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?

>>4354704
I mean the best way to answer that question would be to ask if it did happen or not?
>definitely yes though
Normally 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?

>>4354708
Enjoy 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

>>4354708
I 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.

File: Screenshot 2024-09-01 101259.png (105 KB, 629x1121)

105 KB PNG

I tried to convince myself that developing B&W at home would be cheaper. Filmfags, it truly is Joever

>>4354719
Are 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.

>>4354720
Perhaps

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 chemicals
bitch ass nigga

>>4354719
>>4354720
>16/roll including development
You'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 $1.6383
All 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).

>>4354700
I hate film photography so much you wouldn't beleive.

>>4354734

No hobby worth anything is cheap or easy!

>>4354707
unfortunately 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...

>>4354740
You'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 devved
i shot and developed a roll of HP4 that expired in 1971
not sure why but when i hung it to dry, the emulsion on the film just went mush and started flowing down
still have 3 rolls with the same expiration date, might give it another attempt some day

>>4354719
>foma citro $10
citric 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.

>>4354708
Probably half the film I shoot is for brands with a large IG presence so at least it’s making people happy.

File: 1000003340.jpg (153 KB, 2048x1536)

153 KB JPG

/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 Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1536

>>4354787
I sure hope you didn’t pay the meme prices for a 20 dollar camera kek

File: 2024_0048_019.jpg (328 KB, 1500x1000)

328 KB JPG

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,

>>4354787

I have an IQZoom 120, but prefer to use a Nikon FG.

File: 20240901_193110.jpg (697 KB, 1600x1200)

697 KB JPG

Got these for $22AU each, how'd I do?

>>4354719
you dont need sleeves for your film
you 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 chemicals

there 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 film
don'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 chemicals
semi-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 photoflo
I made my own solution with Triton-X (0,1%)
and quats 0,04% (quats are needed to make solution antistatac

File: IMGP3918_01.jpg (4.07 MB, 3497x5148)

4.07 MB JPG

first time color dev and scan yay

>>4354814
wasted effort with shit camera

>>4354708
you 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

>>4354803
Where cunt.
WHERE.

>>4354814
Very nice, i love how many corners of that building you captured at once

>>4354822
Which 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.

>>4354803
Is that cheap for you aussies or something? It’s about 20 Canuck bucks per roll which is a horrendous price for any film.

File: fujisuperia.jpg (96 KB, 1187x560)

96 KB JPG

>>4354864
No, no it is not.

File: 1725199316863.jpg (2.07 MB, 1812x2407)

2.07 MB JPG

does anyone else dry film like this?

>>4354863
Yep.

>>4354790
>sharpened
ngmi

>>4354723
What 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-11
XTOL 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

>>4354806
Ironic for a no-photo

>>4354900
>calls me a nophoto
>posts no photos of their own

What 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)

File: IMG2106.jpg (105 KB, 1488x985)

105 KB JPG

>>4354904
nice one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 4000 ED
Camera Software	Nikon Scan 4.0.3 W
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4000 dpi
Image Created	2022.06.18 15.57.54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1488
Image Height	985

>>4354900
>Call me poor
>Bitches about price
Huh huh

File: s-l1600.jpg (139 KB, 1200x1200)

139 KB JPG

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

>>4354980
no

File: Screenshot_20240901-121046-476.jpg (194 KB, 1080x911)

194 KB JPG

>>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.

>>4354986
Yeah 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

>>4354994
if 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 bellows
Fellas, are we /streetshit/ now?

File: what is a meter.jpg (114 KB, 1280x960)

114 KB JPG

>>4355071
If it has a flash shoe you could pair it with an external rangefinder like a Watameter. Just a little quality of life thing.

>>4355073
sadly 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

>>4355077
A 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.

