taking this picture the storm started and soaked me
first roll ever
>>4507921
>>4507922taking with old point and shoot so not sure if quality is bad because scan bad or lens bad
>>4507923
>>4507923>>4507924Looks decent. What film type and camera?
>>4507837y-you too
>>4507925it's first gen canon autoboy with some fujicolor 400
>>4507899Can you elaborate a little more, you have grown your own film, huh?
>>4507900>>4507936Well I just helped with patents and hard yo find info, plus connected the guy actually making it with former chief technologist of Svema. The base is PET with an undercoat-otherwise the emulsion would just fall off even dry. 20 iso with no sulfur, gold, dopants and spectral sensitizers . It's a work in progress desu, but I think we'll get to iso 100 ortho before summer. Pan would be easier to make, but the dyes are too toxic to then coat the emulsion by hand
>>4507933Looks pretty good overall, especially the night shots. Maybe the scans are a little off but pretty close
seems that HC-110 is not good developer for Foma 200. It accentuate grain too much?
>>4508026
>>4508027
>>4508009neato. what's the process in going from 20 to 100? just getting better at coating the film? more concentrated coating?
>>4508029
>>4508094various additives in this case. They affect the crystals shape->effective area, crystal structure, and let the crystals see a broader spectrum It's also possible to attain higher speed by precipitation at a precisely controlled pBr, to get T-grain, but it doesn't make sense for now
Ilford panf is getting released in 4x5 and 8x10 format. Freestyle accidentally leaked the news.Will you be getting some?
>>4508115no
>>4508134Why not?
>>4508135I dont need such s fine grain for 4x5the other reason is I dont like ilford filmsfor me is only tmx of tmy
Another Hermagis 8x10 shot. I had to try integrating some fabric into a shot to see how it looked and I kept the lens projection centered on the film plane to keep bokeh/glow as smooth as possible. Wow.>>4508137Funny you mention tmx. I just opened my box of 1979 expired 8x10 tmx for this "test" shot. The guy said it was kept frozen, and for like 120 bucks I couldnt really pass it up. Shot at 100 iso. Some base fog, but this picture still came out beautifully, I think.
What are the best bang for your buck entry B&W 35mm films? I hear a lot about Ilford hp5 or Tri-X but its hard to imagine paying $8/ roll for black and white....
>>450814636 pictures is a lot for 8 dollars. Fp4 8x10 is 200 dollars for a 25 pack. Make each shot count.
>>4508026You know what they say about 200 ASA film - sensitive like a 100, grainy like a 400. Foma especially takes it to the next level.That said those are perfectly reasonable results grain- and tonality-wise. If you think that's grainy, wait until you dip it in Rodinal.If you want even less grain then try something like ID-11, if you can be bothered mixing it. But don't come crying if the first word that comes to mind when you see the results is "muddy".
Anyone tried Lucky Color 200 yet? Some of the results don't look bad that I've seen. Seems better than memes like Harman Phoenix.
>>4507834Flat scan yea. Or get tiffs and just dial the contrast down yourself.
>>4508146HP5+ has very strong grain. I like Tri-X more.Delta 100 is my favorite B&W>>4508115Large format bros let's fuckin go [spoiler]wait indefinitely for slide film stock to be released again in our formats[/spoiler]
nicest shot of the day out. I had two shutter misfires on the C330's 105mm lens's shutter, so I guess I need to service it.
>>4508152Ya, I really liked it and thought it looked a little more honest than gold. If they only offered a 3 pack for around $20...
>>4508146I can find Trix for 8 but I always see hp5 going for 9+ for 36 exposure.Anyway, you could try kentmere or fomapan. It's usually a buck cheaper.
now that Kodak has bringed their films back "in house" would they become cheaper ?
>>4508115even better news
>>4508154>>4508155>>4508156Those are fantastic. How do you achieve this look? Not sure what to call it, "forced perspective" comes to mind but I don't think that's that. But she just looks 100% natural and proportional to the background and the whole scene. Is that because of DoF? Only achievable with LF? How tall is she actually? Do you have any behind the scenes pic of how you set up those shots?(Questions, questions, sorry, I just really really like those).
>>4507347My sister-in-law gave me her aunt’s Nikon film set-up and I haven’t used it yet but I’d like to. First thing that I need to know is if there’s a good indicator of when the film roll is completely finished? She didn’t know how many shots she’d taken nor how many emulsions were on the reel.
>>4508174Every camera ive seen has an exposure counter on it, even the super cheap ones. If the counter doesnt work though, the end of the film is firmly attached to the spindle inside the roll, so you wont be able to cock the shutter anymore, it will just stop. Make sure you rewind the film all the way before you open the back cover.
>>4508174The advance lever will be physically held back by the film once you reach the end of the roll. Never force on it so you don't detach the film end from the cassette, that would be a mess to deal with. Exposure counters give a good estimate of remaining film length but it's not always exact, depending on how you handled the lead and how generous the manufacturer was you can usually get a few more exposures than advertised out of a roll.
>>4507933I'm surprised a p&s gave you images that that good with budget 400 film in extreme low light >>4507923this one looks like motion blur maybe
>>4507820I got a Ricoh 35 ZF from '76, direction was to use LR44 batteries with the caveat that it would likely cause the meter to "run hot." I've tested it a couple different light meter phone apps and it's dead on. So that's my recommendation.
Are there any zoom lenses from the 70s-80s that are actually good enough to be worth using?Specifically PK mount lensesThey all seem like such massive compromises for the zoom function and I'm wondering if I would be better off just buying a handful of primes
From the first roll I've ever shot. Always wanted to try just never had the time.
>>4508226Not really, for old K mount lenses just stick to primes. Only good thing about the old zooms is that you can get them for virtually free.
>>4508226Early 90s, definitely yes, I use one (not PK) on 24MP digital and it performs quite well. Don't know about any earlier ones.
>>4508226as a pentaxtard with a few manual lenses the only manual zoom lens i found to be interesting/worth it was the 35-105mm f3.5 pentax-a, you can find this for $40-60. 70-200/210mm f4 pentax-a has a lot of chromatic aberrations, pay max $20-30, i hate pump zooms. found the 70-200/210 f4.5-5.6 pentax-f superior in every way despite being slower aperture and costs the same $20-30. 80-320mm fa is my go to for a telephoto prime only better zoom would be is the 55-300mm da on the low end but that's apsc only
>>4508226Zooms made for medium format cameras are generally quite excellent, but very bulky. I know this information will likely never apply to your photography, but I'm still telling you.
