This is the Film General Thread, aka the /fgt/.Please post film photos in this thread.It's ok to ask about film gear in this thread.>it's not gay to post in the /fgt/, unless you shoot expired film from an unsealed containerold thread >>>4351447Thread Question:>What's your oldest roll shot and devved?
Can reticulation happen if I keep dev/stop/fix all at the same room temp (20deg celsius) but then during wash or photo flo use really hot water? How hot world it have to be to induce reticulation?
>>4354704I mean the best way to answer that question would be to ask if it did happen or not?>definitely yes thoughNormally you simply want to avoid temp shocking wet film, full stop.A difference of more than 5 deg C is probably risky, and would vary depending on the actual film in question.
/fgt/ bros, what do you do with all the film photos you take? do you have a platform of people who actively interact and are interested in your work or is it only for your eyes? do you shoot just for the sake of it or do you put together a cohesive series/project? do you keep said series/project digital or do you print it on a zine/book/set of prints?i have an idea for a set i'm currently putting together but posting it online (Instagram) is useless as no one will care but if I spend money to put it into a book then it's just going to sit in my room with definitely nobody seeing it. what's the point of creating something if it isn't shared with the world?
>>4354708Enjoy with family/friends first then make prints then go be disappointed at some art fair, or take really nice normie core pictures that people would actually enjoy having up on their wall, and maybe one person will like your work.
>>4354708> what's the point of creating something if it isn't shared with the world?The satisfaction of doing it well, you gigantic attention whoring narcissistic faggotron.
>>4354708>what's the point of creating something because I like doing it and I don't care if it gets one like or 1M likes it makes no difference to me as long as I'm happy with the results
>>4354708I have 20+ years worth of film photographs (and some digital, too), of which people (mostly closest family where it concerns them, and /p/ where it doesn't) have seen 0.5% at most.>what's the point of creating something if it isn't shared with the world?See >>4354711.
I tried to convince myself that developing B&W at home would be cheaper. Filmfags, it truly is Joever
>>4354719Are you retarded anon? 16/roll including development is a great price, and you’ll amortize that down further the farther you stretch your chems. Did you expect it to be like free or something? I don’t understand.
>>4354720Perhaps It's the initial sunk cost that reminds you you're in for the long haul, and you'll need to develop at least two dozen rolls to offset that. This doesn't include the price of a good scanner, developing tank, etc
>>4354719>not just making your own chemicalsbitch ass nigga
>>4354719>>4354720>16/roll including developmentYou're both fucking retarded.>Dev $0.9967 (assuming least cheap option of one-shotting with 1+1 solution)>Stop $0.0999 (unnecessary but whatever, vinegar is even cheaper)>Fix $0.1899 (assuming 20 rolls/litre)>Flo $0.1269 (1+200 solution)>Sleeve $0.224>TOTAL $1.6383All calculated for 500ml working solutions for 120 film.Plus whatever you paid for film, so just about $11 burgers/roll after development in this case.If you're autistic also add whatever it costs for about 5 gallons of running water (for washing).
>>4354700I hate film photography so much you wouldn't beleive.
>>4354734No hobby worth anything is cheap or easy!
>>4354707unfortunately ill only be able to find out soon (waiting for negs to dry). i turned both hot and cold taps on, got the water to what felt like room temp, washed out my jug a bit then filled it to 1000ml. added photo flo, did it, then when i later turned the water back on (cold) it initially came out very warm, so i dont know if it actually was hot or not. the negs werent hot/warm when touched right after. ive one time accidentally washed negs in like 30 celsius water for 10+mins and there wasnt any reticulation i could see (but its 6x9 so maybe that hides it a bit). the joys (and anxieties) of film when you gotta wait and find out things like this...
>>4354740You're over thinking it big time. Read the foma dev sheet. It recommends using 30C+ water for washing if you want to get it done faster.
>>4354700>What's your oldest roll shot and devvedi shot and developed a roll of HP4 that expired in 1971not sure why but when i hung it to dry, the emulsion on the film just went mush and started flowing downstill have 3 rolls with the same expiration date, might give it another attempt some day
>>4354719>foma citro $10citric acid from grocery store will cost you 4-5 times cheaper (20mg/1L)>kodak d76 $15 for 16 rolls or $43 1L Kodak HC-110 for 160 rolls? If so you don't need Stop bath at all.
>>4354708Probably half the film I shoot is for brands with a large IG presence so at least it’s making people happy.
/fgt/s, what's your favorite 35mm point and shoot?recently impulse purchased pic below after feeling like my F3 was too bulky to take to casual/social situations. also kinda felt inspired by my gf having fun with taking her own point and shoot everywhere, an IQZoom she nabbed for free at a yard sale[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2048Image Height1536
>>4354787I sure hope you didn’t pay the meme prices for a 20 dollar camera kek
So I did P30 in TD-3 like I said in the previous thread. This time I got the right dilution, 1+1+8.It looks good, overall very similar to Rodinal 1+100 (which was my go to until now for it), but it definitely pulls out a lot more out of the highlights. I didn't do a side by side, but I'm pretty sure the sky here would have been blown out in Rodinal. There is a little of that edge unsharp mask-like effect that was so pronounced in my first tries, but much more subtle.Overall this is the best I got P30 to look, I'm glad I didn't give up on this material after having a very bad start with it, because it can be pretty fucking great. My favorite of all the new stocks that came out in the last decade.
Do high res scans give me more information to edit with? Or does it only affect print size? I see zero difference between 10 and 25 MB scans desu,
>>4354787I have an IQZoom 120, but prefer to use a Nikon FG.
Got these for $22AU each, how'd I do?
>>4354719you dont need sleeves for your filmyou dont need photoflo (its just soap)you dont need a stop bath (Its just an acid, any diluted acid will do)you dont buy brand name chemicalsthere I just saved you 50 bucks
>>4354794>Do high res scans give me more information to edit with?Obviously yes.>>4354806>you dont need sleeves for your filmdon't agree>you dont need photoflo (its just soap)semi-agree. depends of quality of water in his area. Just soap made my film dust-magnet once so no, fuck it, I prefer to buy anti-static liquids>you dont need a stop bath (Its just an acid, any diluted acid will do)100% agree>you dont buy brand name chemicalssemi-agree. you don't need brand name d76 - yes, but XTOL/Rodinal/ID-11 are chemicals I want to be QCed
>>4354806>you dont need photofloI made my own solution with Triton-X (0,1%)and quats 0,04% (quats are needed to make solution antistatac
first time color dev and scan yay
>>4354814wasted effort with shit camera
>>4354708you know what people used to do back when the internet wasn't around? they stuck their photos in an album (or god forbid, did like my parents and kept them in the print shop sleeves and stuck them in a box somewhere) and they just sat there, and nobody looked at them until someone dug out the old family album and went HEY LETS LOOK AT PHOTOS
>>4354803Where cunt.WHERE.
>>4354814Very nice, i love how many corners of that building you captured at once
>>4354822Which after 2 or 3 times only happens again when you die. And then your family goes through them and saves the photos with themselves or people they like in them, and throw the rest out.
>>4354803Is that cheap for you aussies or something? It’s about 20 Canuck bucks per roll which is a horrendous price for any film.
>>4354864No, no it is not.
does anyone else dry film like this?
>>4354863Yep.
