You're too late bitch there's already another one

File: A7R00482_FEMilvusCTPrecisa100.jpg (1.91 MB, 1367x2048)

1.91 MB JPG

>>4339071
and here is a photo of some rocks taken on my extremely trusty FE/Zeiss Milvus combination

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4339071
>stop rotating through your camera pile just to "give them some use"; it's needless self punishment that will lead to wasted film, missed opportunities, disappointing results. Instead just stick to gear that works and that you like using
why tho, it keeps things interesting.

I almost always use the same focal length so I am not like those zoom(er) retards that will never achieve consistency.

File: A7R00484_FEMilvusCTPrecisa100.jpg (1.5 MB, 1373x2048)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4339077
And another one that's either slightly out of focus somehow, or just soft because it's through water.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4339071
>>4339071
if you're gonna do it, do it right
where the fuck is the sticker?

/fgt/ daily reminder (courtesy by anon): one stop per decade is (generally) bullshit
>negative film ages better than positive
>black and white better than color
>slow films better than fast
>storage conditions (dry/cool) matter more than years
>Negative film is shot 1 or 2 stops overexposed and then PULLED in development so that you build more density in the exposure and develop less such that the fog is limited
>slide/positive film is shot at box speed or overexposed and pulled.
>if you home develop you can also use benzotriazole as a restrainer for the the first developer in E6 process


Useful links
>[massive dev chart] gives times for home film development
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
>[film dev] shows results of development regimes
https://filmdev.org/
>[news & community links]
35mmc.com
casualphotophile.com
kosmofoto.com
emulsive.org
japancamerahunter.com

Previous thread >>4335670

Thread question:
what's your favourite theme to shoot?

File: A7R09715EOS10ET160.jpg (1.28 MB, 2048x1366)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4339080
>>4339079
And this is why we shouldn't try new things.
Tungsten slide just looks bad.
>unless shot under tungsten lights, which also look bad

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-9.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1366
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4339088
It's not bad, it's just very cold
You will not have nice positives to look at, but these scans are very salvageable
>And this is why we shouldn't try new things.
well this is your fault, you should have used a proper filter or shot it under tungsten light as it was intended
or at least look up how tungsten slide looks like when not under tungsten light and try to use it to your favour

>pull out phone and take a picture
>look at exif
>estimate lv and set my camera accordingly
Am I retarded or does the camera app actually work as a light meter this way

>what focal length should I get as my default for my hasselblad

I have a rolleiflex that is 80mm so I was thinking maybe get another lens for the hasselblad that's not the same as the rolleiflex. What focal length do you think would be the best all around? I am thinking either 50mm or 40mm

>>4339111
Nice composition. Your color balance is fucked though. What film is this and was it pushed

>>4339113
Totally depends on you. Do some walks with a zoom on a digital camera locked on the equivalent focal lengths and decide what perspective you like the best. You may want to give up on finding "the one" and instead settle on a small kit though.

>>4339089
>well this is your fault
I know that, it's also certainly not aided by the fact the film expired in 1993. But the statement I'm making is that while sometimes it's fun to do fun things, it's usually more fun to get nice photos.
And that's the scan post-"salvaging", there's really no other colour info there to work with and it would be best to just run with a b&w edit.
The shots in warmer light certainly edited better, but even so 30yo ektachrome never gives you a lot to work with.

>>4339133
weird colour tints are "in" with the zoom zooms now, grandpa. get with it.

>>4339133
>Your color balance is fucked though. What film is this and was it pushed
Gold 200 - the scan is from my local lab. This is the first film I've shot in like 20 years so the first two rolls I shot went there, I'm planning on sending a few away to a couple others and then think about scanning at home down the track.

>>4338811
Well, like others have said the fundamentals are similar across different formats because it is just film, lens, and shutter. The thing with monorail systems is that the amount of variables to control and account for is significantly higher than simpler LF field cameras. The challenge comes from getting the absolute most out of your LF images. If you don't do everything right it isn't even worth using LF. You have to have a strong understanding of your entire camera system to achieve "ultimate quality"

The learning curve that comes with larger format is mainly an artistic/stylistic one combined with some added/enhanced technical challenges/limitations.

The DoF is even smaller than 4x5, which makes setting up a macro shot much more challenging.
The focal distance is a lot shorter, so everything is even more cramped.
The added weight introduces rigidity issues. Even a small wobble can throw off the extremely precise focus that is required for macro shots.
I have very high quality lenses, but they still suffer greatly from diffusion at smaller apertures, so I'm limited to around f32. I'm working with less than a quarter inch DoF usually. This last point leads me into the artistic challenges of 8x10 macro.

When I create a scene in my studio the added size of the film is directly translated into what I need to create/image. When you shoot at 1:1 you need to fill a scene that's 4x larger than with 4x5. With 4x5 you can still get pretty good magnification (3-4x) without running into impossibly difficult to work with DoF.

Last thing is that I'm shooting 8x10 to make contact prints, so there isn't really any sort of cropping allowed.

If you're just doing landscapes or portraits there won't be too much of a learning curve aside from handling the larger everything, and getting a feel for the lens focal distance equivalencies.

The people who are saying the move up is trivial probably aren't using a view camera for highly technical work like I am.

>Highly technical work
>Photos of literal trash xe picked from the road

>>4339147

Post work. Personally the latter half of that sounds like actual skill issue. Regarding the first part, of course a monorail is preferable to you since you seem to like studio work but for others a field camera makes sense-- especially higher end ones that have two sets of bellows for added control. But like later on you're describing rigidity issues... get a fucking Reis tripod or something.

Open up the aperture to focus then close down to your desired aperture if you're struggling to focus. Use a proper focusing loupe. You're describing issues you're having like they're some neigh insurmountable issue you have to deal with every time but in reality these are basics.

I'm not going to touch anything else cause you're literally talking about struggling to fill a frame in some parts.

File: samuraix3-kent400.jpg (2.86 MB, 2750x1833)

2.86 MB JPG

my samurai x3 works, half frame is fun even if the quality is a bit shit. picrel is basically what i think of the quality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:18 22:18:23
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 5E7A6122.jpg (3.18 MB, 3732x2904)

3.18 MB JPG

>>4339159
You missed nearly every point I'm making in context to what I'm learning to do right now.
The learning curve is about understanding and familiarizing myself with more difficult constraints and a system that is overall more difficult to work with. Another thing is going back to film from all the wetplate work I did. I got a really good feel for lighting/exposing wetplates and it's very different from film.

If you have an 8x10 or a 4x5 camera go set your bellows to twice or more the distance of your lenses focal distance and try taking a still life. Just try it. You'll see...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.3.1 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4667
Image Height	3630
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:22 17:30:04
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Metering Mode	Spot
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
Flash	No Flash
Light Source	Unknown
F-Number	f/8.0

File: 5E7A6118.jpg (3.71 MB, 2881x3601)

3.71 MB JPG

Here is a 4x5 wetplate I made. This was an "easy" image to produce because everything is in a relatively flat plane. If I tried shooting this in 8x10 I would most likely not have enough dof to keep everything in focus at the much higher magnification required to fill the film.