>>4508226I got a pretty rad vivitar 28-200 that i'm pretty sure they made in PK as well as the SR mount I have mine in. its heavy as fuck and its just pull zoom but I end up using it a lot on my srt because its a good lens otherwise
How do you keep all the particles from old light seals from getting everywhere inside the camera when removing them?Camera I just bought's light seals are in such bad condition that they're disintegrating
>>4508384Use a vacuum
>>4508173This isn't LF, it's medium format. She's about 55cm tall standing up.I don't really do anything special, I just find a scene, put doll in scene, and take the picture. I guess generally I find the longer focal lengths help to fudge the sense of scale, if anything. And the camera low to the ground, keeping the lens at the same proportional height to taking photos of normal people is necessary.Just liek take photo>>4508172What a relief that large format isn't forgotten about, . Shame it didn't include ektachrome>>4508171Already is cheaper. Portra 160 4x5 (Alaris) was $75/10. Ektacolor 160 (Eastman) is $65/10
Egg and cloth. It's funny how random inspiration can be sometimes.
>>4508211I see, the shutter speed going down to 1/8 i figured if there is enouh neon lights it should look alrightbut yea the motion blur is introduced at that point
>>4508440a few more
>>4508441
>>4508440If this didn't have the blur, it would be pretty kino.>>4508442Very nice, using the flash was the right move for this one.
>>4508301>70-200/210mm f4 pentax-a has a lot of chromatic aberrationsCan confirm, I have one and it's not great. Shame really because I think all my other pentax glass is quite nice.
>>4508301>>4508450Are you talking about the non-SMC 70-200 F4 or the SMC 70-210 F4? These are two completely different optical formulas.
Why doesn't the Pentax super program get any love?
What camera was she using?Looks like a Spotmatic
>>4508428Pretty shitty photo
>>4508502Pretty good
>>4508515Why tho?
Tried out a pyro based paper developer for a little azo contact printing session. Super active developer. Pretty nice. The pinkish/orangish stain is maybe a little weird, but it is awesome to see these on paper finally! Next step is flattening and framing them once they fully dry.
I shot 400 speed film at box speed and went out at night to shoot. I made sure to expose for the bright areas by +1. Dead curious to see how it looks. +1 may not have been enough exposure comp is my worry and I’m gonna have some mostly dark images.>>4508518there is no whydon’t ask such questions
>>4508556I post pics here to talk about them. I really like the image, especially in my series so I would like to know why someone doesn't like it. Or we can keep having absolute beginner questions and discussion for the entire thread.You need to expose for the shadows if you're shooting at night. Why would you ever meter highlights at night, unless you're shooting slide film, when film has such exceptional latitude and struggles with shadows? Your images will most likely be very dark.Point your camera/light meter at a dark only area and reduce exposure by 2 stops if you want to preserve shadow detail.
>>4508428Carrots
He need some milk!
I really need to work on my grading
Pardon the spam
>>4508569gorgeous
>>4508455i have both (cosmicar 70-200 f/4 i paid $15 for and smc pentax-a 70-210mm f/4 i paid $36 for)the cosmicar has an auto aperture pin (so its PROBABLY a pentax-a under a store brand) and fungus, the smc some light hazing.im honestly happier with the later autofocus 70-200 and 70-210mm, less chromatic abberations, sharper, more compact even though those are f4-5.6 to be fair i use them on dslrs and not film. the only pentax manual zoom i actually like is my 35-105mm f3.5, the problem is that its a fucking chonker of a glass you could beat someone to death with. my tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is more versatile.
>>4508556Yeah you definitely fucked it if you took a meter reading in the brightest part of the frame for a night shot. Might get some decent if dark photos depending on the subject and the framing but probably a lot of unintelligible shots.
>>4508562I like the concept. Maybe emphasizing how they look like people chilling out on the peeler more would make it even better, or just too corny. Maybe too much negative space also, but Im not really offended by it. Nice colors too.
>>4508564are you using Neglabpro?
>>4508589no, I'm grading on my iShit
pipes
>>4508583>>4508557copy thathow about I get that roll push processed one stop?
>>4508628Push processing does not magically save shadow detail. It only increases contrast. Welcome to the world of sensitometry. (It may help a little bit)
Started experimenting with contact printing. It's a fun way to get positives out of the 6x9 negatives. A bit fiddly because the negatives are a bit scrunched up on the edges and don't want to lay flat but I am happy to see results, and also did some contact prints with 6x4.5 negatives but those are just a little too small.Really cool to see the image appear on the paper. This is my first dark room experience and I'm surprised how simple it actually was.
>>4508639Use a piece of glass on top of film/paper to keep everything flat. Split back contact printing frames apply like 30lbs of pressure on the film and paper. It makes for sharper prints if there's plenty of pressure. If your negatives are good printing is quick and easy. If your negatives suck it can take lots of time of fiddling around to get a nice looking print. Proud of you for making prints.
>>4508562
>>4508567
>>4508642Yeah the negatives weren't that high quality because of incompetence and a very limited box camera that it was taken with but for this test it was more or less successful. Good point about the pressure, I think I should have been a little more careful with that as the fomapan film is quite tough and really wants to curl badly.Even if the result is not particularly outstanding, it's a very rewarding process.
>>4508648Carrots are a bit too saturated for my taste but the grading is miles better than the one I did
>>4508562If anyone cares to know, these are all Silbersalz 500T developed at Silbersalz in Germany
Today I found out my Nikon DK-29 eyecups slip right onto my Minolta viewfinders. This is amazing. Are most eyecup covers designed with the same specs or is this just a coincidence?
>>4508657Ah the dirty underwear place. Those ugly rebates are not doing your photos any service, especially the dark shots. Black point seems off all around. Dont call it "grading" thats a video post production term lmao, kinda self reports you as a short form social media zombie. All that being said, nice shots anon
>>4508676I work in the film&tv industry that's why I mix up my wordingI received a coupon from Silbersalz so I thought I'd give it a try
>>4508154>>4508155the eyes make it look as if you missed focus, it's weird
>>4508156>>4508154>>4508155how do you transport your anime doll and how much did it cost
trying arista edu 400 for the first time.