>>4355079
I thought I was retarded, nice to know more people do that as well kek
It works indeed tho

File: 20240901_155807.jpg (2.51 MB, 3000x3654)

2.51 MB JPG

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 Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	S928U1UES3AXFJ
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	13 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:01 15:58:07
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Unique Image ID	K12XSPE01NM
Image Height	3000
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/2.2
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	2.20 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4355079
>>4355086
thx anons, tried some shots earlier and I've never felt so equally retarded and smart

>>4354803
i dont see how either these arent all expired or you know an owner of a lab

>>4355087
Fuck. 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

File: KodakTri-X400@1600-9.jpg (1.52 MB, 1337x2048)

1.52 MB JPG

saw some big fuckin trees lads

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	814
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:01 18:21:19
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4354899
yes that’s what this development process does?

>>4355115
Maybe 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.

File: LRM_EXPORT_20220507_192232.jpg (535 KB, 2048x1363)

535 KB JPG

>>4355118
Based big tree enjoyer
I'm more of a coastal redwood fan myself

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1363

>>4354994
Precisely, 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?

>>4355245

Caffenol 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.

>>4355172
Both 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.

>>4355249
That 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
>>4355172
And 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.

>>4355258
Probably not.

File: 1725291790300.jpg (2.74 MB, 2207x2944)

2.74 MB JPG

It's a multi-format kinda day.

>>4355309
Living the dream
Godspeed, anon

>>4354900
>I want to pair Brand A developer with Brand A film
This 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

>>4355245
It smells bad but it develops film and it's petty punk rock

>>4355371
if you want real punk rock you develop in pissanol.

>>4355377
piss is used as a fixer you uncultured twat

>>4355379
>uncultured
>punk rock
Yes 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?

>>4355465
Would you mind sharing your thoughts with me, please?

File: f83obiz2cd0c1.jpg (1.42 MB, 5712x4284)

1.42 MB JPG

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
>etc
What 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.

>>4355486
Contax was always the superior rangefinder

>>4355486
So just sell the kit and get the Nikon then, what kind of weird bait is this

>>4355486
>28mm
Blergh

>>4355492
Disliking focal lengths is pure skill issue. Sorry, honey!

>>4355497
whatever makes you feel better with yourself and your teenage girl with an iphone tier focal lenght

>>4355499
>teenage girl with an iphone tier focal length
well now you're making me want to shoot it

>>4355486

Image quality is determined by the film and lens used, and the final method of viewing the output.

A film camera is just a lightbox.

>>4355500
egg

>>4355501
Some cameras also make the film flatter.

>>4355499
Bro thinks of cellphones when he sees a wide angle. Lmaooooooo. They got you bro.

>>4355486
you 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.

>>4355538
35mm cameras do not matter if they just work.

>>4355541
>4355555
A 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.

>>4355560
Well, 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.

File: 1725345487877.jpg (4.12 MB, 3378x2702)

4.12 MB JPG

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.

>>4354708
I 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.

>>4355486
You 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.

>>4355486
Just 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?

>>4355652
Do you have a local lab that develops in-house?

>>4355654
I do, they charge about 10€ for development and scanning

>>4355647
Great.
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.

>>4355656
Yeah 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.

>>4355659
Development 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

>>4355457
I like Delta 100 a lot but bearing price in mind FP4+ is way better value

>>4355652
Cost 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
>>4355690
Just 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

File: OM2-Fomapan100.jpg (2.98 MB, 3000x2000)

2.98 MB JPG

Fomapan 100 developed in Fomatol LQN. Just can't beat the price of Foma

>>4355718
Is 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).

>>4355722
Yes 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.

File: pentax-m-lens-collection.jpg (378 KB, 993x737)

378 KB JPG

any final thots on the pentax m lenses?

>>4355750
good value
50/1.7 is terrific
i own two

>>4355477
I 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

>>4355750
I really like the 50mm F2, that biotar look without being memed to death

>>4355778
>biotar look
what's that?

>>4355690
in what fucking world do you value your SHOT rolls at less than a few $ each?

>>4355858
For 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.