Understanding these constraints is what I'm trying to explain. It creates a new level of difficulty when composing photographs.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.3.1 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3603
Image Height	4503
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:15 20:31:01
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Metering Mode	Spot
Exposure Time	2.5 sec
Flash	No Flash
Light Source	Unknown
F-Number	f/5.6

File: 20240714_0015.jpg (2.52 MB, 3743x2559)

2.52 MB JPG

I really really like this photo of flowers that I took :)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Minolta
Camera Model	Scan Dual II
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:14 12:20:40
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3743
Image Height	2559

>>4339162
That's awesome. We're you able to fix it? You had one or two that were doa, right?

>>4339179
I did have the DOA one yeah, but truth be told I just sniped another one that came up for sale real cheap and got lucky this time. I guess the red pill is that I’m a gambling addict more than anything

>>4339101
That's basically it but without the retarded part of having to go through all that instead of just pointing your phone at something without looking like a creep and having the numbers right away
But you do you

>>4339138
>while sometimes it's fun to do fun things, it's usually more fun to get nice photos.
I totally agree. I like experimenting a lot, but there are shots that "would fit right with what I'm experimenting with" and there are shots that I want to be as predictable as possible
So yes, having fun doing weird stuff on film is great and I love it, but I also have fun getting the shot the way I envisioned it because I know I can count on my camera and my film and my process
That's what I meant by getting to know how these things behave (tungsten slide shot under sunlight) and use it to your favour
Btw can you post a pic of the negative so that I can have an idea of how it looks """unedited"""?

>>4339171
>>4339172
>I'm just another random anon but
I admire your perseverance and I understand everything you're saying
And it's certainly difficult to do what you do
But really, why does it feel like all of your shots are test shots?
Even if you truly wanna dive in macro 8x10 (which is amazing) why don't you shoot something that looks like a finished piece?
I don't feel like you wanna shoot plants and small mammals' skeletons
And if you're already "wasting" plates, then why not shoot something that is truly interesting?
Your photos are technically well done
Give them some subject that matches it
Get something interesting to shoot
It'll be the same process, but you'll get better photos because they'd be actual photos rather than test shots of random stuff that happened to be at arm's distance

>>4339147
>Last thing is that I'm shooting 8x10 to make contact prints, so there isn't really any sort of cropping allowed.
This is a complete aside, but have you considered enlarging? It almost feels like a waste to not enlarge at least a bit, considering you're doing macro with so much more resolution than smaller formats would allow.

>>4339190
Both of the examples I posted are good photographs in my opinion, and far from test shots. There was a lot more consideration put into them than simply testing something. Both images are beautiful to hold and look at in person. It's very difficult to create strong stand alone images in general, and especially with macro. Along with the huge challenge of working the camera I am also learning new styles of photography, which is in its own right more difficult than the camera work!

What's an interesting macro subject in your opinion? Sexy bell peppers?

>>4339197
Yes I have. I have a beseller 45v-xl, so I could get an 8x10 kit for it. Need to build my darkroom first. May actually have that done in the next couple of months, which is very exciting.
I'm not sure if I'm doing everything absolutely right, but I'm actually a little disappointed with the IQ of my 8x10 contact prints. I need to go and take some more standard landscapes or something to see what a technically perfect photograph looks like when contact printed.
Wetplate colloidion is so incredibly fine grained it has spoiled me. Might switch back and just do glass plates if I cannot cope with the lower IQ...

>>4339177
nice one

File: A7R09715.jpg (4.32 MB, 2048x1367)

4.32 MB JPG

>>4339188
This is the straight scan of the slide with daylight wb, and the raw tone curve stretched out a little so you've got some contrast to work with (old slide film loses dmax/density). As you can see it's pretty fucked, but feel free to do your best :)
Another nice thing is that the film base has gone yellow, so the blown highlight areas turn a different colour to the parts with some density.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4339171
I didn't miss any points. You're only upset I gave you solutions to your problems instead of praising you.

Why would I extend my bellows like that when I have no interest in macro shots. If someone commissioned me for that type of work sure I'd take my time and properly focus macro shots aren't actually that hard especially in a studio environment.

File: Screenshot_20240719-064949~2.jpg (1.12 MB, 1644x1355)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4339209
?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:07:19 06:53:51
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: DSC06974editSMBDR.jpg (2.23 MB, 1600x1600)

2.23 MB JPG

memes on memes. Phoenix 200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

File: A7R09715.jpg (964 KB, 2048x1367)

964 KB JPG

>>4339226
And I can do this too, but it's really just throwing half of the histogram in the bin and it just looks like a meme. It's just not a great looking piece of film.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4339225
Both of your posts show me very clearly you do not know what you're talking about and that you have a weird narcissism about you.

I do not want praise. I was answering a question. In general I just enjoy sharing the type of photography I love working. Really weird you missed that part and just chose to look stupid in front of someone with more experience than you.

Not responding to you again unless you post one of your LF shots to your reply, btw. :)

>>4339235
I love Phoenix 200.

>>4339113
60MM is the ideal for hasselblad

>>4339249
Stop looking at a useless histogram and look at the fucking image. Who the fuck cares about a histogram, that's not what you're printing. Edit the image until it's as good as it's going to get. You crushed the shadows too much. The point is idk why you're whining about white balance when you didn't balance it at all. 5 seconds with a screenshot got me 80% there.

Use an 85 or 85B filter next time and meter accordingly if you don't want to do it in post.


>>4339255
Waaah shallow depth of field takes me a while to focus so that's why there's a learning curve. Whaaa I have stability issues everything is shaky and I lose focus. Waaah DoF is too shallow and I can't fit both flowers in the same scene, a scene I have complete control over in a studio setting. Those aren't learning curves that's literally skill issues and improper equipment.

Only narcissism here is the dude that posts the same type of wet plate 'test shots' that all look too busy and tries to signal how much effort it actually is cause subconsciously he knows it's shit. You're the one saying it's a learning curve when there really isn't cause you get immediate feedback from the ground glass to what you're doing. I remember that dead bird in a cage image that got shit on and you did the same shit. You coped by saying the wet plate looks better than the photo of it. (It doesn't, your eye and brain just understands the wet plate image and when forced to look at a photo of the wet plate image it's looking at it for the first time all over again and that's why you realize it's shit).

Same concept happens when painting or drawing or sculpting. If you take a photo of it it forces you to look at it objectively again.

Ya know I defended you but seeing you these past few threads I realized the people baiting you and antagonizing you were right. You don't need to respond to me, it's not going to change what I said.

File: 2ff27ff2c0dd947452c11c996(...).jpg (19 KB, 550x406)

19 KB JPG

I bought an SQ-A

File: chaika-clapping.gif (316 KB, 480x270)

316 KB GIF

I bought a Chaika 3

>>4339275
Well... Thanks for proving my point so perfectly, nophoto.