>>4508726>>4508727Not bad for Foma, how did you develop?
>>45087345 and a half minutes on legacypro L110... 1:31!
>>4508679The trick is that I think I did miss focus on those two.>>4508717There are bags dedicated to carrying dolls around. I wrap them in a white sheet like a mummy to protect them and secure them in the bag. The one in the photo was like $360, the other two that I photo sometimes are around $700 each, of which the head is ~$400>>4508727kino
>>4508755thank you fren glad you liked the pic
At least it was only $20Idk if this is even something I could repair. Looks like the glue is separating
>>4508792Also looks like someone tried to "clean" the lens with an alcohol-based wipe and ruined the coating.Post pictures if you run a roll using it. It'll probably be fucked, but it might at least have a cool effect.
Shitty experiments, but always nice if an image shows up on some photosensitive material.
>>4508794I disassembled the front element. Turns out whoever worked on this lens before just used an absolute fuckton of oil on it and it was seeping onto the rear of the front element. Now I'm just having issues with this metal shim that was right behind the front element. It's pretty bent up and I have no clue if it's supposed to be that way. If it is, does it have a specific orientation it needs to be reassembled in?It rotated with the front element and smeared oil all over the back of the lens on top of it
>>4508805Wave washer, used to introduce some controlled friction or takeup of space. Orientation should not matter. Dont try to flatten it
>>4508794Oh and also alcohol cannot damage a lens coating. Friction from using the wrong type of rag/tissue is the biggest culprit
>>4508798For those that remember, this is the result of my wine box instant camera project, the picture was shot and developed inside the camera on paper negative.The lens is a 150mm f3 projector lens, the lack of aperture and a proper shutter is rather cumbersome but this is just a little trial run, I know more or less how to operate it and that the box can develop the negative without light seeping in. I am quite elated that it works without major issues. Next up I will be looking for a lens upgrade, probably a regular large format lens with aperture and shutter built in. The paper holder is also not super convenient but it works, a little red window and peep hole could also be helpful but at this stage it was not at all necessary. Happy days, a lot of fun to shoot pictures this way so I am looking forward to improving on this base.
>>4508805>It's pretty bent up and I have no clue if it's supposed to be that way.Can't imagine it's supposed to be. Looks like it slipped off of the top bevel and got smooshed after that.>Oh and also alcohol cannot damage a lens coating. Friction from using the wrong type of rag/tissue is the biggest culpritHuh, news to me. My buddy fucked up one of his lenses and I always figured it was because of the alcohol on the wipe moreso than the coarseness of the wipe.
>>4508675Can you open the cameras without removing the eye cup? I got a Sony FD-EP18 eye cup on my X-700 because people on forums claimed it was a perfect fit but it doesn’t really fit quite right so I occasionally lose it if I’m wearing the camera on a strap and I find it a bit annoying that I have to remove it every time I load or unload the camera.
Looks a lot better now. Some scratches on the front element but the rear looks near perfect so I'm not too concerned It was definitely dropped at one point but everything moves correctly. Focusing ring might be slightly lose but it still focuses Ntb for $20 and some elbow grease
>>4508812Hell yeah anon, and that vacuum deposited metal coating looks intact. Its really inert to most chemicals except acids I guess
>>4508808Impressive results anonI'm curious to see a test shoot during mid day in full sun
Spoke too soon. That wave washer keeps falling off it's mounts. Im putting it back where it was but it's not being held in correctly
>>4507347
>>4508818It's a pentax-a 35-105mm f3.5 if anyone knows more about it than I do. I'm having a lot of trouble finding documentation online
>>4508817Cheers, yeah I need to do some more testing, this was done indoors and I had to dim the light and added an aperture of roughly f4 to the lens and still the exposure was around 2 seconds.I reckon in a midday sun I can step close down the aperture a fair bit, even with the slow paper. Not sure how much vignetting will be an issue, it's slightly visible with the lens open, but may change with a more closed down aperture.
>>4508821I mean there is a chance I was wrong about what it was, but wave washers are pretty common in lenses and cameras. Hard to tell but it definitely looks like it shouldnt go there
>>4508818Looking good, anon. Shame about the wave washer, but the glass looks great.Considering doing the same to some of my lenses after I get the little suction gun or whatever other tools you need.
>>4508827These just unscrewed and fell out. I used a gloved hand to handle everything but I didn't need to use my suction cup tool at all>>4508826It was perfectly symmetrical with the way it was bent. So I believe it is a wave washer. It definitely came out of the lens and was actually what was rubbing up against the rear glass of the front element that caused the streaking in my first picture I just don't know exactly where it goes. If there's a retaining mechanism of some sort I'm not seeing or if it needs oriented a specific way to keep it from falling outI might have to visit the forums and actually make a profile
>>4508820Grim
>>4508226I have a couple Minolta A mount zooms from the mid 80s that I have gotten great results with, especially the 70-210 f/4
>>4508798Did a final test today because I couldn't resist, cut out a new aperture for approximately f8, shot with indoor lighting so I had to experiment with the timing, also used a yellow filter here. As expected the vignetting is more pronounced because the aperture is in front of the lens instead of being inbetween elements, so a better lens is preferred. Overall I am satisfied, the results are better than I expected from something as experimental as this.
>>4508810On my XG-7 it does not, you need to remove the cup.On the XK, the door swings under the cup so its fine.I don't have other models, but I think the XG-7 is more similar to pretty much all the other models like the X700 so it would have that issue too I'd guess.
>>4508826Turns out it's supposed to be flat. I have no clue what could've bent it like that. Honestly I'm more scared for the lens now than ever if something like this was able to happen
>>4508844Apologies for the misdirection anon, hope you can bend it back in shape
>>4508841Yeah maybe later, I am still figuring things out. Did another test with a subject closer up, roughly f8 again and a 2 second exposure with light coming through the window, was pleasantly surprised with the sharpness and the vignetting is a little less this way too. Initially I was loading the paper but forgot the lens cap, I noticed before the paper was in position and I thought the paper was accidentally exposed. I quickly put on the lens cap anyway and tried exposing the paper as normal and it worked fine, still something I need to be more careful with.Still I need a better lens, the coverage with this projector lens is just too limited but honestly I don't really know what might be a good budget alternative or maybe I should just bite the bullet and splurge on some more expensive lens and commit a little harder to this project. Either way, the wine box proves itself to be a camera.