>>4354790>sharpenedngmi
>>4354723What are you, poor? >>4354726>assuming least cheap option of one-shotting with 1+1 solution Kodak recommends a stock solution of at least 250ml per roll to negate developer exhaustion. Anything less and it's a false economy because you're ruining rolls >>4354811>XTOL/Rodinal/ID-11XTOL has sudden death syndrome, while Rodinal is only available in bottles meaning added shipping costs (I'm not american). Would like to try the Ilford stuff though, it's just that I want to pair Brand A developer with Brand A film >>4354806Ironic for a no-photo
>>4354900>calls me a nophoto>posts no photos of their ownWhat do I even say to this.
I bought an X-700 and an MD 50mm f/1.7 because of your guys' recommendations. Can't wait to waste even more money on film and development (I have 0 (zero) talent and am known for making bad financial decisions)
>>4354904nice one[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelNikon SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 EDCamera SoftwareNikon Scan 4.0.3 WImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution4000 dpiVertical Resolution4000 dpiImage Created2022.06.18 15.57.54Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1488Image Height985
>>4354900>Call me poor>Bitches about priceHuh huh
Can I reuse these bottles?Just rinsed out three bottles that had E-6 chemistry that was sitting in them for almost 5 years.Two of them have just leave a light dark color when I stick my finger in them and rub the sides. But the Blix had so much sediment/solids. That's the one I'm mostly concerned about
>>4354980no
>>4354900>Kodak recommends a stock solution of at least 250ml per roll to negate developer exhaustion. Anything less and it's a false economy because you're ruining rolls They say nothing about false economy in the spec sheet, and even provide a formula for adjusting times. And 1+1 is recommended for increased sharpness (at the trade-off of sightly more grain).Anyway a 120 roll takes 500ml in a Paterson tank, so you get your 250ml of stock when you do 1+1.
>>4354986Yeah you're right. I was able to see more sludge in the first developer bottle. I ain't fucking risking it. I'm just gonna buy some sparkling water bottles instead. Going to develop all my film in one day anyways
>>4354994if you trawl the old boomer photography forums (lff, apug, photrio, phot.net etc) you'll see that a lot of these manufacturer recommendations are very conservative and a lot of chemistries can be extended considerably without issue. sure, it's not exactly well documented or studied, but one shot stuff usually is reusable just fine. their own official instructions to increase development time when using less solution even backs this up. otherwise if the solution wasn't able to develop more than indicated, it wouldn't work to extend the time.But i suppose if you want no nonsense straight development and aren't interested in all that fun experimentation, just stick to stock solution.
>Acquired Vito II for 20 bucks >shutter works, no light leaks in the bellowsFellas, are we /streetshit/ now?
>>4355071If it has a flash shoe you could pair it with an external rangefinder like a Watameter. Just a little quality of life thing.
>>4355073sadly no shoe. from my google search I dont think I can mount one either. figured i might try freeballing zone focus. never did it before so I may as well jump in the deep end
>>4355077A quick tip for zone focusing is keeping in mind how tall you are and then imagine falling flat on your face towards your subject and guess how many times you could stack yourself towards it.Its silly I know but it works.
>>4355079I thought I was retarded, nice to know more people do that as well kekIt works indeed tho
Be prepared for frustration if you decide to use this paper. Not even sure if the results are worth the hassle if you aren't using amidol as a developer.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelGalaxy S24 UltraCamera SoftwareS928U1UES3AXFJMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.2Focal Length (35mm Equiv)13 mmImage-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image Height3000Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:01 15:58:07Vertical Resolution72 dpiHorizontal Resolution72 dpiImage Width4000Lens Aperturef/2.2Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramNormal ProgramColor Space InformationUncalibratedUnique Image IDK12XSPE01NMImage Height3000White BalanceAutoExposure ModeAutoExposure Time1/40 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/2.2ISO Speed Rating1250Image Width4000Focal Length2.20 mmMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
>>4355079>>4355086thx anons, tried some shots earlier and I've never felt so equally retarded and smart
>>4354803i dont see how either these arent all expired or you know an owner of a lab
>>4355087Fuck. The masculine urge to set up a dark room and spend the whole day making prints while drinking bourbon and examining your prints while smoking a cigarette
saw some big fuckin trees lads[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D5100Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern814Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:01 18:21:19Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias1.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length40.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4354899yes that’s what this development process does?
>>4355115Maybe 3 or 4 evenings out of the week that's almosg exactly what I will do along with my studio work. Would recommend. Even better if you have a girlfriend/wife that needs some neglecting.
>>4355118Based big tree enjoyerI'm more of a coastal redwood fan myself[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2048Image Height1363
>>4354994Precisely, don't know why >>4354726 said 1+1 was the least economical when it's the most efficient
Anybody fuck around with Caffenol? Anyone have any warnings or cautionary tales?
>>4355245Caffenol is a legitimate way to develop your b&w film. But you will have to experiment to find the results that work the best for you.
>>4355172Both posts are mine lmao.1+1 is one-shot, you dump it after development. So you get 2 gallons, or 7.5 litre of solution. That's 15x 120 rolls (500ml), or 25x 135 rolls (300ml).Stock develops 10x rolls (size irrelevant here) per 1 litre, so with one gallon you get 38 rolls.Of course you can dick about doing rotary/continuous agitation with 1+1 and get 25x 120 rolls developed (same film area as 135), but you can also stretch the stock to a bit more than 10x per litre too.Not an exact science, but either way stock comes out ahead in economy.
>>4355249That makes perfect sense, I've mentally written off a few rolls that will be my test runs.
For some reason i have both the hasselblad 80 2.8 and 100 3.5. Because the 100 is bigger and slower i never end up using it. Pictures i can find online from it are technically perfect but very uninspiring. Will i regret selling it
>>4355250>>4355172And just to make a case for the most economical way to use 1+1 described in >>4354994 (ie. 237ml diluted per roll), without rounding, 2 gallons is 7570ml precisely, divided by 237ml is 31.94, so 32 rolls at most with 1+1. Still behind stock even before stretching it.
>>4355258Probably not.
It's a multi-format kinda day.
>>4355309Living the dreamGodspeed, anon
>>4354900>I want to pair Brand A developer with Brand A filmThis specific autistic urge will limit your capability in the darkroom significantly and I advise you to get over it, pick a developer to learn, and use it with every film before getting obsessively matchy-matchy
>>4355245It smells bad but it develops film and it's petty punk rock
>>4355371if you want real punk rock you develop in pissanol.
>>4355377piss is used as a fixer you uncultured twat
>>4355379>uncultured>punk rockYes I do believe that is the point anon, pissanol for all!
Fp4+ or delta 100?Does anyone have an opinion on tabular grain vs conventional?
>>4355457>Does anyone have an opinion on tabular grain vs conventional?yes, yes I do
Found a Fuji STX-2 for 70 euros in a thrift store (meaning I could even test if the internals are still working, I've read the batteries are only used for a metering system). This would be my first ever film camera, should I get it, and if so, anything I should check?
>>4355465Would you mind sharing your thoughts with me, please?
I use a 28mm f/2 Ultron on a Leica CL almost exclusively. I love the lens but hate the body. Just ordered an M6 from keh but after considering it some more I'm thinking of cancelling it. They have so many weird and dismaying issues:>price is ridiculous >rangefinder parallax has messed up some delicate compositions. >the sun will burn a hole in the cloth shutter if it's left facing the wrong direction(!!!!)>the meter is irreparable if it ever breaks because of "pcb shortage" (why not just spec a new pcb??)>it's a target for getting stolen>etcWhat even is the point of a Leica rangefinder instead of a late Nikon or Olympus SLR like pic related? Is the image quality on SLRs really so much worse? I don't have the space to collect garbage so I can't buy both.