File: 20240903_171013.jpg (2.57 MB, 2566x4000)

2.57 MB JPG

Sinar expolux system

Electronic shutter/aperture control
Film plane spot metering with automatic averaging and contrast calculation.
Works with single or multi burst flash.
Automatic reciprocity for a variety of films
Automatic bellows compensation calculations
Vibration free shutter
Automatically detects when film holder is placed in the film back, closes shutter and sets aperture ready to take picture with the press of a button
1/500 to 30 minute+ exposure times
Aperture 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 Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	S928U1UES3AXFJ
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:03 17:10:13
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Unique Image ID	HK0XLQE00SM
Image Height	3000
Brightness	1.8 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	83/10000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.7
ISO Speed Rating	320
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4355880
if 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.

>>4355905
Nah. Is he another based sinargod?

>>4355911
Yep, one of my prof's who hauls that thing around like it's a P&S. Madman.

File: 636881c37932d4c6f4710c8c2(...).jpg (78 KB, 490x640)

78 KB JPG

>>4355914
That'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.

File: 5_1.jpg (4.41 MB, 4366x2901)

4.41 MB JPG

hey, /p/, remind me to never shoot expired film ever again
I'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 it
also 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 Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: 1725431704672.jpg (3.18 MB, 5102x3447)

3.18 MB JPG

>>4355652
i 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
>>4355718
how 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?

>>4355999
Ebay 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.

>>4355486
Contax G28 looks even better and has none of those problems.

File: IMG_20240619_120524388.jpg (200 KB, 1526x1146)

200 KB JPG

>>4355980
>im curious of fomas own developers because people rarely use them
I 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.

>>4356013
oof. remember to do snip test kids or this could be you

>>4356018
I 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?

>>4356213
There's a forum called pee I like to post about film shit on

>>4356213
Not here thats for sure.

What sort of questions do you have? If you just wanna learn about film in general Wikipedia has you covered.

>>4356009
Expensive brick from arguably the most unreliable era of mass manufactured electronics

>>4356244
Are 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.

>>4356213
Ask me every question.

>>4356247
The 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.

>>4356247
Point 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.

>>4356213
Here'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.

>>4356247
Most 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

>>4356256
Wrong, but not wrong for the absolute beginner.

>>4356256
>angry at the end as he realized he was wrong but too invested not to post
Shutter speed range, auto exposure modes, metering differences, especially for flash, make all the difference if you're really shooting and not just landscaping.

File: 8x4cpvsazqh41.jpg (104 KB, 500x620)

104 KB JPG

>>4356213
>Anything I should know
You 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 Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	620
Scene Capture Type	Standard

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

>>4356248
Probably 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.

>>4356292
Thanks 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.

>>4356291
Rip the backing paper off, turn any film into halation city

>>4354704
>>4354707
>>4354756
just scanned a frame and it looks perfectly fine. im just autistic about this stuff

File: thing.jpg (532 KB, 1948x996)

532 KB JPG

>>4356402
this is what i got on a few frames of my film when i just rinsed right from my tap during winter
i think the temp dropped from about 20 to 13C or something

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-4000
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1002 dpi
Vertical Resolution	1002 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:23 15:42:47
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: IMG_20240905_115651_043.png (2.22 MB, 1080x1920)

2.22 MB PNG

first somewhat complex repair I've ever done
pretty basic stuff, but I got my Canon FT back to working condition
messing with cameras is kinda scary but satisfying at the same time when things turn out fine

>>4356468
some film reticulates easier, ive shocked so much film but the only one that reticulated on me ever was ilford panf

>>4356468
It’s literally nothing you sped

File: 20240905_0001.jpg (2.27 MB, 3823x2496)

2.27 MB JPG

AAAAAAAH THE HELIOS 44 BOKEH I AM GOING INSANE

[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	2024:09:05 11:41:39
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3823
Image Height	2496

File: color calibration lol.jpg (86 KB, 1000x712)

86 KB JPG

Left: LS-5000
Right: V850
All 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]

>>4356554
wow scanners kinda suck

>>4356471
I picked up an old exacta with 50mm domiplan lens at a flea market but both camera and lense are somewhat fucked, probably fixable tho
the 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 up
weird shit

File: IMG_20240905_134840.jpg (1.68 MB, 1979x1687)

1.68 MB JPG

What I am for sisters

File: istockphoto-1202176454-612x612.jpg (38 KB, 612x612)

38 KB JPG

>>4356623
Money and people will come your way.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300
Vertical Resolution	300

>>4356623
Buyer'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.