>>4507347wondering if I should set myself up to develop film at home or if I should keep going to the lab. - development and scan is $20AU/roll + I can keep the negs. scans are only 6x4 (1800x1200) but lossless (.bmp)- dev at home? I'm considering a paterson tank and changing bag (~$150AU), Cs41 Dev kit for 12 rolls (~$50AU) and all the jugs and clips and whatnot (distilled water, a thermometer, tongs, squeegee, etc.) ($80-$120AU). A scanner would be the biggest initial cost and I'm considering a Plustek (is there anything else new?) which would be about $700AU. That's around $1000. That's a pretty big commitment if I don't consistently take film photos. On the other hand, once I'm set up I would only need to buy the chemicals and distilled water and it would come out to $4 a roll (roughly). That's only the cost, though: I have no idea how much time it would take to develop and scan one or two rolls of film, let alone any more.What do you guys do to get your film developed and scanned? Lab or home dev?
>>4509162I shoot less and less 35mm because I don't have the tools to scan or print and I don't want to invest in it.I do like to experiment with larger format black and white, easier to scan or make contact prints, I only have to buy photopaper and chemicals, all the tools I have are just household items, my safelight is a reading light with a lid from a mayonnaise jar taped to it, the lid is red plastic and works perfectly. My "changing bag" is just two thick bedsheets. Thinking of creative solutions is what I like and it keeps costs down and photography is more of an experimental medium to me anyway. Just calculate the cost of investment and how many rolls you need to shoot before it turns over.
It's so slow bros
>>4509171Just set it to 300dpi and it should be way faster.
>>4509172That scan was meh, here's a better one.
>>4509162I bought a scanner about a year and a half ago because dev at the lab for c41 is 7 bucks but dev and scan is more than double. I'm happy to pay the old lady who's been running the lab since the 80s the 7 dollars a roll to get the dev exactly right every time, and then I can scan the rolls. I'm shooting a ton of film and my ~$600 primefilm scanner has already paid for itself in terms of rolls scanned vs costs if I had the lab do it, and the quality now that I've gotten everything dialed in is pretty high (the scanner has up to 10,000 DPI resolution allegedly, but it's sweet spot is really in the 2500-5000 range). Timewise it's determined by how well I did in camera and how many night shots I did. it takes maybe ~30-45 minutes to scan a roll and then editing just depends: for instance, any night shots I have to take the negative into darktable to invert and fiddle with the black point since this scanner is dogwater at that. Daytime shots and slide film it does just fine 98% of the time so mostly just color correcting or spot edits for things like hair and dust that the scanner's IR component didn't detect. Here's a few shots from the /rpt/ since I'm on my phone now and don't have any other examples to post. >>4508423>>4508424>>4508425If you don't mind spending a minute per photo to make sure the scan is good, etc and then spending a few minutes more on editing then imo a scanner is a good investment. If I had to do it all over again I might consider camera scanning if I could find a cheap setup just because it offers more potential versatility (i.e. you can use it as a camera, too) but then again I would probably feel stupid as hell taking pictures of my negatives with a digital camera even if that's what a scanner essentially is.
Replacing the light seals on a camera might have to be the single most frustrating thing I've done. With how deep some of those channels are, it's so frustrating trying to maneuver the adhesive side of the foam into the channel while keeping it from adhering to the side rather than the bottom
>>4509162beside Plustek there is also Reflecta RPS10s (rebranded Primefilm XA plus)very good resolution and Dmax
Egg + blackberry rootSmaller aperture and a more open composition are my first thoughts on improving this one. I thought I was keeping the composition fairly open, but it still feels too tight. Need to make a print of it first. Sometimes these soft focus shots feel completely different when viewed as a print.
>>4509192just use black yarn bro
>>4507699have you considered youre just fucking bad?
Anyone here have any experience shooting ilford sfx 200? How would shooting it at 100 ISO with a normal red filter go, but developing at box speed? I’m worried it would give minimal results. I don’t have any deep red filters.
>>4509220If you shoot at 100 it'll be one stop overexposed so you better make sure the red filter is light enough that it only decreases exposure by one stop, but in my experience red filters usually take off 2-3 stops of exposure. So my guess is your film will end up underexposed.
>>4509226>>4509226I’ll account for the red filter when metering, so what I’m saying is I’ll overexpose by one stop since overexposure seems to be the way to go when capturing that IR look which sfx 200 gives if I’ve understood it correctly.
Does anyone know how to get these 3 parts from a pentax-a 50mm 1.4 back together?I've been at it for hours. The nub has a little channel in it that fits into the opening of the L shaped bracket but for the life of me I can't get them to go together And even if I do get them together, I have to slot that tiny spring into the same nub. I'm at my wit's end
>>4509220It won't look any different to a regular panchromatic B+W film with a red filter.If you get a 720nm IR filter it will work best between 1/2 and 1/30 at f8 in sunlight.
Guess the film stock, get a cookie
>>4509349Fujifilm 200
>>4509349iphone 12 mini
>>4509348I dont have any experience with the film but how does this make sense? If 1/2 at f8 lets in enough IR to make a near infra exposure, the surely a red filter at similar or slightly faster exposure would generare a hybrid image (light foliage but black skies etc)?
testing my print scanning setup this print is not great, will make a better onesplit-toned with sepia and selenium
and one of my lith printsthese scans suck, it's hard to position light sources so you won't get any reflection of glass and have even lighting
>>4508146If you're in the US, it's Kentmere 400.
>>4508146Just convert Gold 200 ($7.65/roll) to B+W
Any tips for buying large format lenses online?I've been looking for a lens with shutter that can cover 9x12cm area, I've seen a lot of lenses that could potentially be good but I'm a little skeptical about buying vintage lenses, they all seem to have some shutter speed issues and I'm not sure if I could resolve that, but old Compur shutters seem very common.On the other hand, a Fujinon W180 with a Copal or shutter is not too uncommon either but I've only seen them on Ebay and they all seem to ship from Japan, and that just intimidates me a little.Or should I just bet on an old beat up folder that's like half the price of a decent lens. In the end, I don't necessarily need the most pristine lens with absolute best image quality. I just want it to be decently fast cause I'm shooting on photo paper (which is slow) and I need good coverage.