>>4355486Contax was always the superior rangefinder
>>4355486So just sell the kit and get the Nikon then, what kind of weird bait is this
>>4355486>28mmBlergh
>>4355492Disliking focal lengths is pure skill issue. Sorry, honey!
>>4355497whatever makes you feel better with yourself and your teenage girl with an iphone tier focal lenght
>>4355499>teenage girl with an iphone tier focal lengthwell now you're making me want to shoot it
>>4355486Image quality is determined by the film and lens used, and the final method of viewing the output. A film camera is just a lightbox.
>>4355500egg
>>4355501Some cameras also make the film flatter.>>4355499Bro thinks of cellphones when he sees a wide angle. Lmaooooooo. They got you bro.
>>4355486you bought an M6 and paid the meme tax. congrats idiot.>rangefinder parallax has messed up some delicate compositions.skill issue. i can shoot at f1.2 on mine>the sun will burn a hole in the cloth shutter if it's left facing the wrong direction(!!!!)only an issue if you wear your leica around your neck like everyone else with an M6 does (they dont take photos) or shoot at f1.2 in the day time>>4355499>must think of apple all the time
What are the good point and shoot 35mm's nowadaysa?I bought an XA2 back when they were $40 and not 200 fucking dollars. It served me well but at some point it got lost in the shuffle.
>>435553835mm cameras do not matter if they just work.
>>4355541>4355555A camera body is just a spacer between ur flimsy flapdoodle and ur foggy glassware. The lens is what gives your image all its character. The niceness of a body is simply a luxury to make up for your impatience as a mass shooter. When you're spraying shots all over and you just can't be fucked with metering, then you're glad you got a nice Nikon FA or newer to just pick up the slack, you fucking slacker. But a Leica is the same as an F2 is the same as a hundred canons, Pentaxes's and Minolti.Unless you're shooting underwater or in severe weather. Then you're buying into a specific system like a Nikonos V for that.
>>4355560Well, yeah, but also you're simply wasting your time if your negative is smaller than 6x9, and I'm being generous because in reality the truth is that anything less than 4x5 is a waste of time for 90% of the photographs you take.AND you are entirely wasting your time if you shoot b&w film and you don't print it in a darkroom. Color film gets a pass because the paper options are better.
Shit... I don't know if I can go back to 35mm bros... This is an extremely sub-optimal scan, literally just plunked it on a lightpad and shot it with my digital camera in pixel shift mode since I don't have a proper flatbed yet, but even under these conditions 4x5 blows my mind.
>>4354708I just send them to friends since for some reason I actually get a reaction about the image itself, like literally rocks and leaves, "damn that looks cool anon". No fucking idea why but it's fun compared to phone pics which are just "look a crack head up to mischief" sort of thing.
>>4355486You buy a rangefinder because you like the process, leica glass is a meme, especially at 28mm, just use a fucking phone at that point.>rangefinder parallax has messed up some delicate compositions. Yeah it's shit, there is a reason all of the major manufacturers switched to SLRs in the 70s, it's just a vastly superior system.
>>4355486Just by something cheaper with a mechanical shutter like one of the voigtlanders.
How are Fujica SLRs?
What's your cost per roll to develop 35mm at home, /fgt/s? I'm contemplating the switch but guessing it's more for the passion than the savings?
>>4355652Do you have a local lab that develops in-house?
>>4355654I do, they charge about 10€ for development and scanning
>>4355647Great.Get an M42 one; they didn't really bring out any more or better lenses for the bayonet mount, and the cameras aren't really any more advanced either.They have open aperture metering with native Fuji M42 lenses, and stop-down with commie/pentax garbage, with a very easy to read match needle display, and a much nicer finder than either of those others, and they take normal batteries. And if you want to go deep they actually released quite a few lenses for them.
>>4355656Yeah just keep going there. Thats not that bad and while home development isn't hard, its a bit of a hassle.Maybe you can do your own scans and get a cheaper price for just development. Usually lab scanners are ok at best.
>>4355659Development is actually the same price for just scans, it's a pretty good deal and they're very professional so it's hard to justify doing it myself honestly unless it's a lot cheaper or a lot more rewarding
>>4355457I like Delta 100 a lot but bearing price in mind FP4+ is way better value
>>4355652Cost to develop at home is high and only makes sense in the long run. I’m probably around 4 dollars per roll still since you have to remember to amortize the cost of the tank and thermometer and any other bits and bobs you got, not just the chemistry if we’re talking chemistry alone, I’ve been doing 1:100 rodinal the last few weeks, which is basically 6ml every time. 500ml bottle for 20 bucks, say about 80 batches, so something like 25c/roll. Half of that if I do two rolls at once but I don’t shoot enough and I’m too impatient to wait for two rolls to be done.
>>4355652>>4355690Just to add, In the long run I think the savings would add up sure, but for me the main reason I do my b/w is the immediacy. The three labs I have in town have a minimum 1 week turnaround time, which is extremely gay and shit. They used to be able to do it in 1 hour and with prints on top of that, fuck off with 2 week turnaround lmao
Fomapan 100 developed in Fomatol LQN. Just can't beat the price of Foma
>>4355718Is that at box speed?Looks good.I heard cheap film doesn't react well to being pushed, I wonder if that's universally true (I suspect it isn't).
>>4355722Yes box speed.Never pushed Fomapan 100 but 400 looked far too grainy when I pushed it to 800. Doesn't help I was slightly guessing the chemistry. None of the developers I use have data sheets that give push times for Fomapan.
any final thots on the pentax m lenses?
>>4355750good value50/1.7 is terrifici own two
>>4355477I really like grain in my photos so I usually shoot conventional film but tabular has its place like if it's a special occasion and I want a grain-free look. I see why t-grain films were strived for back in the day but visible grain adds another creative aspect to film photography that should be considered when taking pictures
>>4355750I really like the 50mm F2, that biotar look without being memed to death
>>4355778>biotar lookwhat's that?
>>4355690in what fucking world do you value your SHOT rolls at less than a few $ each?
>>4355858For some reason it made perfect sense not to include the cost of the film itself since that anon asked specifically about home development cost. Obviously you’d also add the cost of the film after everything, unless you’re lucky and have some kind of film sugar daddy or something.
Sinar expolux systemElectronic shutter/aperture controlFilm plane spot metering with automatic averaging and contrast calculation.Works with single or multi burst flash.Automatic reciprocity for a variety of filmsAutomatic bellows compensation calculations Vibration free shutterAutomatically detects when film holder is placed in the film back, closes shutter and sets aperture ready to take picture with the press of a button1/500 to 30 minute+ exposure timesAperture and shutter settings can be set down to 1/3rd of a stop.Let me guess. You NEED more?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelGalaxy S24 UltraCamera SoftwareS928U1UES3AXFJMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Focal Length (35mm Equiv)23 mmImage-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image Height3000Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:03 17:10:13Vertical Resolution72 dpiHorizontal Resolution72 dpiImage Width4000Lens Aperturef/1.7Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramNormal ProgramColor Space InformationUncalibratedUnique Image IDHK0XLQE00SMImage Height3000Brightness1.8 EVWhite BalanceAutoExposure ModeAutoExposure Time83/10000 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/1.7ISO Speed Rating320Image Width4000Focal Length6.30 mmMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
>>4355880if ur name is Joseph brix will be shat
The setup is incredibly amazing for macro work. The precision metering and convenience of it all is so nice. It runs off a 12v lead acid battery, so it is technically portable, but I don't really need any of the bells and whistles for anything but macro.>>4355905Nah. Is he another based sinargod?