>>4356645
bro its 3 dollah a roll

>>4356646
So 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.
>denial
so it begins...

>>4356667
what the actual fuck
meant to quote this
>>4356649
>bro its 3 dollah a roll

>>4356666
Only 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.

File: img246.jpg (1.56 MB, 1693x2753)

1.56 MB JPG

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 Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 16:31:11
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: img256.jpg (1.4 MB, 2760x1693)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4356692
Very 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 Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 16:30:54
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: img252.jpg (1.24 MB, 1693x2760)

1.24 MB JPG

>>4356693
Last one is the obligatory dog pic.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 16:30:31
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4356692
>>4356693
>>4356694
what'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?

>>4356700
Prove it
Post results

>>4356468
I'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

>>4356699
Idk. 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.

>>4356700
Probably 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

>>4356674
Yeah 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.

>>4356726
A 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 f2
the canonikon blob garbage of the large format world

>>4356734
Only 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.

>>4356739
No 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.

File: 3c40d5248da9c3af53bc1b917(...).jpg (57 KB, 575x763)

57 KB JPG

>>4356822
Based.

>3 blank frames in 2 rolls
oh god oh fuck i thought thr camera worked fine

>>4356849
You sure you didn't just fuck up the exposure?

>>4356856
how 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

>>4356542
wow nice fencepost you wanker what a waste of film. and no one wants to see this shit either

File: underexposred as fuck.jpg (363 KB, 1500x1168)

363 KB JPG

>>4356861
When it comes to underexposure, if there are no bright highlights in frame you can get what appears as a completely blank frame

Picrel 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.

>>4356867
sexless

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3888
Image Height	2592
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	236 dpi
Vertical Resolution	236 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:06 10:13:40
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1168

File: 307008617-R1-069-33.jpg (2.37 MB, 1818x1228)

2.37 MB JPG

>>4354708
I 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 water
interesting

>>4357063
it also causes retards to go overdrive
>>4356867

>>4357063
in what way specifically?
vintage & modern lenses tend to have very different design goals so obviously the effects are going to be different
but whether one is better than the other depends on taste I'd think

>>4357063
Its almost as if old lenses were corrected in design rather than in post because computer editing didn't exist.

>>4356623
fomapan 400

>>4357113
nah, its some aerial chink film

>>4357122
Chink film is better than fomashit

this weekend, it's the Canon AL-1 and Ilford Delta 100

File: IMG_20240906_205952999.jpg (282 KB, 1526x1146)

282 KB JPG

Just finished my last roll, some 15 years later. Thank you for your service, and farewell ;_;

>>4357255
holy shit they still honour prepaid processing?

>>4357255
>Leeds
more like Sneeds lmao amiright lads

>>4357255
but for real what's this film stock?

>>4357273
are 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?

File: GridArt_20240907_070335587.jpg (377 KB, 1352x2404)

377 KB JPG

>>4357273
lol no. I didn't plan this part too well, admittedly.
>>4357292
It's Sensia 200, wdym?

>>4357293
I wouldn't know, bank codes have looked like that all my life.
>inb4 calls me young
>inb4 this is a bad thing
>>4357391
Ah lol, well hope u get some nice frames out of that roll.

>>4357307
>edging the lab guys with your pp pics
kinda gay ngl

>>4357307
No, 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.

>>4357307
Sort 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.

>>4357307
no 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??

>>4357626
Try 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 camera
ngmi

>>4354708
I post my train photos to a boomer forum. Thinking of making a site one day

>>4354787
Chinon bellami.

>>4357626
Lay it directly on your scanner without a holder and put a glass plate ontop of it.

Newton rings are a skill issue.

>>4357867
So this is why your scans always look like that lol.