>>4509394Photo paper requires fairly precise exposures in my experience. Usually older shutters slow down. Really old ones may be off by an entire stop, but most of the modern black copal shutters are not off by that much. Maybe like 1/3rd or so if at all. If youre just using one lens youll get a feel for how much you need to compensate. Coverage will not be an issue for just about any lens using a copal shutter because they're designed for 4x5 shooting. There are some exceptions to this, but you don't need to worry about it.What's your budget and focal length you want?
>>4509398Huh really? I did a bunch of tests where I just manually counted 1-3 seconds for exposure and managed to get decent results. But ideally I do want a little more consistency.I was hoping to get something under 200 euros and a focal length around 150 to 200. The tests I have been doing with a 150mm lens but I rather liked the longer focal length. Honestly I think getting a fujinon w180 might actually be the best bet. It's easily available, within the budget and range I need and probably doesn't need refurbishment like vintage lenses.
>>4509459Go for the fujinon then. Nikon, rodenstock, and schneider all make great lenses as well and I think you can find most of those brands basic models for around 200. It doesn't really matter which one you pick, honestly. Paper has like half or less the resolution of film.Not having a shutter is going to be a pain, so until you find/want to install something like a packard shutter on your camera I would just get one with a shutter.
>>4509466Well I could always make the switch to sheet film but for now rc paper is cheap and easy to work with, but comes with it's own peculiarities, it's slow, insensitive to red and orange but I like to play around with it and it doesn't hurt my wallet as badly when I mess up a couple of pictures.I'll see which lens I can find, I'll keep an eye out on those other brands too and definitely will go for the whole lens + shutter package and avoid vintage stuff. Unless of course I find a very good deal in a thrift store or something like that.Thanks for chipping in!
>>4509355Not fuji, but you did get the speed right>>4509356How can it be iphone mini if it doesn't say 'shot on iphone™'
why is the level here so low compared to Reddit ?
>>4509543Post a pic and change that :D
>>4509553no I'm a /p/ tourist, I'm just stating a fact >the food you served me is discussing >if you can't cook something better you can't say that yeah no that's not how it works >>4508569>>4508502>>4507460Are good
>>4509561>tourist>only complains>reddit obsessedConsider going back
>>4507347I just bought my first medium format camera, a Mamiya 645 Super, ONLY cause I want that medium format separation which looks insane for such things as full body portraits. Im not a fan of the trendy pastel colors with a yellow hue/tint across the image. You constantly see those colors + shots of the golden gate bridge, cactuses, old cars and so forth on Instagram. I LOVE Kodachrome and a cinematic look, like Cinestill but without the nasty halations. Ernst Haas is my #1. Also love b&w, especially Bryan Schutmaats landscapes, Vivian Mayers street and Brassai’s night shots of Paris. So more grey scale (Schutmaat, Mayer) and more deep blacks/high contrast (Brassai). So which film stocks are the best in 120? I know theres nothing close to Kodachrome, unfortunately….
>>4509505The shield of my paternal grandfathers paternal grandfathers paternal grandfathers paternal grandfathers paternal uncle hangs on that wall. :^) count Carl Gustaf Löwenhielm.
>>4509565Stupid reason to buy one imo. A Sigma Art f1.4 lens on a Nikon F or Canon EF 35mm camera will get there, with more shots, sharper and no grain if you use low ISO C41 film or slide.
>>4509564Hes right though. Im convinced the doll creep and the egg psycho have deterred any quality posts here, who wants to be associated with that by posting in the same thread/on the same board... maybe if we bullied them or they got banned things would improve. They really should take that stuff to the dark web
>>4509566>doxing yourself
>>4509569I personally like the niche photography like egg and doll anons more than anything that would be considered 'good' by mainstream standards or r*ddit.
>>4509571Yes and thats my point, they keep away good photogs and instead we have people like you
>>4507347Planning to do some long exposure togs on 400 speed film tonight and I’d like some advice on which speed lens I should take: 28mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.4? I don’t have a cable release so I don’t want to use bulb mode, which means I’m limited to maximum 1sec shutter speed.Slight tangent to that: how would I do a double exposure with a Nikon FM? I think I have to advance the film to be able to fire the shutter. Thoughts?
>>45095771s isnt long enough to get any cloud streaks or smooth water. Is your goal just to do night time photography? Be wary of reciprocity too, its easy to compensate unless you forget it
>>4509575Truthnuke
>>4509569Egg guy is always trying stuff and doll anon just posts pics, there's nothing sinister even if some of their photos aren't your cup of tea. Can't believe I'm replying to this no photo bait but whatever.
>>4509583>Is your goal just to do night time photography?Yes.>Be wary of reciprocity too.Yes, that’s why I’m favouring the 50mm f/1.4, since I don’t want to use bulb mode without a cable. I think pressing the shutter will introduce blur. At least I can use the self timer for up to 1s speed.
>>4507347I’m planning on buying a Pentax KX since I’ve already got some Pentax film lenses. I want to buy one that’s in nice condition already but not every “NEAR MINT” condition one says whether it’s been cleaned, lubed and adjusted (CLA). Is it worth buying one in really good visible condition with the exposure meter reported working if the seller doesn’t say they’ve done a CLA? or are there parts in these old ‘70s cams that are really prone to wear and tear and I should therefore buy one in fairly crummy condition and spend the extra to CLA it myself, or is there not much at risk if it seems in good condition even if the seller doesn’t say anything about having done a CLA themselves?