>>4355911Yep, one of my prof's who hauls that thing around like it's a P&S. Madman.
>>4355914That's awesome and supremely based. It really is the best monorail camera. The norma is lightweight enough to travel with an 8x10 back.If I had a sinar hardcase that fit my 8x10 back I'd be hauling it around as well. They make excellent hardcases for their cameras.
hey, /p/, remind me to never shoot expired film ever againI've always hated how it looks (unless when it's kept in a fridge, of course, but that's almost never the case)and for the few times that I did shoot expired film I've always ended up regretting using italso the camera is not advancing properly, apparently, but maybe that's just a problem with the remjet[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibrated
>>4355652i honestly don't know, for me it's a hobby to dev and print at home so i didn't calculate it to compare it with sending to a lab. the upfront cost of all the materials is way more than the chemicals, i think the price of the chemicals is negligible compared to the price of film>>4355718how would you compare it to other developers? im curious of fomas own developers because people rarely use them
Going to Tokyo in late October. Is there anywhere to get a vintage camera and film that ya'll recommend?
>>4355999Ebay before you go.Japan isn't a cheap place to get this shit; almost everything in a shop is about 30-50% more than a good buy-it-now price.
>>4355486Contax G28 looks even better and has none of those problems.
>>4355980>im curious of fomas own developers because people rarely use themI used their R09 (old recipe Rodinal clone) for the first couple of years, was good.Recently I got burned by their R100 kit, I haven't tested since then but it was most likely the developer that failed, and afaik the developer in the kit is just LQN.I have the Retro dev kit, but haven't used it yet, waiting for my Mat-124G to come back from CLA.
>>4356013oof. remember to do snip test kids or this could be you
>>4356018I make D76 the exact same way every time, yet I still do my first dev of that batch on rolls I don't care about stuffing up (but they never have). Hopefully these were test rolls...
I have only ever done digital photography. I see a lot of people put old film cameras up for sale on Boomerbook. Anything I should know about film photography or any good place to learn about it?
>>4356213There's a forum called pee I like to post about film shit on
>>4356213Not here thats for sure.What sort of questions do you have? If you just wanna learn about film in general Wikipedia has you covered.
>>4356009Expensive brick from arguably the most unreliable era of mass manufactured electronics
>>4356244Are most of the film cameras boomers post to FB junk? Are there any well known film cameras I should keep and eye out for?
Why doesn't anyone use pyro based film developers here? I will be posting some 35mm scans using wd2d+ staining developer. I've only used it for 8x10 sheets and contact printing, and in all honesty the differences between developers and even films accounts for like 3ish% of the look of the final print. >>4356213Ask me every question.
>>4356247The most common cameras you'll see anywhere (aside from p&ses which are an overpriced meme) are probably odd brand standard mount SLRs like chinon, vivitar, sears, etc. Which are honestly pretty peak. Yeah sure your $2000 titanium f2 is cool and all but my $20 chinon with the 50mm 1.8 kit lens takes just as good pictures and if I drop it in the lake I got 3 more on the shelf.
>>4356247Point and shoot cameras are generally the same do not spend more than 20 bucks on one, especially not on facebook.90's SLR's are actually incredible, doesnt matter which one you get they're all great, get the cheapest one or the one that looks the coolest, these are great cams to source from facebook.70's and 80's mechanical/manual SLR's are a bit hit or miss, unless you like to gamble you're better off getting one from a reputable source or be good at tinkering.
>>4356213Here's a few basics:1. Film is expensive. Even if you use a cheap camera and film, development costs add up.2. When in doubt, overexpose. Most negative films can handle it.3. Foma and Kentmere are your friends.4. Unless it's a notorious piece of shit, most cameras are perfectly fine.
>>4356247Most film cameras are junk, so probably. By the end of the film era, people could make a camera out of two pieces of plastic, and the only reason they needed the second piece was bc the lens plastic needed to be clear rather than black. As it turns out, the camera is the least important part of imagemaking. A quality or feature-rich camera body is a luxury that makes the act of shooting pleasant. That is all.I SAID THAT IS ALL
>>4356256Wrong, but not wrong for the absolute beginner.
>>4356256>angry at the end as he realized he was wrong but too invested not to postShutter speed range, auto exposure modes, metering differences, especially for flash, make all the difference if you're really shooting and not just landscaping.
>>4356213>Anything I should knowYou take your time because it's $1 a shot, you will get disappointed when your entire roll was fucked up, you forget to load the camera and shoot a ghost roll, you forget your lens cap etc.Is it worth it for the tonez? Maybe. That's up to you.I like shooting film, but maybe that's what I keep telling myself over the years.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width500Image Height620Scene Capture TypeStandard
What are my options if I want bw 120 film with halations (not for meme gas stations). Foma, cinestill xx, what else? I think there are some washi experimental films that also do this but they are a bit more expensive/hard to find in stock
>>4356248Probably mostly just availability and ease of use. For example my local shops have rodonal, ddx, hc110, d76, and c41 kits but no pyro or pyrocat stuff. They’re more “fringe” developers if you will, and typically people just go with whatever is easiest to get. Also, most people are doing 35mm. You’d be hard pressed to truly show significant improvement over other developers at such a small size, especially when people don’t print in the darkroom.
>>4356292Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I agree completely with no one printing. It makes me sad, tbqh. I think the real "flex" ,if there is one, is in the print and not the scan. Aside the point.Paid 35 dollars for 1L of A+B stock solution WD2D+ and you dilute at 1+1+50, so it is very economical. I think the high accutance may be a great benefit for 35mm as well. We will see with these scans/prints.
>>4356291Rip the backing paper off, turn any film into halation city
>>4354704>>4354707>>4354756just scanned a frame and it looks perfectly fine. im just autistic about this stuff
>>4356402this is what i got on a few frames of my film when i just rinsed right from my tap during winteri think the temp dropped from about 20 to 13C or something[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelLS-4000Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.36Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1002 dpiVertical Resolution1002 dpiImage Created2024:01:23 15:42:47Color Space InformationsRGB
first somewhat complex repair I've ever donepretty basic stuff, but I got my Canon FT back to working conditionmessing with cameras is kinda scary but satisfying at the same time when things turn out fine
>>4356468some film reticulates easier, ive shocked so much film but the only one that reticulated on me ever was ilford panf
>>4356468It’s literally nothing you sped
AAAAAAAH THE HELIOS 44 BOKEH I AM GOING INSANE[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeMinoltaCamera ModelScan Dual IICamera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:05 11:41:39Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3823Image Height2496
Left: LS-5000Right: V850All default settings, no color corrections or anything (except dust removal on the left).This is why I shoot B&W 99% of the time. [spoiler]Though I kind of like the purple tint on the right here desu..[/spoiler]
>>4356554wow scanners kinda suck
>>4356471I picked up an old exacta with 50mm domiplan lens at a flea market but both camera and lense are somewhat fucked, probably fixable thothe lens is stuck wide open and it seems the grease is sticky inside tha camera I took apart the lens, reassembled the diaphragm and it just stick at whatever aperture because it seem like a part is missing that would be closing it down while the ring on the lense actually opens it upweird shit
What I am for sisters
>>4356623Money and people will come your way.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300Vertical Resolution300
>>4356623Buyer's regret.