>>4339200
>What's an interesting macro subject in your opinion? Sexy bell peppers?
well, yes, Weston was truly a genius pushing the limits of photography
almost 100 years ago he was already playing with textures and forms and making a bell pepper look nothing like an ordinary bell pepper
you jest, but he was playing with textures, shapes, interesting lights to create volume, interesting subjects, approaching them in unique ways, whereas your shots truly look like test shots
plants and angry teenager-tier dead animals' skeletons, all the while being as pictorial as one can be
>look, a skull
>look, a plant
forget about the format, it doesn't matter if they're 4x5 or 8x10, think about the photos: are they good photos?
No, they're test shots
>Both images are beautiful to hold and look at in person
yeah, because they're ginormous negatives, not because they're interesting or whatever
you know how to technically do it, man
just get creative and use the specificities of LF to your favour instead of doing test shots
if these were shot in 35mm would you still think they're that good?

>>4339283
He's making nu-metal album covers and hot topic t shirt designs, please understand

>>4339283
Regardless if we agree or not I appreciate your sentiment, and your distinct lack of narcissism. I'll see if I can figure out something more interesting... Maybe I will try to do something weston-esque as a challenge for myself. Idk...

I think that some images actually do look great because they are printed or materialized into a physical form even if the photo is pictorial, a little boring, or whatever. It's not just because they are large. The look of the wetplate works in favor of the images.

It's a combination of all factors that produces a final piece that matters more than simply the image taken on the medium. I'm not trying to make excuses for images you think are boring either. I just disagree with the take and think there's more than just the image that needs consideration.
If weston's pieces were shot on super grainy half frames they would not have the same impact. The images would be great, but the final piece of art would not be as good without the choice of format.

File: 1721361576241507.jpg (2.22 MB, 2400x1846)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4339286
>*teenager playing the same note over and over again on an out of tune electric guitar as fast as he can*
>*retard starts attacking a drum set*
>....
>BLAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAGH

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:19 09:40:17
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4339315
New genre dropped: zoophillic black metal

>>4339315
>>4339316
sensible_chuckle.jpg

>>4339315
Photography is so transformative

From snapshit to "what if burzum was furfags" in one simple edit

>>4339315
turns out wetplatefag is turbobased
huh

>>4339315
I know it's cringe. Thanks for actually being funny.

>>4339315
>barkthrone

>>4339330
>under a furry-anal moon

>>4339332
>grim and knotsmitten

>>4339315
In context with “furry black metal” the phallic symbolism is apparent

>>4339333
>>4339332
>>4339316
The years long obsession is more cringe than the image.

>>4339339
the fuck are you even referring to?

File: 4x5 dude irl.jpg (360 KB, 2048x1381)

360 KB JPG

>>4339339
learn to take a joke, furfag by five

>>4339340
Have you been living under a rock?

>>4339342
Animal abuse is not funny, weirdo. That picture is pretty funny.

>>4339342
even has a husky plushie
you might be into something lmao

>>4339343
what years long obsession?
>Have you been living under a rock?
I'm just not chronically online

>>4339340
>>4339347
He thinks everyone who calls him a furry is some unhinged stalker from /an/ that's been following him and husky guy around. Stalker anon's idea of trolling is trying to frame them for acts of bestiality they did not commit and making comments about their dogs relating them to animal rape videos.

But sometimes, calling someone who incessantly takes photos of their dog a furry is just funny.

>>4339348
oooh I've came in contact with his lore in one of the last /fgt/ threads lmao
yeah, it's just a guy who shoots LF almost exclusively of his dog, and now seems to be into macros
I think it's cool they're doing what they like, it's just kinda sad that they seem to have no artistic evolution over time

>>4339347
The main guy that constantly brings up animal abuse accusations followed the husky poster from /dog/ general on /an/ and me afterwards to /p/.

He has brought up hyper specific posts from /an/ that are nearing on 2 years old now, which is why I say the obsession is years long.

The crazy part is he knows very well that both the husky poster and I are strongly against animal abuse of any kind. There were real animal abusers that used to constantly troll the /dog/ thread on /an/, and I wouldn't be suprised if he is one of them.

>>4339348
The 4x5 furry thing was funny. The constant accusations of animal abuse is not.

>>4339352
oh now that's just fucking sad
and yes, the obsessed guy is way cringier than anyone else
>imagine stalking and harassing someone through an anonymous imageboard for years
truly some chronically online type shit

>>4339351
I've been spending most of my time learning the technical aspects of large format macro, wetplate, and studio lighting. They're all essentially new to me. I know I can do better and I have been improving in many ways. I spend a lot of time working on this stuff and have learned a ton. I'm just starting to feel comfortable enough to push myself artistically more than I've been pushing myself to achieve technical excellence in LF.

This stuff is very challenging, and extremely time consuming, but I love it.

File: scan0011.jpg (1.45 MB, 2000x1276)

1.45 MB JPG

fuckan murdered my negatives
oh well

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-4000
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:19 20:24:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1276

>>4339354
Check out this thread about halfway down if you want to see even more of his mental illness.

>>4335736

File: scan0011_01.jpg (1.74 MB, 2000x1276)

1.74 MB JPG

>>4339356
tryan to figure out how to adjust tones and all that in post
first one is unedited scan
is pic related actually better in any meaningful way?
pls disregard my pubes on the negative

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-4000
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:07:19 20:28:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1276

>>4339355
I'm truly happy for you, and I think you're capable of doing some really cool stuff
You're driven, you like shooting and you have the time and resources to do so
But why the fuck would you "wait until you can push yourself artistically"?
You don't have to wait to do it
Do it WHILE testing
You're gonna shoot SOMETHING, why not shoot something that is also artistically intereseting?
You don't have to wait to be ready to then be creative
On the contrary

>>4339357
You're doing the same thing huskyfag did there

Stalkerfag is real, absolutely, and he's here. But not everyone who uses a funny obscene insult is stalkerfag.

File: Screenshot_20240719_11561(...).jpg (252 KB, 960x736)

252 KB JPG

>>4339359
It's a hard balance to strike, and in all honesty I try to photograph things I think look cool or whatever.
That skull picture is really cool in my opinion, and the lighting I chose to apply makes it even cooler as well. The gradient on the horn, and how the background silhouettes it. It was a carefully considered shot.

The physical limitations of the format are constraining in a way that you have to understand them well before embarking on any old artistic idea you have. It isn't a complaint either. It's a challenge I want to take on.

>>4339360
Even the captcha is taking shots at me. Wtf.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES2AXE4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	960
Image Height	736

>>4339364
>emBARKing

>>4339364
>The physical limitations of the format are constraining
Wow, thats ruff

File: 1721413523520929-3.jpg (1.34 MB, 2000x1276)

1.34 MB JPG

>>4339356
>>4339358
you blew the highlights too much IMO
nice chiken tho

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

How retarded am I for never collecting my negatives and only getting sent digital copies of my photos?