>>4509615It's hard to be sure. In a vast majority of cases, sellers aren't going to CLA a camera just to sell it. And in my experience, just because it looks good outside doesn't mean the inside is just as cleanIf you have the money and are willing to spend it, buying a good condition camera then sending it out to be CLAed is the most surefire way to make sure you have a great camera. There's just no way to be sure if a camera you want to buy is in excellent condition unless you're able to get hands on it and test it before you buyDo note that Eric Hendrickson of pentaxs dot com has stopped working on a lot of electronic and electromechanical cameras. I can't remember if he still does KXs. If he does, he does good work and is reasonably cheap
>>4509598Lel calling me a nophoto in a nophoto post is hilarious egg anon
>>4509620Not egg anon, happy to post photos when I have new ones to post (I have 3 rolls waiting to dev so here's an old one I have saved to my phone), and no photo is only relevant when critiquing other's work. So please anon show us a representative sample of your pictures and then tell us that egg guy and doll guy are the problem for posting photos and discussing their technique. Yes I am white knighting some random autists because at least they understand that the only issue possible with a photography board are people saying "I don't like that these guys post their photos."
>>4509623Fair enough I was wrong, sick dragonfly anon. I obviously wont post identifying pictures in the same post where I call out the psychos, dont want egg anon to eat my spleen and make my lifeless corpse part of a 4x5 egg still life
>>4509569>doll creep**creeps; there are at least two of us.I don't usually respond to b8 like this but your post is wrong enough to warrant it. It reeks of not only external validation but of clout-seeking by association.>who wants to be associated with that by posting in the same thread/on the same board... maybe if we bullied them or they got banned things would improve.We are on 4chan. You are on 4chan. You are already voting to be here and associate with me. This place is not gatekept except for basic rules against abuse and legal compliance. That's the site's entire ethos. Anonymous posters discussing topics of interest. Surely, censorship will enhance the diversity of posts, raising the overall quality of the board, right? Surely, removing people that are posting photos, discussing techniques, and sharing experiences will attract more people to the board. Surely, what you consider to be "high level" will be what is selected for. And we all know that jannies and mods are perfectly flawless arbitrators of content. Ridiculous. Me posting doesn't prevent you from posting. If you want to improve the "level" of posts here, you can start by drowning out my work with your own, and attract more photographers. I actually encourage it; I like seeing the photos posted here and discussing film.At its core, it seems you don't seem to understand 4chan, you don't understand why egg anon and I are posting, and you have unrealistic expectations around the purpose of this board.This is a niche thread for an already dying hobby. Film fell off a cliff 20 years ago. People don't know how optical viewfinders work anymore when they pick up a camera. I can't speak for what drives egg anon, but I know that for me I simply enjoy the process of shooting, developing, printing, and trying new things. I share them here because someone else may like them or I can get feedback on new techniques. I'm not going to stop, because I do this for me.
>>4509626They're all 8x10 shots and your lifeless corpse is not thematically relevant to my egg series. Anyone with a serious opinion about my work would know that.
>>4509629Tldr?>>4509630No one has a serious opinion about your "work"
>>4509629This. I only post like 4 pictures a month on fgt. Only an obsessed psycho creep would ever think that's making a difference for any newcomer.I feel similarly to you about photography and sharing pictures here. I also enjoy helping people out and sharing my advice.
i need an advice frens, i got into film photography around 3-4 years ago and i have only used nikon f80 all the time. lately i have been thinking about to get a backup camera or designating my current F80 as a backup. which nikon would you guys suggest, if the budget is not a issue? also i have afd lenses mostly and one afs with no aperture ring
>>4509565Ektar is a non-pastel colour negative, although often the pastel "portra look" comes from some overexposure. Provia100F and Ektachrome are often seen as slightly cool balanced but quite realistic colour rendering for slides (as opposed to velvia which is far more saturated and wouldn't be my first choice for portraits). Medium format slides are really nice.B+W is really a matter of your taste and personal preference. If you want lots of fine gray scale and deep blacks/high contrast you may need to vary your filters during shooting, your film stock or development or all three - only you know what you want so you will have to experiment to find it.
>>4509360The currently produced IR films have extended red sensitivity, including a little near IR, but are mostly sensitive to visible light. If you shoot with a red filter, you will get some IR coming through. The amount of IR coming through will be swamped by the red light that passes the filter.You are right that if you expose the foliage so that it tends towards white with a red filter, you will get light foliage but darker skies. The IR filter does give a different unique look.
>>4509641F5 or F6. God tier 35mm cameras.
>>4509569You're boring, doll creep and egg psycho aren't.You're on 4chan retard, expecting people to not have niche, perhaps weird and "creepy" hobbies and then getting mad at it is YOU failing to pass the bar for being on this website. I don't get doll creeps hobby personally but I'm not a loser who has to get mad at somebody enjoying themselves. I'm sure my obsessive gun photography probably seems weird and creepy to others as well. It's not about (you) getting it, that's why this place is anonymous.>>4509641I use Zenit and Praktica because then I don't care when they break or fail. Funnily enough only my Rollei 35 has ever consistently had issues though. It's a box with a shutter at end of the day.
>>4509647NTA, but there's one availble in my cunt for 500 €. I'm so tempted. I'm primarly shooting with a F90x now, but it would be better to relegate all slide shooting to a F5, while the F90x is more a casual/travelling camera. I think the F5 body weighs as much as a F90x with lens.
>>4509629NTA but you weirdo are absolutely one of the many rear this website is dying yes. I concedd that 4chin isn't a normie website but you are just a lonely degenerate retard that nobody wants to associate with. When I saw your making off post I told myself how pathetic you were and closed the thread. At least it's good that you have a passion I guess >>4509634Same for you but it's worse because you think you are doing some kind of art kek>inb4 no pictures: here's a low res snapshot I took with my phone yesterday mogging you both but you'll object to that of course
>>4509671*many reasons *I concedeI'm phoneposting obviously
>>4509671>posts center framed and blurry phone snapshit in fgt>copes by calling it low resKek. If you're going to troll try a little harder, lil bro.
>>4509675thanks for repeating the post, this pathetic phone snapshit still moggs you and the egg guy
>>4509679Explain why.
>>4509682because you and the egg guys pics are pretentious dogshit, I thought the point was clear
>>4509684Doll guy is taking pictures of his dolls, egg guy is taking pictures of eggs, the only one with any pretense as to their photos being elevated or superior is you my dude.
>>4509684I've never qualified any of my images. I only title them, and maybe critique my own photograph. Please explain in adult terms why your photograph is better than the doll or egg photographs.