A little tip for any large format CHADS. Lenses that come on a Sinar DB board are sometimes 50-75% cheaper than when they are sold on copal shutters. All you need is a sinar external shutter to use them...All the sinaron lenses are just rebranded rodenstock lenses. Supreme quality.
>>4356645bro its 3 dollah a roll
>>4356646So are the Sinar external shutters compatible with non-Sinar cameras? Can I use one on my Cambo?
>>4356649>Money and people will come your way.>denialso it begins...
>>4356667what the actual fuckmeant to quote this>>4356649>bro its 3 dollah a roll
>>4356666Only horseman and sinar lens boards are interchangeable. The sinar shutter goes on the back of the front standard and the bellows attaches to the shutter.Looking into it the standard cambo boards are larger than sinar, so you could get 2 adapters to upsize both sides of the shutter, maybe.
Tmax100 @100 developed in wd2d+ pyro developer. If you look at the dark/light interface on some of these you can see edge effect.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:05 16:31:11Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4356692Very curious to see how these print.I'm going to print a couple and display them at my eggs and chicken stand at the farmers market.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:05 16:30:54Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4356693Last one is the obligatory dog pic.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:05 16:30:31Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4356692>>4356693>>4356694what's with the dots, dust?
I’m seeing YouTube and social media’s flooded with “phoenix 120 announced” videos and such today, like when an NDA is expired, but I bought and shot a roll of it like three weeks ago lmao. Is my local shop based and just ignored release restrictions or what?
>>4356700Prove itPost results
>>4356468I've read that the reticulation is due to the film base contracting (due to sudden cold temp) and therefore changes grain, cracks etc. I wonder if you could blast hot temps but then let it cool down in air slowly, if that would have the same reticulation result
>>4356699Idk. It isn't the film or anything to do with the development. I pulled my scanner from storage after months of not using so I think it's just embedded in the film holders at this point. I tried dusting them off, but it didn't seem to do much.
>>4356700Probably just dumb wagies that didn’t read the “do not display until” memos with it. Used to see it all the time working retail. Not like they ship everything the same morning to start selling that day lol
>>4356674Yeah I ain't buying two adapter plates at over 300 clams each plus the shutter just to get slightly cheaper lenses. Probably cheaper to just buy spare copal shutters and rebuild the lens onto a copal at that point.
>>4356726A decent sinar f2 can be had for 200 to 300 doll hairs on fleabay.
>>4356213>Anything I should know about film photography or any good place to learn about it?First, having a good shop/lab near you is great because they can develop your film locally and will generally be happy to answer whatever stupid questions come up and will probably give you plenty of tips on your photos. Second, get one of those general how-to photography books from the 80s or 90s. They'll cover the basics and from there you can git gud with experience and more specialized books.
>>4356727>sinar f2the canonikon blob garbage of the large format world
>>4356734Only a complete retard would say the f2 is blob garbage. For one it is mostly made of right angles, and two it is a highly capable view camera that is more rigid and has larger movements than most of your wooden field cameras. The amount of customization and flexibility within the entire sinar ecosystem makes it incredible for just about any application.The norma and p2 are definitely cooler looking cameras tho, and the P/P2 is definitely a better view camera, but it's also way heavier.
>>4356739No shit, the F2 is one of the most beloved & popular 35mm cameras of all time for a reason, it's a fucking beast that has to be experienced to be understood bc it's unlike any other camera made after it. The F3 was popular as shit because it's compact and light, but you hold an F2 and it is a proper pro camera. It's big, it's heavy, every part is metal and precision machined, that shutter drops like a hammer & rings like a bear trap. Operates without power, works in Antarctica or after sitting in a Tank all afternoon in equatorial Africa. Can be built in extremely minimal purist config or with a shitload of equally solid accessories, including a few that NASA co-developed for the lunar landings. Every part of it is interchangeable and servicable and people have been using them continuously since they came out with no maintenance at all. Was the camera of choice from Vietnam onward and sold more units than damn near any camera on earth and is still widely regarded as the finest camera nikon ever made and one of the finest camera systems on the face of the earth. It takes a special level of internet expert to argue the F2 is crap, and it's no surprise that that fucking moron is here shitting up every thread with his amazing opinions.
>>4356822Based.
>3 blank frames in 2 rollsoh god oh fuck i thought thr camera worked fine
>>4356849You sure you didn't just fuck up the exposure?
>>4356856how hard must i fuck it for it to be blank though? it looks like the shutter just didn't fire but I'll check closer
>>4356542wow nice fencepost you wanker what a waste of film. and no one wants to see this shit either
>>4356861When it comes to underexposure, if there are no bright highlights in frame you can get what appears as a completely blank framePicrel was underexposed like, 3 stops? On the actual film you could only see the little sparkles where the sun directly reflected and a faint shape of the roof line.>>4356867sexless[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelLS-2000Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3888Image Height2592Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution236 dpiVertical Resolution236 dpiImage Created2024:09:06 10:13:40Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1500Image Height1168
>>4354708I put them into a photo album. On two occasions I've made large prints and framed them. I also like to share them with my boyfriend, he really likes my photos. :)I shoot because it's fun and the mechanics of vintage cameras are interesting.
>use random cheap vintage lens>its bokeh blows any modern high-end lens out of the waterinteresting
>>4357063it also causes retards to go overdrive >>4356867
>>4357063in what way specifically?vintage & modern lenses tend to have very different design goals so obviously the effects are going to be differentbut whether one is better than the other depends on taste I'd think
>>4357063Its almost as if old lenses were corrected in design rather than in post because computer editing didn't exist.
>>4356623fomapan 400
>>4357113nah, its some aerial chink film
>>4357122Chink film is better than fomashit
this weekend, it's the Canon AL-1 and Ilford Delta 100
Just finished my last roll, some 15 years later. Thank you for your service, and farewell ;_;
>>4357255holy shit they still honour prepaid processing?
>>4357255>Leedsmore like Sneeds lmao amiright lads
>>4357255but for real what's this film stock?
>>4357273are you dumb? look at the bank codes, thats modern
any of you snap a random pp pic every couple rolls to keep the guys at the lab on edge?
>>4357273lol no. I didn't plan this part too well, admittedly.>>4357292It's Sensia 200, wdym?
>>4357293I wouldn't know, bank codes have looked like that all my life.>inb4 calls me young>inb4 this is a bad thing>>4357391Ah lol, well hope u get some nice frames out of that roll.
>>4357307>edging the lab guys with your pp picskinda gay ngl
>>4357307No, but apparently one of my relatives did back in the '70s. I was cleaning and scanning some old 126 negatives that my mom unearthed from somewhere and inbetween a bunch of normal family photos, boom, penor.
>>4357307Sort of, but backward. I’ve been doing digitizing 16mm & 8mm films in the lab the last few years, and all my friends & friends families have given me their home movies to do as well, bc they have no fucking idea that its not an automatic process and it actually takes a fucking ton of time to do them frame by frame at this quality level. I bought a box of old 8mm porno loops from the 70s on ebay for $10, so i just toss a reel of that in their box when i give it all back to them. They're never going to thread them up into an old projector but their grandkids will, and boom theres grandpas old porno reel of the hairy dude fucking a 300lb black chick with a banana.