>>4339439
kill youself
NOW

>>4339443
Fuck, what a retard, from now on I will collect my negs, taken some nice photos over the years too. Not gona an hero though but thanks

>>4339439
clinically retarded

File: 22.jpg (2.56 MB, 1588x1080)

2.56 MB JPG

okay bros maybe im retarded but does digital have the same dynamic range as film? or better for that matter? Like neg film allows to meter for shadows while not blowing out highlights, or vice versa, but would a digital shot not be most similar to positive film? Therefore not allowing that same range as neg film?
>posting a shit pic to get plausible deniability about being a mental deficient if im stupid for asking this

>>4339448
Digital, if shot in a raw format, has MASSIVELY more dynamic range. You can pull so much from a raw file in post that it's not even funny. I still mainly shoot film, though.

>>4339448
In practice, full frame digital has over 17 stops of dynamic range. Yes, 17. Not claff chart 11.shit. Not dxomark 14.shit. over 17. Your scene can dip over 17 stops below the highlight clipping point and you will still have something recognizable in the grainy shadows. APS-C has 16 stops and MFT has about 14-15 stops depending on if it's one with a good sony sensor or not. If your grain tolerance is very high, FF could feasibly record nearly 20 stops. Most "DR" improvements as of late have just been noise reduction, not actual DR improvement. A noise chart fag will take issue with this and say "The SNR is too low, this is low confidence data, it doesn't count, the mtf chart is-"... ignore them.

Well shot, high quality negative film (expose to fill the shadows) has about 14 stops of dynamic range. But it's much better looking dynamic range than you will get out of any jpeg or raw developer OOTB color profile unless you have a way with the curves tool.

>>4339404
thanks, i see what you mean
yeah he was delicious as well

>>4339448
Definitely not “or vica versa.” Film has trash shadows and great highlights. Digital is the opposite. It’s why people like shooting film.

File: epson010.jpg (848 KB, 3319x2191)

848 KB JPG

finally picked up a scanner for negatives. enlargements are still more fun though. pic is a scan of ilford fp4+ 135 film

>>4339439
depends on the quality of the scans and the negatives

File: WhatsApp Image 2024-07-20(...).jpg (109 KB, 1280x853)

109 KB JPG

>>4339071
True
I use my ME Super more than my LX cause the LX mirror sometimes sticks and im worry it's messing up on auto exposure or something, whereas my ME Super I know just werks for now.

>>4339513
which scanner did you buy?
if you would of included exif then i would not have had to ask a gearfag question
think about that next time anon

>>4339535
sticky mirror syndrome you can fix pretty easy bro

>>4339544

Epson v370. I guess it does not attach exif, I didn’t remove it deliberately

>>4339547
Probably! it only happens on auto mode though, for some reason, resets itself when I change the dial to a dif shutter speed.

File: ss+(2024-07-21+at+12.40.51).jpg (141 KB, 525x862)

141 KB JPG

>>4339535
I should add im a bit of a gearfag, but only really use my 6x7 and the ME Super. Friends borrowing my P30N, P30T, and SL

>>4339573
You better take some insane photos to be able to justify having all that kek

HP5 IS SHIT

>ilford ortho 80 and 3200 are the best ilford products

Thanks for coming to my blog.

>>4339636
for me its fp4+

File: IMG_2193.jpg (962 KB, 1284x1660)

962 KB JPG

>>4339087
Can someone elaborate more on
>storage conditions (dry/cool) matter more than years
>Negative film is shot 1 or 2 stops overexposed and then PULLED in development so that you build more density in the exposure and develop less such that the fog is limited
Like I’m a retard? See some interesting looking bulk deals on fleabay for like 20+ year old bw stuff, wonder if it’s just a waste of money

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1284
Image Height	1660

>>4339669
If they don't say how it's been stored (it should be in a fridge or freezer) it's a gamble but you can try overexposing and underdeveloping to see if you get a good result. $3ish a roll is a decent price, I'd definitely go for it if they say it's been cold stored and might even if they don't but I wouldn't use it for anything where the outcome is super important like work that anyone else has a stake in. Worst case, shoot and develop a test roll to see how you should expect the other nine to turn out.

>>4339636
Delta 100 fucks so hard

Ilford xp2 is an excellent film stock and only turbo poorfags disagree. I just bought a roll and I'm going to use it with my gigabased orange 16 filter on my turbobased medium dick camera.

>>4339670
Excuse me if this is a turbo retard question but when you say overexpose underdevelop, you mean something like, shoot it as 800, develop as 200? If that’s a two stop difference, could similar be achieved by shooting as 100?

File: DSC07005editSMBDR.jpg (1.46 MB, 1600x1600)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4339669
Bruh, if you're scrounging to save that much with bw just buy a $20 bulk loader off eBay and a $70 100' roll of Fomapan or Kentmere. It'll cost the same as that 25 year old expired garbage.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4339071
About to send in my first roll. I’m excited about the results but I’m scared the pictures will all turn out blank

>>4339669
The whole b&w series I posted in the previous thread (>>4337791) was shot on film expired by 40 years. It's definitely possible, but if you need to have this stuff explained to you "like a retard", then you should definitely not bother, but do what >>4339686 said and spare yourself frustration and disappointment.
Really, it's not worth penny pinching when you're a beginner, you get bad results, inconsistent results, it's impossible to learn control of your results like this, and you just end up frustrated and put off from the hobby.
Buy and shoot the cheapest stock, but NEW stock, not expired potential garbage.
>>4339679
No. For 400 box speed film:
>expose at 100
>develop for 2/3 of the time prescribed for 400
As a starting point.
Or just stand develop in Rodinal 1+100 for an hour and see what happens (ignore the dumb meme that OP put in his post because he's a faggot).

>>4339669
It will probably make images just look like shit. Or "artistic" if you're into that sort of thing.
>wonder if it’s just a waste of money
I made the mistake of buying like 50 rolls of very expired color film years ago because I was "saving so much money". Then I devved one roll and it was so fogged and shitty looking I haven't shot any since. Fresh (or at least <5 years expired) film is not that much more, there's no sense wasting your time on ancient shit except maybe as an experiment.

>>4339700
>>4339695
>>4339686
Thanks for the tips lads. I’ll pass on this then. For what it’s worth I was interested due to price, yes, but I can afford fresh film as well lol. I’m being gaslit by all these YouTube videos of “awesome expired film” or whatever else. I guess they don’t show you the other dozen that were unusable.

File: 1717592599536150.jpg (1.91 MB, 2888x1936)

1.91 MB JPG

I have this very irritating blue line through a couple of my photos from a recent roll of film.
Is this the developers mistake (i dont do my own development), or a camera issue?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4339724
Think it is a scratch or a dirty scanner.

>>4339071
disagree
I use cameras based on mood, if I feel especially old fashioned on a certain day I will take just the scale focus camera without a light meter, for example

>>4339071
does anyone here use a color checker for studio photography? I recently tried studio shooting for the first time and thought a color checker might help me make color corrections later on. I'm an amateur though.