>>4509671Sick snapshot bro, lovin the sense of speed>>4509368This is amazing. Whats not great about it?>>4509204Betting you have some trauma from not being allowed to bring sticks home from the playground as a child? Why are you collecting trash anon, please leave it outside the door I just vacuumed. And dont waste mommys nice film on this dogshit again or you get the switch.
Did another test with my self made camera, I added a paper aperture inside the lens to see if it fixes some of the vignetting and it absolutely does. Though with an aperture of f8 the DOF is still incredibly shallow using this projector lens. I promise I'll buy a real lens soon.Also I guessed the exposure and it turned out not too bad. I can't really get my light meter app to suggest reasonable exposure for photo paper even if I set the ISO all the way to 3.
>>4509747Neat result, but yes f/8 is too shallow for most practical uses.You won't be able to. Just meter at typical values and then convert via google spreadsheet or find an app that allows you to put in the exposure information as read from your meter and then convert that to the appropriately low ISO and high f-stop. And then add in reciprocity compensation if you have info on that, but boomers on the web indicate that photo paper reciprocity is typically not an issue, and data for correct reciprocity information will be sparse.https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/reciprocity-failure-as-it-relates-to-paper.97419/
>>4509747Your film plane and lens are not parallel and/or your film is not flat. Smaller aperture will help a lot, but if you can improve both of those things you'll see better results overall.I have an 8x10 film holder that uses an adhesive sheet to hold the film rather than those tabs on the sides. 3M makes a good double sided adhesive strips you can cut for a 4x5 holder if you can find it. Eventually you will need to account for the adhesive thickness, but that's not too difficult.
>>4509747Oh yeah, forgot to ask. Are you using direct positive paper or normal printing paper and inverting after digitizing?
>>4509768Fomaspeed variant 311 rc paper is what I used, it is negative made positive digitally. (For now)>>4509767I thought I got it all pretty straight and free from curvatures, but guess I will have to check again. Right now my paper sits on the ground glass and is pressed in place along the entire edge of the frame. I thought it was enough to keep it flat.>>4509748Thanks, good suggestion about taking notes, that should be helpful!Also because the paper isn't sensitive (or very little) to watm to red light which also needs to be taken into account, daylight is not a problem but all my interior lights are shades of yellow and the exposure works a little different, but trial and error gets you a long way.
>>4509769If you can replace the ground glass with a piece of clear glass it gives you an extremely clear image, but it can only be viewed through a loupe. One of the loupes you place on the glass to use.If you set your camera parallel to a textured wall and focus on it you can check for parallelity that way.Putting the paper directly on the GG will introduce a slight focusing error. You can always compensate with a little movement, but it won't let you be very precise until you get a good feel for it. Smaller apertures and shorter focal distances will mitigate this, but portraits may prove to be challenging if you want to get the eyes sharply in focus.
There's a moon edition Hasselblad 500 for sale near me. They're asking $550. Just body, no lensesI really don't have the money for something like that but $550 seems like a really good price
Thoughts on using something like a bridge camera for scanning negatives?I have a coolpix B500 from when I was in college. I have very little reason to use it nowadays since its image quality is honestly worse than my phone camera in all but the brightest of settings. Im wondering if I could put it to use in some sort of scanning setup since I dont own a DSLRPros: I own it alreadyCons: my current phone may take better pictures than it (definitely in low lighting) and its does not shoot in RAW, only JPEG
>>4509837Is it a macro lens? Otherwise it wont work. Get a canon aps-c like a rebel and a sigma 70mm macro for a budget setup. Going any cheaper will be worse than lab scans
>>4509837From what I can find online your Coolpix shouldn't be able to save raws so it's gonna be strictly worse than even your phone unless your phone's camera doesn't focus close enough to fill the frame. The extra bit depth would have been nice for editing but without it you're just stuck with worse everything.
>>4509772Thanks for the suggestions, I will be fixing some things either way. I did some close up tests and it felt even harder to get things in focus and the blur is a bit strange in the background.I need to tweak the paper holder for sure, right now the ground glass opens like a lid and presses the paper into the frame but I feel like it doesn't flatten the paper entirely.
>>4509893Your projector lens is fighting for its life doing the exact opposite of what it was designed for lol. I've seen a lot of projector lenses that produce the super swirly petzval-esque bokeh like that. Try making an aperture around f22-f32 if you want to take closeups. It will give you useable DoF, better corner to corner sharpness instead of just a sharp-ish center and clear up a lot of the aberrations producing all that glowy softness. Even my soft portrait lenses with intentional aberrations sharpen up almost entirely when you stop down enough.
posted in another thread already (>>4509917) but I've got more
>>4509919
>>4509921this one specifically needs some work. there's details in those shadows but printing a street flash photo like this is a royal pain.
>>4509923last one for now. this is a bottle of rodinal.
>>4509923what the fuck?
>>4509561>2 of those are minebased tourist
How concerned should I be with this small gap between the back cover at the top cover of my super program?I just replaced the light seals, so I know they're good, it seems that the top cover is bowed slightly in the area behind the advance lever. I can push it down and it travels about .5 to .75 of a millimeter This gap does not exist anywhere else on the camera
>>4509915It's pretty messy, but I'm hoping for some good weather so I can take a few shots at longer ranges in some more light, it's been windy raining all week.I also want to try different apertures but I cannot easily swap them since the aperture is fixed inside the lens for now and if the aperture is too small I can't really see anything on the ground glass.So I need to focus first, screw the lens open, place the correct aperture, put it back together and take the pic, not impossible but quite a hassle. (but honestly I do feel like trying it)
>>4509944If it isn't too difficult to swap the GG try the clear glass + loupe combo with a smaller aperture. It produces an extremely bright image. When I use my clear glass I can still see a fairly bright image at f64 and >1:1 magnification when it would be black with a standard gg.Another thing worth trying for macro stuff is putting your lens in backwards.But yeah shooting farther away scenes is going to be much easier overall. View camera/LF macro is one of the trickiest forms of photography imo.