>>4357307no but i always sneak in a gf booba pic to thank the lab techs for their hard work
lads did a roll 120 roll of foma 200 and the shit is so fucking curly that i can't scan it properly. what do? I left it under a heavy book with a weight ontop for a week and it still curls. I just rolled it up against the curl and stuck it in a paper towel tube. any tips for shitty foma curl??
>>4357626Try this and get back to us. >>4351300
Its sunday morning; I live in a major city. Where should I go shoot?
>>4357683>Its sunday morning; I live in a major city. Where should I go shoot?ISIS sympathiser pls go
>>4357683>he doesn't keep a list of places he wants to visit with his camerangmi
>>4354708I post my train photos to a boomer forum. Thinking of making a site one day
>>4354787Chinon bellami.
>>4357626Lay it directly on your scanner without a holder and put a glass plate ontop of it.Newton rings are a skill issue.
>>4357867So this is why your scans always look like that lol.
Speaking of scanning... I scanned one of my 8x10 negs recently. Look how depressingly trash it looks scaled down to 4mb. The original .tiff is almost 900mb.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Vertical Resolution300 dpiHorizontal Resolution300 dpiImage Width19200Image Height24000Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:07 01:24:35Color Space InformationsRGBLight SourceUnknown
>>4357871Here's a small section I cropped from the original file to see how it actually looks. This is just about the same or maybe a bit lower resolution than what a contact print on lupex paper looks like. The resolution is similar, but the look of the print is so much nicer than the look of the scan.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:08 13:39:42Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4357872>what it looks like to miss focus by 0.0000001cm on a 400mp camera
>>4354873May I gently blow on it?
>>4357896Lol. It's actually diffraction and possibly a very very miniscule amount of camera shake from the enormous sinar shutter. The focus is just about spot on over the entire bug with the eye, hair, wing scales, and most of the edge being in focus. If you look at the eye and the body hair you can see just how precisely placed the focus is.Thankfully these minor reductions in sharpness are barely noticeable on the final print compared to the blur from actually being out of focus. The difference between f22 and f45 is almost unnoticeable unless you grain peep with a loupe, but appears as a major sharpness reduction when focusing. Macro LF is really interesting because you're pushing nearly every aspect of film photography to the absolute limits, and optimizing your technique to get the most out of an 8x10 contact print. Highly autistic, but extremely fun.
>>4357907No retard the entire head is out of focus and you can't even see grain yetApparently the only reason you shoot 8x10 is to grain peep contact prints with a loupe
Bear with me, I'm a noob.I like the grainy look and I was wondering something.>daytime scene>Film: ISO 800>camera settings: ISO 400 & EV -1Well, what do you think? Would it look alright?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width432Image Height651
>>4357916Fellow retard, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.It was either most of the eye being in focus or none of the fur on the body being in focus while keeping the entire wing wing also in focus. The cells on the eye can only be seen with magnification, but are resolved nicely on the print.
>>4357916Because I am a very kind and generous person I will provide you with the perspective that you're sorely missing.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelGalaxy S24 UltraCamera SoftwareS928U1UES3AXFJMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Focal Length (35mm Equiv)23 mmImage-Specific Properties:Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)Image Height3000Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:08 16:51:46Vertical Resolution72 dpiHorizontal Resolution72 dpiImage Width4000Lens Aperturef/1.7Exposure Bias-1 EVExposure ProgramNormal ProgramColor Space InformationUncalibratedUnique Image IDHK0XLQE00SMImage Height3000Brightness2.2 EVWhite BalanceAutoExposure ModeAutoExposure Time111/5000 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/1.7ISO Speed Rating50Image Width4000Focal Length6.30 mmMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
>>4357919>i had no choice but to miss focusSounds like a skill issue>>4357920The head is still not in focus.Large format film is not well suited to macro unless you're going to somehow do manual focus stacking.
>>4357921Lol. You are a really silly guy. You know that?
>>4357922Say what you will. The head is not in focus.And looking at contact prints under a loupe is a gay hobby.
>>4357926Bud, you're doubling down on your stupidity and ego.First off, looking at contact prints through a loupe is part of my job as an autistic large format contact printer. I do it to learn and understand how I can achieve the greatest quality in my prints. Crazy that wasn't obvious to you, and even crazier you call the pursuit of quality gay.Second I have been explaining and showing you that details that essentially max out the resolution of the lens do not matter because you can't even see them on an 8x10 contact print. Those hairs are less than a tenth of a millimeter wide. The magnified image wasn't to show you how in focus it was, obviously. It was to give you perspective on the scale of what you're naively calling a flaw in the print. The print looks incredibly detailed in person, and the back of the head being slightly blurry makes absolutely no difference in that fact. It isn't even a distraction in the final image. Everything that would be a distraction if it was oof is in focus because I have experience with this type of work, unlike you. The thing you call a skill issue is actually the exact opposite.Does that all make sense or do I need to dumb it down even further for you, my silly guy.
>>4357868
>>4357932Do you know the reason for this phenomenon?
>>4357931The entire head is out of focus. Here, try thishttps://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/macro/focus-stacking-bracketing-with-om-dMicro four thirds wins again
>>4357918>ISO 800>ISO 400 & EV -1so box speed?pretty radical but it just might work
>>4357936>mentioning mft in a film generaleverything you have said previously is now completely disregarded
>>4357948The size of my film(bigger than his entire camera) and sheer number of equivalent mega pickles(bigger than his entire bank account) made him lose his mind. I'm sorry, but I am also overjoyed to pull the truth out of the lesser than, through good faith discourse(spoonfeeding).
>>4357918it will work, but it's way less retarded just setting the iso to 800 like everyone does
>>4357918are you trolling, son? EV -1 would just be basically shooting at iso 800 and would make no difference. And besides that, the camera settings aren't what determine grain, its development and whether you push or pull or do something else. anon if this is an earnest post and not just you engaging in some mischief, you need to read up on this stuff some more.
>>4357953I think the downy picture he posted was a good hint..
>>4357954you know i didn't even open the image lol. in that case, we do like to engage in a bit of tomfoolery from time to time, don't we.
>>4357949you are not better desu, fucking endless dirty tests shots of dead shit that you think it looks better just because you use a retarded big camera
>>4357962The silly man cannot understand a joke, a true classic.Show me up with some film or a print, baby cakes. I'm here to learn, help others learn, and provide a relatively unique perspective on film. :) You won't, because you can't. No need to make excuses unless you want to be REALLY SILLY! I've spent so much time doing my incredibly niche style of photography that I can smell a know nothing from a mile away. If you weren't so silly that would be more than obvious.
>>4357949>this is what hairy film focus misser thinks is a jokehis dog laughedand then went back to humping
CALLED IT AGAIN BOYS! WE ARE ON A ROLL TONIGHT!
>>4357933Indulge me.
>>4357989I shouldn't, even if I want to. You go first.
Does Gold 200 oversaturate like a bitch or are my lab guys just being silly with the sliders?
>>4357993Nah I'm good I don't play childish games.>>4357996They're being silly. Gold is warm and lacks saturation in cooler colours and has a liiiiittle extra in warm colours.
>>4357999Coward.