>>4339177
nice :)

Bought an Olympus Pen F for £160 on my recent trip to Japan then proceeded to break it the same trip like a fucking retard. Should I get it repaired or just buy a new one?

>>4339757
If it’s really broken, you lose nothing by trying your hand at opening it up and repairing yourself. It might just be something popped out of place or came loose, who knows. Labour and such for repairs would probably cost close to if not more than what you paid, may as well just get a replacement.

Bros, i noticed as i was pouring my developer back out just now that there was some kind of material in it, like a sediment, looked like crumb or some such. How fucked am i? Ilford dd-x is my developer, and i only mixed this batch from concentrate max 2 weeks ago. Never seen it before. Still fixing i guess we shall see if it worked yet.

>>4339770
Maybe it's anti-halation goop. With c41 there's definitely some "sludge" that builds up in the developer over time, doesn't seem to hurt anything. I haven't noticed that with b&w but I've accepted our Lord and Savior Rodinal into my heart so I don't have to worry what it looks like coming out.

File: IMG_2194.jpg (357 KB, 960x1280)

357 KB JPG

>>4339771
>>4339770
Well whatever it was, seems to have worked just fine like you say. I still pitched it even though it probably would’ve been good for another couple rolls. Learn something new.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13 Pro Max
Camera Software	17.5.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:20 20:14:25
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	1.57 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	960
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.9
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4339774
I wana give home dev a go but I'm kinda travelling and I'm a temporary country atm, is it something I could get into on the move or worth waiting til I get back home in a year ?

>>4339776
you would have to move all of the equipment and chemicals, it's basically a box worth of stuff but something to consider if you're moving a lot

File: IMG_2195.jpg (209 KB, 1280x995)

209 KB JPG

>>4339776
Definitely could do it on the move. They have small tanks for a single roll, and if you’re doing black and white, there’s a large variety of chemistry available so wherever you are you should be able to get your hands on something. And then you just need one of picrel which you can fold up and won’t take much space, it’s what I do since I have no darkroom. The only thing I’d say is if you’re buying chemicals in one shot quantities it might not be that economical, but it can be done.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1281
Image Height	1
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4339778
I too wanna start home developing but I can't adapt a room for it
I was thinking of getting a changing bag, a lead retriever, a patterson tank with adjustable reels for 35mm/120, some hanging clips, a sous-vide thing, photo-flo and rodinal
is that all?
I've never used rodinal
I'm used to D-76 because that's what I did at the lab in college and, more recently, a couple times at my local lab (they're very chill)
Would I need something else for D-76 or would it be the same? (apart from a bucket to use the sous-vide thing to keep everything at the same temperature)
Thanks

>>4339804
No need for a lead retriever unless you're saving cans for bulk loading. You can tear the tops off with your fingers, or use a can opener if you have feminine hands. Less chance of scratching film if you remove the roll also.

No need for sous vide either. You just need a thermometer and you mix hot/cold water until you reach 20c.

You should have a small graduated cylinder for measuring chems, and atleast 3 graduated measuring cups that are the max size of your paterson tank. You want to label fix and dev cups then you'll also need one for mixing photo Flo.

Rodinal is KING. Get it and use it. You'll only really know what dev you like if you actually use them, but you can look into how much grain/accutance/speed/contrast control a specific developer will have as a starting point.

Rodinal is superbly sharp, but high grain. Theres always a compromise...

>>4339776
Developing 35mm and 120 is best to do on the move anyways

Not my drain not my problem

>>4339809
Nice, that'll cut down lots of costs
The sous vide shit is expensive
I'd like to have the lead retriever because I might try bulk loading later on and I kinda like keeping some of the cartridges
so new plan, what I have is
>random bucket to mix water
>thermometer (I have like 5 of those mercury ones at home god knows why)
what I need to buy is:
>changing bag
>lead retriever
>small graduated cylinder
also the max size of my patterson tank?
>3 graduated measuring cups (rodinal, fixer, photo-flo)
>patterson tank / adjustable reel (35mm/120)
>hanging clips
>rodinal
>photoflo
Is that it? Any recommendations? Is it worth it getting a kit on ebay or buying everything separately?

>>4339814
300ml per reel. You want to pour all your chemistry in at once and having one container to do that makes life easier.

You only need to mix 20c water for your dev. I just use the thermometer to stir up the water and measure as I modulate the temp, and keep it near the amount I need until I reach 20c.

Oh... You may want a 1 gallon container to keep your premixed fixer in. It lasts for a long time and doesn't need mixing up for every dev session. You can get this stuff called hypo-check that will let you test fixer depletion.

That's it. It's really pretty straightforward once you wrap your head around the entire process.

>>4339814
Cups, measuring cylinders &cet. you likely can find cheapest from your local plastic ware shop. If you are murrican, B&H photo jews, if europoor, Fotoimpex or Macodirect teutons for the rest.

File: autoboy6-kent400.jpg (2.2 MB, 1833x2750)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4339162
also got an autoboy 6 half frame for 10 bucks from a weird japanese junk seller account. it's curious because it's the american branded version (multi tele) and was sold as broken but is 100% functional and i don't think its the one that was in the listing photos. Weirdest part is the account was deleted after my package was delivered, couldn't even leave feedback. Just ebay things, i guess.
Playing around with half frame now, i now understand when people said that it is pretty bad quality, even shots that should be nice and sharp are just wrecked by the grain lol.nice thumbnails but 1:1s are so bad. Still fun though. Also have a konica auto-reflex to try out yet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:21 00:57:09
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4339821
>Cups, measuring cylinders &cet. you likely can find cheapest from your local plastic ware shop
yeah, I'll buy measuring cups and the graduated cylinder in chemistry shops etc.
btw last questions
what fixer to buy? what goes best with Rodinal?
>>4339809
>You should have a small graduated cylinder for measuring chems
how small? like a 50ml graduated cylinder?

>>4339833
Anything will work but for convenience and minimal re-pouring look at which developer you have easiest access to. I use DD-x for example and that’s a 1:4 developer. A 200 ml grad would let me mix it in one go, etc. others get up to like 1:19, 1:50, and so on.

>>4339770
theres always a bunch of particles/floating shit in my developer even right after i mix it up (like flakes of shit idk). its not much only a few but doesnt affect anything

>>4339513
sydney? fuck me they have the same protests every sunday here in melb

>>4339804
>>4339809
Retriever is only $10, you may as well get one. Plus, it could get you out of a jam sometimes when you roll something up and need to pull it for whatever reason.

I never used a sous vide. B&W isn't very exact with the temps. I got lazy and would just use cold tap water. It was usually about 20C, but sometimes it was over. I never bothered with it.

I used rodinal for its ease of use but be warned it can be very grainy. I used it with foma 400 and I was personally disappointed with the results in terms of grain.