How tightly packed can a camera bag get before it's too tightly packedI just thrifted a 10" bag thinking I could fit my slr with a lens attached plus 2 lenses and a flash. With just the slr and 1 lens, there's still a good about of space. If I take out the divider, I can fit everything but it's a bit tight. If I buy thinner dividers and shove everything in, I'm afraid they'll just damage each other in the bag
>>4509962camera equipment is surprisingly resilient (especially the old stuff lol). you also gotta consider the fact that when youre using your camera, itll be on around your neck, so its only really cramped while its in storage. however, i wouldnt reccomend doing any serious hiking (or any activity where youre moving a bunch and can potentially knock stuff around)
>>4509893we /pictorialist/ now
>>4509966hiking is what I wanted this bag for. If I cant take my 35mm on a hike, im sure the 50mm and 105mm will be good, but Id like to also bring my flash if i can find the space
>>4509968Pictorialism WILL make a comeback with all the phone and plasticky looking modern digital GARBAGE being shoved down all our damned throats. I doubt ansel adams would have expected the end result of his realism movement would be so absolutely dire. Embrace the aberrations.>>4509970Just make sure there's padding between everything and you'll be fine.
>>4509962The tighter the better since it will have less room to move.
>>4509970see this is why I just wear the 28-210 around my neck like a fucking anchor, not only am I prepared for most shots without needing a bag or a lens change but I'm also training myself to become unbeheadable.
>>4509641Why do you need a backup camera? Has the F80 ever failed you?I used to buy into the whole backup camera meme...but then realized my cameras have never let me down in over a decade...what do I have a backup camera for? That said, a p&s is a nice combo combo to have with an slr/rf.
>>4509968It's fun, for sure.
>>4510060arresting.
>>4510061>>4510060>>4510058You need to time your shots better. Background lines intersecting subjects heads on all three are major distractions.
>>4509647>F5 or F6. God tier 35mm cameras.thank you, i will consider that>>4510032>Why do you need a backup camera? Has the F80 ever failed you?no, it is super reliable, even in rain and snow weather. in my case, it is the only slr camera i have, and i occasionally lend it to family members and close friends. during those times, I use a canon point and shoot, which works fine for me, but there were times i wish i had brought my f80 with me to get a better shot.
>>4510047Wow. Eggs and dolls. Was not aware that level of based existed. 10/10 photo
This one with the horse is pretty cool. The dreamy look of the pictorialist lens is really quite a nice combo with wetplate.
>>4510142Now this is photography.
>>4510142I like this one. It looks like the magic feeling when you look through the viewfinder of a medium/large format ground glass for the first time
>>4510142very dreamy indeed. i'd liek to take a pic that looks like that.
This reminds me to dig up my Helios and F mount adapter
>>4510047very painterlyI think the relative sharpness of the subject is too much, though>>4510076I don’t agree with that
Any feedback would be nice
>>4510244
>>4510249these are Tri-X pushed one stop, I wanted to try it but I think I should have done box speed. I didn't need extra speed or anything the light was fine
>>4510158Which adapter? I got an infinity-focus one from some Taiwanese brand, and it's been pretty good so far,
>>4510250
>>4510156Nice tonez on that photo. I like how bleak it is.I suppose you could try a mist filter or the pantyhose over the lens trick to see if it's enough for you, but it won't really compare to the real thing. Soft focus lenses are a really fun creative tool, and there are some relatively inexpensive options for all formats. >>4510155I didn't think of that, but I completely agree.
>>4510244>>4510249pictures of nothing>>4510250:3
>>4510338Those aren't pictures of nothing, maybe you missed the subject.
>>4510249>>4510244These would be cool, but you're waaay too far away from the cool for them to be good street shots.The arrows on the street directly pointing to the guy framed nicely in the dark store front would have been a well composed shot, and a good subject, but it's almost entirely lost by the entire left half of the image.Same with the blur shot. Imagine you got rid of that useless trashcan, all those distracting signs, and shot a tight shot of just the mural and the guy going through the door. All that extraneous crap just distracts.I also think the blur is a bit too much on the guy, but whatever.>>4510252This one doesn't really have anything going on for me. The background behind both groups of people completely muddles any presence they may have had, youre way too far from the action, and I don't see anything interesting happening in the scene. >>4510250A fun and classic cat in front of a window picture, but not much to say about it otherwise. If you're happy with it you've done well.
>>4510349that makes sense, thank you.
Is Nikon glass really so much better that it's worth paying $200 more for a similarly featured body just for the pleasure of using Nikkor lenses?
>>4510487see>>4507365
i have made a very bad financial decision
>>4510620I almost paid 6 grand for an 11x14 deardorff, but got outbid thankfully. Enjoy the camera.
>>4510623its pretty good, i already have a ixmoo so its very nice to use. i shot a roll in my backyard (accidently overexposed oh well) and it was nice. i hope i can sharp focus on a rangefinder, but i really like it. its very light, i put a canon 50mm 1.8 ltm on it. long throw but good lens on my canon l3.
>>4510626I really like using my m3. It's a perfect break frim the large format cameras I normally use. I usually use higher speed film with rangefinder so I can use smaller apertures. Focusing with f8 or f11 is pretty manageable.
>>4510629i currently have a bulk roll of kentmere 200. i just do like f16 or f22 at 125th or 60th in most outdoor conditions. i have a gossen luna pro f meter that works very well and gives me good negatives for printing. i just really wanted a leica and its so goddamn smooth. smoothest camera i have
>>4510634But what will be your first Leica lens?I think the 50mm summicron collapsible version is a really lovely lens. It has that nice vintage rendering, and they sell for only like 500ish smackers. They look really cool on the camera as well.
>>4510637idk yet. i will probably use my friend's leica iig lens on it to see if i like how it renders it before splurging on another leica lens. but thats also way down the line, i have no money anymore haha
GAS is hitting me hard. I just refurbished a Pentax Super Program and haven't even shot a test roll through it and I'm already browsing eBay for different cameras
This is going to be a long day...I feel kind of sick and really don't feel like doing this right now, but if I don't then I will not have a chance for another month.
>>4510999>blix
>>4511012Problem?
I tried scanning in 64 bit hdri and then inverting/balancing in capture one for the first time. Tried out three different looks for these pictures. A critique/comment on the color balance would be appreciated. They're all gold 200.Sorry about the dust!
>>4511048
>>4511049Last one. I felt like the more stylized colors looked nice with the scene/subject, but maybe it is too instagram filter. Kinda fun how you can make gold look like crappy portra in post.