>>4357726>He hasn't visited every place in his city to shoot photos Ngmi
>>4357683Outside the city.
>>4358005it's the biggest city in my country but I am working on it :)
>>4357953>are you trolling, son?No, I'm just ignorant and apparently can't find good resources online, so as you know in this case, the best way to get an answer is to post something stupid on here.What I gathered online was that:- the more ISO, the more sensitive the film is, the more it has grains- more ISO = used mostly for nighttime scenesMy mistake was to assume something like an ISO 800 film would somehow shit the bed in well-lit conditions.
I've received a lot of old family slides recently. Scanning slide film ain't easy.Carnival in Venice in mid or early 90's, it's probably Fuji Sensia or Agfa RSX 100[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D610Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.9Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern844Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 13:03:34Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/11.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/11.0Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
Does anyone make their own fixer similar to Caffenol?
>>4358029>Scanning slide film ain't easyWhat makes it difficult?
>>4358028>apparently can't find good resources onlinenow that's just straight up untrueyou CAN find a shitload of good stuff onlineyou're probably just lazy to either do research or to actually read a text instead of watching a shitty tiktoknot knowing something is finenot doing the littlest bit of effort to get to know something and then complain that there's no good source for it online is retarded
>>4358037That's developed in caffenol and fixed in 16% chlorine remover/water solution.
>>4358037>>4358112Can piss be used as devver? Asking for a friend..
is it fine to ship Rodinal from the US?I live abroad and a relative lives in the USI can't find it in my country and would like to know which is safer:>asking my relative to send it through mail or just double bag the bottle and tuck it in her luggage and pray the TSA won't see it>ask relative to ship it through mailwat do?
>>4358130Put drugs in the package as a distraction.
>>4358130Or... just make your own. If you have access to Paracetamol and Sodium Hydroxide is not that hard to make.
>>4358135I told them to put the bottle of Rodinal in between two bricks of cocaine, TSA probably won't even notice there's petroleum-based chemicals going through their borders lmao fuck them>>4358137I've seen the recipe online and it truly seems very easy to makeI've developped film before, but it'll be the first time I'll have my own stuff to actually start home developing, so I'd like to have as little room for error as possibleHaving homemade chemicals would be an additional variableMaybe in the future I might try it when I'm more familiar with my own process
>>4358130>is it fine to ship Rodinal from the US?probably but as far as I know it's only shipped by ground transport within the US if you buy directly from a store like Freestyle so I would ask your relative to pack and ship it to you. TSA will probably see it and confiscate it from her luggage and put her on a no-fly list and she'll never see you again so there's that
>>4358151Well where are you? In canada they have blazinal or something like that. In yurop you would probably be able to get some foma made clone.But as >>4358177 said the regulations only permit to send it via ground transport, they wouldn't even ship to other parts of the continent as far as I am aware. If you are worried about your pararodinal being inert just try a strip of film on it, that is it. Its not different either on development times or quantity needed than the real stuff.t. having making the stuff for years because no one wants to import the damn stuff here
okay which one of you did this?https://minolta.su/got my first Minolta (X-700 with an MD 50mm f/1.7) the other day so it's quite fun to read up on all the lensesone thing that bothers me tho is that I get donut rings on specular highlights (almost like with a reflex lens), no other of my 50mm lenses do this and it bothers menone of the sample images of the MD 50mm f/1.7 show this, is my copy borked?thinking about upgrading to a 50mm f/1.4
>>4358179>Well where are you?Brazil, so it's not readily availableMy relative said they'll just double bag it and put it in their luggageThey're a frequent flyer and pretty much never gets asked to have their luggage looked at, so it'll probably just pass without noticeWorst case scenario is I lose a bottle of Rodinal and have to wait a month or so until they get back to the US and have them send it to me via mail
>>4357867>Newton rings are a skill issue.What did he mean by this?If you're sandwiching your negs in glass without a fluid mount they are inevitable; I discovered that way back when I was using a television as a backlight.The skill issue is more likely to be whether you're too ignorant to notice them or not.>>4358029This looks like the kind of photo they'd use to advertise slide film.My guess is Ektachrome. You won't rip the mount apart to find out, punk.
>>4358115In theory with some other chemicals it should work, and I’m sure if you look you might find something but I’ve never seen it off the top of my head.
>>4358130What sort of third world shithole do you live in where rodinal isn’t available? It’s like one of the most basic developers.
>>4358239There's D76 readily available as well as C41, ECN2 and E6There's also a "Rodinal equivalent" that uses the same formula or a similar one to Adox's, but I don't know why it has a 1 year expiry dateSo I'd like to buy Adox's original productI believe Rodinal is hard to find because most people don't develop at home and no lab uses Rodinal because it's retarded to do soUniversal healthcare is readily available though, so there's that
>>4358241I would rather have rodinal than wait 16 months for my colonoscopy and find out I have stage 4 cancer that spread to my dick and balls.
>>4358244nice cope, brotherI'll have both Rodinal that'll last me a lifetime and still have universal healthcare
>>4358248I'll be sure to push for an environmental protection act that BANS and OUTLAWS rodinal in your country. Just you wait and see who will be coping soon...
>>4358241>So I'd like to buy Adox's original productsorry bud but if you aren't buying Agfa stuff you will always be buying copies.
I'm getting my AGO film processor on the 11th. Anyone interested in a review? (Not sponsored)
>>4358317Definitely interested - I live in a hot climate where low 30s C is not uncommon inside my house in the summer, so kind of interested in the idea of doing colour without needing to heat anything, I'm also somewhat curious about the idea of taking one travelling. I'll be very keen to hear your thoughts.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.10Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72Vertical Resolution72Exposure Time0 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length0.00 mm
Been shooting a lot on my half frame agat 18k, delta 400 and ultramax, bought some more exotic stuff recently.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.10Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72Vertical Resolution72Exposure Time0 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length0.00 mm
One of these was shot on fp4+ the other was shot on delta 100. Full res crops scanned at 2400 dpi. I used my vibration free electronic shutter for these, and it seems to have actually improved the IQ a tad. Preference? Delta 100 has slightly more resolution than fp4+, which will be apparent if you zoom in enough. Apparently some people prefer the tonal gradation of fp4+ more than delta100. More concerned about the overall look of them than the resolution. Printing them reveals a bit more of the character of the film, but it's always very subtle.>>4358322Okay! I could try testing the temp compensation on some b&w film, maybe. It is very tempting to try out e6, actually... It would be a very good test to see if it actually works well. Maybe I will splurge and get a 10 pack of 8x10 ektachrome and really make you guys jealous(jk).[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 18:01:47Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4358345Here's no. 2>>4358342>>4358337Really enjoy nicely grainy images like this. A very good look for film.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 18:07:41Color Space InformationsRGB
Anons, looking for a 35mm, gonna go to a local shop (prices will be higher than ebay i know i know). A friend recommended something simple like a pentax k1000 and a 50mm if cheap. I see some of the listings have issues like "light meter off by one" how big of a deal is that if its known/repeatable?Additionally, any anon have a take about where to land on the range of simple to professional? I think the endgame would be to do nature photography, and i know a lot of my favorites from the 80s were using Nikon F3/FE2 but i'd guess they'll be a bit more complicated than the k1000...I'm no stranger to complicated analog/mechanical hobby bs and have shot a little digital before, but this will be my first personal camera since giving my dslr to a friend a few years ago.