>>4339828
agree
though half frame is generally decent for portraits and other up close photos
labdscape and such is pretty bad, even with fine grained film

>>4339804
>I can't adapt a room for it
If your bathroom or closet doesn't have windows just shove a towel in the crack under the door and shut the lights off. If every room has a window, changing bag
>lead retriever
Yeah, these can be useful if you're gonna bullk load, but also a huge pain in the ass. Maybe the one I got is just poorly designed.
>patterson tank with adjustable reels for 35mm/120
yes
>some hanging clips
don't buy the purpose made clips, you can get a whole box of binder clips at walmart for like $2 and hang them on nails
>sous-vide thing
I have not once had any problem related to temperature with b&w and all I do is fiddle the hot and cold taps until it feels "room temperature". The sous vide are for color.
>photo-flo
yeah photo-flo helps a lot with the water spots if you have hard water
>rodinal
YES
you forgot fixer. get some fixer, the cheaper the better.

>>4339833
For rodinal you can use a syringe with a tube instead of a needle, rather than a graduated cylinder. I use a 12ml syringe for black/white&green because it's so thick and it works great. I still use my 25ml cylinder for rodinal just out of habit and because my rodinal bottle has that stupid squirt spout on it but the syringe would be more accurate.

>>4339839
Yep Sydney, and yes same every Sunday. I just happened to be walking past

>>4339862
> shove a towel in the crack under the door

To add to this anons advice, I use a $15 curtain I found in the as-is section of IKEA and wedge it into the door jamb to create a complete light seal

>>4339814
>The sous vide shit is expensive
what
you can get one for <50USD off amazon
but no it isn't necessary for B&W, but is absolutely necessary for color development if you plan to do that

>>4339891
$50 is about what the entire rest of the basic kit costs, you'd be doubling the entry price

Going to Japan soon. Should I take a bunch of Portra, Fuji 200/400 (not Superia), and Gold that I've had in my fridge with me or should I just take the risk and buy whatever Fuji Superia I can find in Japan?

File: Fujifilm Velvia 100F-28.jpg (124 KB, 1497x1000)

124 KB JPG

>>4339574
desu, I could sell like 5 of the digital lenses and not have it impact my work or hobby stuff in any way
ahwell

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2021:02:13 17:05:09
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: Himeji-12.jpg (2.27 MB, 1831x2727)

2.27 MB JPG

>>4339893
portra yes, gold maybe, but fuji over there will be a bit cheaper and save you some space. also you can get fuji 100 and stuff. I'd also recommend some cine stock stuff, japan pops off with halations, even during daytime the castles look incredible with a bit of glow

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-3 Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.1 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	154 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:31 11:57:52
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4339840
weird, I never had issues with grain and kentemere 400. I'm super lazy though and went with stand development at 100:1 rodinal for an hour. Maybe forma just doesn't like rodinal?

>>4339964
no, foma 400 is just a piece of dogshit, I guess.

>>4340006
It is not, but it is also not iso 400

>>4339834
when using Rodinal do I need a stopper?
I've seen people just using water for a 1min bath, but I'm thinking of buying the stop bath, and then not buy photo-flo and use water with a bit of dish soap as lots of people seem to do
>>4339865
Thanks for the tip!
>>4339862
oh yeah, the fixer too!
I made a list now
>>4339892
it would not double the price, but would be a lot pricier for sure

My current list is this:
- Paterson tank $33,70
- CineStill accordion chemical bottle (2L) $13,99
- Large changing bag $22,95
- Steel film clips (x2) $7,95 ($15,9)
- Leader retriever $11,99
- Rodinal (Adox) $14,99
- Ilford Rapid Fixer $14,94
- Ilford stopbath $16,95
Total: $145,41

I'll later buy the graduated tube (200ml), 3 measuring cups the size of the Paterson tank, a plastic funnel, and I already have thermometers, the syringe, and some other graduated cups
Is that it, /p/?
Thank you all for helping out, guys
I've developed film before but stuff weren't mine and I had everything at hand (at uni, at my local lab etc.), so I tend to overthink and get the impression I'm always forgetting something

File: dew.jpg (1.96 MB, 3000x2070)

1.96 MB JPG

>>4340022
I never use stop bath these days, but when I used to I just used a little bit of vinegar one-shot because it's literally the same thing.
I heard about using dish soap but I worried about what other chemicals might be in there and what they might do to the film over time. Maybe that's irrational but I got some "slick-200" and it's so concentrated I doubt I would save money with dish soap.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	VueScan 9 x64 (9.8.18)
Image-Specific Properties:

File: vine.jpg (2.02 MB, 2062x3000)

2.02 MB JPG

This is rollei 400 IR but without the IR filter

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	VueScan 9 x64 (9.8.18)
Image-Specific Properties:

Does anyone know if you can develop multiple sheets of 8x10 in one 8x10 tray? Or would I need to get a tray one size up?

I've looked online and can't really find anything concrete.

20 mins in complete darkness and then a 10 minute wash per picture will eventually make me go crazy.

File: image 15 crop.jpg (718 KB, 2000x1333)

718 KB JPG

>>4339071
Have a heron pic (very expired E100G, tamron 60b 300mm f2.8 probably at f4)

>stop rotating through your camera pile just to "give them some use"; it's needless self punishment that will lead to wasted film, missed opportunities, disappointing results. Instead just stick to gear that works and that you like using

It's only punishment if you don't like using them, I like using my cameras. Also some cameras if you keep them moving regularly keep working, if you don't they seize up and stop working.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4626
Image Height	3111
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:21 21:57:33
Image Width	4626
Image Height	3111
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333

Fellow europoorfags, which film do you buy? Fujicolor 200 is really expensive here

File: image 37 crop.jpg (1.1 MB, 3000x2002)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4340044
Another Heron from the same roll.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9252
Image Height	6222
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:21 22:02:06
Image Width	9252
Image Height	6222
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2002

>>4340046
>>4340044
This is awesome. You're a brave motherfucker for shooting telephoto wildlife with film imo (even if it's just a heron), that flying shot has great energy to it. Thanks for sharing.

>>4340022
nah, I just use plain water as a stop bath, but that's only cause I do stand development with super weak concentrations of rodinal

>>4340044
Any tips for shooting expired slide film? Might snag a roll or two to fuck with.

>>4340045
You yuros are fortunate to have foma and orwo. And I’ve seen on eBay some eBay listings for svema claiming that it’s fresh and made recently, so there you go. Those films are not so cheap on this side of the pond due to shipping, sadly.
>>4340060
Might have better luck tossing your coins in a fruit machine desu

>fucked up and didn't properly secure the film door on my nikonos-V
>the fucker is still shooting
>have no idea if the film got water or light leaks
pain peko.jpg

>>4340069
Water on the film in theory shouldn’t mess it up too much, right? Now I’m curious. I mean many people start their dev with a quick water rinse.

File: captcha.png (18 KB, 461x315)

18 KB PNG

>>4339902
all that gear to shoot an out of focus soft pic with heavy chromatic aberration with shitty composition

>>4340070
I mean, if it softens the emulsion enough that the film sticks to itself as it winds in the camera or cassette you're gonna have a bad time

>>4340074

You just learned about chromatic aberration and wanted to use it in a sentence, didn't you?

>>4340040
10 minute wash per picture? Are you using fibre based paper or something?

>>4340084
I'm talking about film not paper. You do need a 10-20 minute wash for fiber paper.

File: 000027.jpg (2.48 MB, 3625x2433)

2.48 MB JPG

>>4339724
I had the same issue recently, probably a scanning thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD.
Camera Model	SP-3000
Camera Software	FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-016
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:20 19:00:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3625
Image Height	2433

>>4340032
>I just used a little bit of vinegar one-shot because it's literally the same thing.
I absolutely despise the smell of vinegar
How does the vinegar bath works? If it's very diluted I might give it a try, but I truly fucking hate the smell, and I'd pay $15 to not have all my developing stuff smelling like that lol
>>4340056
I plan on trying everything out
Stand dev, semi-stand etc.
But I'm used to D-76 and shaking, and will try it out with Rodinal as well
That demands higher concentrations, though
Do you think water would suffice?

>>4340060
You can shoot it and then cross-process on C-41, but it will be a negative
Or have it in E6. The positives would be all fucked up with weird colour shifts if it's bad, but you can treat it in post and get decent results
Don't expect too much, though

>>4340085
Oh gotcha that makes more sense

>>4339902
>my work

File: Screenshot 2024-07-21 at (...).png (23 KB, 633x291)

23 KB PNG

>>4340087
>How does the vinegar bath works?
You use vinegar and water as stop bath. What concentration? Who cares, it's an unnecessary step anyway. A dribble per chug is more than enough.
>I'd pay $15 to not have all my developing stuff smelling like that lol
Commercial stop bath smells like vinegar too, because that's what it is. Apparently there is "low odor" stop bath that uses citric or some other acid. I don't think the acid really matters, it just has to neutralize the alkaline developer. You could use lemon juice, vitamin c, fruit fresh, muratic acid, whatever.

File: 5E7A6313.jpg (4.14 MB, 3497x2891)

4.14 MB JPG

Had a relaxing goat based photo shoot with the old 8x10 today. My first non macro shots.
These two are just straight contact prints without any dodging,burning, or split processing to make them look nice. I'm going to work on that when it cools down some.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4372
Image Height	3614
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:21 16:43:23
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Metering Mode	Pattern
Exposure Time	3/5000 sec
Flash	No Flash
Light Source	Unknown
F-Number	f/5.6

File: 5E7A6314.jpg (3.39 MB, 3719x2976)

3.39 MB JPG

>>4340093

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5760
Image Height	3840
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:08:21 16:44:23
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Metering Mode	Pattern
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
Flash	No Flash
Light Source	Unknown
F-Number	f/5.6

>>4340087
Is cross-processing what you did for those photos? They came out really well.

>>4340092
>muratic acid
bro

>>4340095
I don't know what photos you're referring to, I didn't post any in this thread
But cross-processing will give you chaper and probably better results
I'd recommend you just pass it
Read the sticky: slides degrade faster, and these slides online are often stored like shit, so it's generally not worth the effort
>>4340092
Oh I'll look into the lemon juice thing
Seems to work the same and smells good
Vitamin C tablets are cheap, portable, dry
Seems to be the most convenient
Apart from that, is everything alright?
Am I forgetting something?
Thanks again for the help, I'm excited about this
I'll only buy it all at the end of september, though. Can't get it earlier, unfortunately
Can't wait to do it

>>4340104
Ah. I thought you were the anon who posted those awesome shots on expired Ektachrome,
>>4340044
>>4340046

File: pstineresize.jpg (1.8 MB, 1500x1017)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4339866
only positive of these protests is getting out and getting photos of them, genuinely dont know what they're trying to achieve other than virtue signalling

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5086
Image Height	3402
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:07:22 14:44:57
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1017

>>4340093
>>4340094

It's an improvement, you really do need to work on your framing and subject matter tho. I can see why you think there's a learning curve, subjects seem like they're actually hard for you.

File: image 36 crop.jpg (567 KB, 2000x1357)

567 KB JPG

>>4340060
I'm the heron guy. All expired film is a crapshoot. Current prices on Ebay are ridiculous for what is essentially a lottery, I bought most of mine between 2012 and 2018 and paid about 3-4 $/£/Euro per roll. Look for clueless sellers on FB marketplace etc. or estate sales if you want cheap stuff now. That said wait for bigger batches to come up (ideally many rolls of the same type not the mixed "joblot"s) as the price per roll tends not to get bid up so high and shipping splits over more rolls.

Have some bonus ducklings that slightly missed focus

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4501
Image Height	3111
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:22 08:42:51
Image Width	4501
Image Height	3111
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1357

File: image 27 crop.jpg (471 KB, 2000x1329)

471 KB JPG

>>4340048
Here's the heron making it's escape

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4626
Image Height	3111
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:22 08:47:09
Image Width	4626
Image Height	3111
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1329

>>4340060

Expired slide film still works. Some of it is still close to spot on (I have velvia 50 and provia 100F that is 20 years expired and still shoots ok) but often has to be scanned as some of it isn't fit for projection, don't use it for anything critical.

My usual way of doing it is: scan with a bit of room on the histogram above and below the image, use levels in PS to set black point from the unexposed edge, then set white points for each colour channel separately at the end of the histogram (ignoring any blown out areas). Usually this is enough but sometimes you'll need to either fuck with the midpoints as well or mess about with curves to get it right.

>>4340132
See
>>4339988
And
Post photo. :)

>>4340173
You've already rated my photo. Why are you upset? Can't rationalize and dismiss my critique?

File: Screenshot_20240722-063237.png (3.2 MB, 1644x3840)

3.2 MB PNG

>>4340173

lmao that thread is literally started with a photo I took, who's the nophoto?

>>4340173
>>4340178

I also responded in that thread too. >>4340182

The language OP used heavily heavily implied it's his photo without directly stating it-- I guess cause if he got called out he could say he never said he shot it.

In your efforts to call me a nophoto you linked to a thread borderline plagiarizing my work. Kinda funny, thanks!

>>4340176
Lmao, I had a feeling it was you responding. Pretty sad the only other person with a view camera is a bigger asshole and retard than me. Are you really THAT stupid you didn't understand I said macro 8x10 in general was harder than expected/had a learning curve, and not just using a view camera? Or is it something else aside from stupidity that makes you act like that??
You sounded like an idiot trying to explain to me how to do something you've never done before, and got incredibly pissy about it, and look at you now.

Now go have fun taking your extremely uncreative pictures that are always focused at infinity with zero movements. I defended you as well, and was very happy for you when you were gearfagging about your new 4x5 camera. I'll continue to do so.

The guy who made that thread is probably just some gay troll. Who cares? I've had my trolls make weird threads trolling me before as well. No big deal.

what is the best balance of cost and quality for scanning medium format negs?