>>4358349Simple cameras like k1000 are good because they force you to learn wtf you're doing, and are cheap enough to make no difference if you end up hating film or photography.Starting with a bare bones camera will also clue you into what you want in a nicer camera when/if you choose to get something with more features.
>>4358351Makes sense to me. What this anon said put it in perspective a little bit >>4356256 . I'm not going need or know much more than the very basics to start. Part of what got me wondering was that they've got some of the nicer nikons for only like 100-150 bucks more than what i'd be getting as a starter. Which i guess people complain about here, but coming from more 'buy once cry once' hobbies i'm used to sizing up at the start if that makes sense.>make no difference if you end up hating film or photographyyeah i guess that's harder to swallow at higher $
>>4358345>>4358347>imagine getting BTFO by largeformatanon (previously known as doghairanon)>imagine being mogged by autism-fueled photographyNo but really, if you're shooting these with vibration-free shutters and all of that, make the most out of itTake your time to focus properlyI know focusing on macro is hard, but it's a shame we can't properly see the beautiful pattern on its wingsThose tiny bits make it look like a weird ass piñata, I like itThe scans are indeed really good, though
>>4358357>good scanI shed a tear. Who would have thought that simply placing a sheet of 8x10 film onto my flatbed scanner and using the free epson scan software would be the answer! >focusTrust me, please, when I tell you that it is in focus. What you're seeing is the physical limitations of the lens combined with diffusion. I promise you. Those crops are like 1/60th of the negative or less, and zooming in on them is like looking at a near billboard sized print from however far your monitor/phone is from your face. On a contact print that butterfly's eye is only like 1/4 inch tall!![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 20:04:23Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4358357Diffraction* from being shot at f/22Here is an example of how diffraction softens an image. Notice how similar the softness is between this and my scans?I think this was like f11, f22 and f45. Can't remember.
>>4358359Aaaaaaaand. The only variable I changed between these 3 tests was the aperture. I did not change the focus or do anything else. Back to back to back exposures on ilford fiber paper. It is a pure and honest test of how my lens softens at higher apertures.
i just finished my first test roll fr a new camera. i have this red light leak on every frame. is it possible to tell whether this was caused by leaking into the camera body, or by my mishandling the film outside the camera?
>>4358364light seals on your camera are fucked
>>4358364You need a lens hood. The washed out effect is kinda nice, but it's a little much.
>>4358365what the heck... the door and the body plates overlap so tightly idk where there's even space for seals. >>4358366my camera wouldn't fit in the bag with the hood attached
>>4358374What’s the camera
>>4358374These pictures are fucked. The light leak + no hood has reduced your contrast way too much.Thread your lens hood onto your camera bag's strap if you must, or get a coated lens if you're only going to shooting color.Aside from the obvious IQ problems I do like the composition, and recognize that they are test shots.
>>4358375bronica rf645>>4358377hm
>>4358364>>4358374>>4358380Fucking yikes. Imagine paying that much for a meme RF 120 cam and getting absolutely mogged by a Olympus Mju in imagine quality. When will you gearfags learn?
>>4358380Wowza that's an expensive camera! Almost as much as my 20lb 8x10 camera + world class macro lens. If I was set on MF I would choose rf over a mirror slapper any day. Probably a mamiya 7 instead of my mamiya 6, but that's just me.Get the light leaks fixed and your IQ is going to improve massively. Consider an external light meter as well. It looks like your exposure may be off as well.
While we are on the subject I will post my dream MF camera. The humble Sinar M system. It accepts both digital MF backs and certain MF film backs in 645 format.It has a selection of bespoke rodenstock AF lenses, but you can also purchase adaptors that will provide either full AF or AF confirmation. All hasselblad V lenses work with AF confirmation for example.LASTLY it fits on the back of the sinar P3, so you can use it as either a 120 or MF digital back studio camera with all the movements of a conventional monorail camera!An incredible camera that was absurdly expensive when first released in 2005.
>>4358385>>4358377it doesnt look like this camera has light seals. at least, nothing that attaches to the camera rather than being a simply part of the structure
>>4358410the light seals would be gaskets that go into the groove surrounding the door
The winding crank of my old pracatika brokeInstead of trying to find a tiny plastic lever that's going to break again, what affordable SLR do you recommend?
>>4358426neither of the two images i could find of the door seem to have visible seals>>4358427i've only used 3 different film slrs but i have a nikon fa and i can recommend it[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4358364>>4358374>>4358380There's nothing wrong with this camera besides the operator. The film is absolutely roasted and it's massively underexposed for its age and condition. Try again with fresh film you idiot.
>>4358436chill out i was testing the film batch too. seller said it had been refrigerated so i went box speed.also, i shoot almost exclusively decades-expired film on 35mm but it's never had burnt edges like that before.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.38Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:10 00:59:59Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4358364Is it the same all the way through, or worse on the latest images? You can get something like that with 120 on a "fat roll" on the later images. But that film looks really bad in general for 120. Bad chemicals or really old film?>>4358322If that's the one I'm thinking of, you still have to heat the chemicals before you put them in. You can't do time/temperature/agitation tradeoffs with color to the degree that you can with b&w. The reason is that the color layers are at different depths in the film, and need to be developed proportionally. If your dev is too cold and you extend the dev time until the innermost layer is done, the outer layer will be totally cooked and your pictures will be all blue.
>>4358345>Okay! I could try testing the temp compensation on some b&w film, maybe. It is very tempting to try out e6, actually... It would be a very good test to see if it actually works well. Maybe I will splurge and get a 10 pack of 8x10 ektachrome and really make you guys jealous(jk).Definitely keen to hear what you think>>4358445>If that's the one I'm thinking of, you still have to heat the chemicals before you put them in. You can't do time/temperature/agitation tradeoffs with color to the degree that you can with b&w. The reason is that the color layers are at different depths in the film, and need to be developed proportionally. If your dev is too cold and you extend the dev time until the innermost layer is done, the outer layer will be totally cooked and your pictures will be all blue.Yeah that would make sense but even still, the fact that it does compensate for temp drop off over time would still let me be lazier than I am at the moment.
Alright filmfagsget peeling potatoeshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlWyKKJF0r4
>>4358499great, now those are going to go up in price thanks to hipsters
First time shooting at night, on Reflx Lab 800 Tungsten - everything turned out like shit. Crazy lens flares(?) purple bands on the bottom of the film, every shot just looks weird. Ill post a few. Any idea what I did wrong?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareRawTherapee 5.10Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72Vertical Resolution72Exposure Time0 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length0.00 mm
>>4358506[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 8.10.008 (221031)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 12:20:08Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2075
>>4358508One that actually came out alright, but not shot as late at night.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 8.10.008 (221031)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:09 12:19:36Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3130Image Height2075
>>4358506>>4358508soulful as fuck
Ektachrome or provia???
>>4358385>>4358388No one fucking cares
She is a true beauty.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width266Image Height300
>>4358443>i shoot almost exclusively decades-expired film on 35mmHonest question: why?
NEW THREAD>>4358702>>4358702>>4358702>>4358702>>4358702
>>4358428I was waiting for others to give their opinion but I guess I'll go search for an FA
>>4358704Isn't there a seal on the left? Where the door and body meet.
>>4358707yeah, but how would issues with the seal on the side lead to leaks at the top and bottom of frame?>>4358619it's cheaper more often
>>4358797Give the seal a little feel. You should be able to tell if the foam has degraded or not.