>>4340228
woah big tldr. this guy seems like he has a stick up his ass. but more like a tree branch, with a knot on one end.

>>4340240
Sony a7riii+sigma 70mm art macro

Pixel shift. Tack sharp. Resolves grain.

>>4340228

Wrong reply? I'm >>4340178.

I haven't posted in that thread besides to prove OP used my photo and indirectly made claims it was his photo. I don't think he's a troll, I think he wanted to start a thread and didn't have content. It's a compliment in a way. What bothered me is weasel way of indirectly claiming it was his work. It's weird that you thought I thought you rated your own photo when I didn't say that.

My critique was >>4340132 and it seems to be echoed by others.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you like others have, but your wrong about the focus and movements. As long as you enjoy what you do though, who cares what others think. BUT composition, framing and subject is something you have 100% control over. I'm going to continue to take photos of views with my view camera and you can continue to explore macro work. No reason to struggle with it though, take your time. Revisit the frame down the line if you can't get it right. People revisit ideas all the time. Another thing I will say is that that guy that said you always make excuses for your work was right. Stop doing that. You write some excuse in that other thread too.

Seems like some wires are crossed here which is why I stay away from the thread most of the time. I feel like you think I'm some anons I'm not. If you're on the East Coast we should shoot sometime.

>>4340246
Confusing, but sorry if I mistook you for the know nothing who was telling me how easy focusing macro was.

>>4340151
Did you overexpose it, or just shoot it at box speed and pray?

File: EyelashViperPortra400Small.jpg (2.56 MB, 1358x2048)

2.56 MB JPG

>>4340247
It's alright, yeah with macro you need more time.

I don't have any good macro shots to show but here's a close focus shot of a eyelash viper. I had to take my time with it and I still didn't hit it 100%.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:07:22 11:58:16
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4340247
Nah wdym bro, I handhold focus bracket 2:1 magnification mollecule shots. All you need to do is be as mentally unstable as that other guy.

>>4340255
With your 8x10 camera, right?

>>4340254
It probably isn't worth it for you to get/carry a seperate back for your camera, but the only way to reliably focus macro images on a view camera is with a clear glass back and loupe. Normal ground glass is just not precise enough. Nice snake tho.

>>4340251
never overexpose slide, you'll lose highlights and it will look like shit
read the fucking sticky, don't expect to be mouthfed everything
the sticky is at the top of every goddamn thread. Read it.

File: CandleLightPortra400.jpg (3.03 MB, 1358x2048)

3.03 MB JPG

>>4340259

Yeah, that was with an RTS III and a 35-70 iirc. God I hated that dim viewfinder. This is also with the RTS III. Macro just isn't for me, and you can tell from my choice of boring subject matter. I'm still proud I was able to kinda hit these handheld with that atrocious finder.

Only back I'm going to get is the 6x17. I know the Linhof has back bellows but I haven't found something I want to use that on yet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2023:08:12 15:33:36
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4340268
The sticky literally says to overexpose slide film.

File: 20240602_133501.jpg (945 KB, 2084x1800)

945 KB JPG

>>4340270
I just use my AF camera if I want 35mm macro lol.

What I mean with the glass back is removing the GG from the standard GG holder and just put a piece of float glass in instead. It allows for ultra precise focusing. I stumbled upon the idea when I was troubleshooting focusing issues with macro work. From my testing the added precision is even helpful when focusing at infinity.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G998U1
Camera Software	G998U1UESAFXD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	1800
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:02 13:35:01
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Unique Image ID	XA8XLNF00SM
Image Height	1800
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	640
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.70 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4340277

Oh, huh never thought of that. Usually I double check myself with the rangefinder but imo even that isn't needed when I'm at f/32+. Iirc my Hurricane Ridge shot was at f/45 and like 1/30. My rangefinder decoupled or misaligned somehow during a hike recently so I might try that just to see what's up.

Yeah I don't have any AF film cameras, I do want to try an EOS 7 and see if it's any good.

>>4340272
No, the sticky says
>slide/positive film is shot at box speed or overexposed and pulled.
And then I explained what happens when you overexpose
Yes, it works
Often looks like shit, but works
Now that you've read the sticky and proven that you can read, use that hability to read other sources, look up how overexposed and pulled slide looks like etc.

>>4340289
Have you ever pulled slide film?

>>4340296
No, because I've seen it done before and it looks like shit, why would I try it?

>>4340289
>>4340296
>>4340297
I exclusively over-expose all of my slide film by a quarter stop with great results.

>>4340297
>>4340299
Just confirming that the sticky is stupidly ty. Case closed.

>>4340299
PROOF?

>>4340093
You need a much tighter composition on these

>>4340311
Didnt want to spook the goats, but I agree.

>>4340311
Who needs composition with 8x10? Grain density equals reach, so he can just crop to compose. Cropping doesn't look like shit at all.

>>4340313
I'm doing contact prints with them. I could mask them, and it would make them look a little neater as finalized prints, but I don't want to do any sort of large cropping with them, and can't.

You lose out on some of that 8x10 "magic" if you start cropping. The prints almost look too real and high resolution. It's kind of weird. It sort of makes you want to look at the prints with a loupe to observe all the fine detail.

File: Screenshot 2024-07-22 at (...).png (1.56 MB, 1440x1081)

1.56 MB PNG

Thoughts on the f100? I've been tempted lately because of the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 D. It seems like it could be my perfect single lens setup and after shooting with a fully manual film camera for awhile, I really want to go back to something that shoots more like a modern camera.

File: MontaukLighthouseE100Small.jpg (4.01 MB, 2029x2048)

4.01 MB JPG

>>4340296

I have because I had forgotten what was in my film back. I accidentally overexposed one stop so I pulled one stop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:07:22 14:26:31
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4340317
There we go

File: FireIslandLighthouseE100Small.jpg (3.09 MB, 2001x2048)

3.09 MB JPG

>>4340317
Suffice to say E100 -1 in dev makes it look like radioactive Ken Rockwell Velvia. (Looks like shit.)

Both of thes wr Vibrancy and Saturation -10.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:07:22 14:30:34
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4340319
Lol.

>>4340319
That's a shame, that would have been a great shot otherwise. Have you tried scanning it and turning down the saturation, or even b&w?

File: RobertMosesBeachE100Small.jpg (3.24 MB, 2048x2048)

3.24 MB JPG

>>4340320

Another from the unfortunate roll.
3/10 wouldn't recommend, the slide film looks super thin/transparent too.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.4.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:07:22 14:40:02
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4340317
>>4340319
>>4340322
As I've said before, it looks like shit
Thank you for actually having and showing us the results
If the other guy wants to be stubborn and overexpose, go for it
Just be aware of what you should expect: oversaturation, unrealistic colors, clipped highlights, color shifts on shadows (as we can see more clearly on the lighthouse shot, or in the blue as fuck shadow of the guy on the beach)
>>4340272
but sure, spend your money on E6 for this, I'm adamant it'll be worth it

>>4340322
kek wtf