File: img263 (1) (1).jpg (3.55 MB, 3128x5376)

3.55 MB JPG

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 Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	19200
Image Height	24000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:07 01:24:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Light Source	Unknown

File: img263 (1) (2).jpg (4.48 MB, 3687x3795)

4.48 MB JPG

>>4357871
Here'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 Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:08 13:39:42
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4357872
>what it looks like to miss focus by 0.0000001cm on a 400mp camera

>>4354873
May I gently blow on it?

>>4357896
Lol. 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.

>>4357907
No retard the entire head is out of focus and you can't even see grain yet

Apparently the only reason you shoot 8x10 is to grain peep contact prints with a loupe

File: Anon (self portrait).jpg (32 KB, 432x651)

32 KB JPG

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 -1
Well, what do you think? Would it look alright?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	432
Image Height	651

>>4357916
Fellow 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.

File: 20240908_165146.jpg (1.93 MB, 2866x3084)

1.93 MB JPG

>>4357916
Because 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 Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	S928U1UES3AXFJ
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:08 16:51:46
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Unique Image ID	HK0XLQE00SM
Image Height	3000
Brightness	2.2 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	111/5000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.7
ISO Speed Rating	50
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4357919
>i had no choice but to miss focus
Sounds like a skill issue

>>4357920
The 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.

>>4357921
Lol. You are a really silly guy. You know that?

>>4357922
Say what you will. The head is not in focus.

And looking at contact prints under a loupe is a gay hobby.

>>4357926
Bud, 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.

File: Clipart-Of-A-Cartoon-Dog-(...).jpg (104 KB, 1080x1024)

104 KB JPG

>>4357868

>>4357932
Do you know the reason for this phenomenon?

>>4357931
The entire head is out of focus. Here, try this
https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/macro/focus-stacking-bracketing-with-om-d
Micro four thirds wins again

>>4357918
>ISO 800
>ISO 400 & EV -1
so box speed?
pretty radical but it just might work

>>4357936
>mentioning mft in a film general
everything you have said previously is now completely disregarded

>>4357948
The 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).

>>4357918
it will work, but it's way less retarded just setting the iso to 800 like everyone does

File: Screenshot 2024-09-08 at (...).png (38 KB, 419x205)

38 KB PNG

>>4357918
are 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.

>>4357953
I think the downy picture he posted was a good hint..

>>4357954
you 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.

>>4357949
you 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

>>4357962
The 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 joke
his dog laughed
and then went back to humping

CALLED IT AGAIN BOYS! WE ARE ON A ROLL TONIGHT!

>>4357933
Indulge me.

>>4357989
I 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?

>>4357993
Nah I'm good I don't play childish games.

>>4357996
They're being silly. Gold is warm and lacks saturation in cooler colours and has a liiiiittle extra in warm colours.

>>4357999
Coward.

>>4357726
>He hasn't visited every place in his city to shoot photos
Ngmi

File: 1725866964624.jpg (4.18 MB, 4000x2252)

4.18 MB JPG

>>4357683
Outside the city.

>>4358005
it'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 scenes
My mistake was to assume something like an ISO 800 film would somehow shit the bed in well-lit conditions.

File: 3452363.jpg (2.94 MB, 5846x3903)

2.94 MB JPG

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 Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	844
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:09 13:03:34
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Does anyone make their own fixer similar to Caffenol?

>>4358029
>Scanning slide film ain't easy

What makes it difficult?

>>4358028
>apparently can't find good resources online
now that's just straight up untrue
you CAN find a shitload of good stuff online
you're probably just lazy to either do research or to actually read a text instead of watching a shitty tiktok
not knowing something is fine
not 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

File: Untitled-(118).jpg (1.1 MB, 2048x1365)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4358037
That's developed in caffenol and fixed in 16% chlorine remover/water solution.

>>4358037
>>4358112
Can 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 US
I 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 mail
wat do?

>>4358130
Put drugs in the package as a distraction.

>>4358130
Or... just make your own. If you have access to Paracetamol and Sodium Hydroxide is not that hard to make.

>>4358135
I 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
>>4358137
I've seen the recipe online and it truly seems very easy to make
I'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 possible
Having homemade chemicals would be an additional variable
Maybe 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

>>4358151
Well 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 lenses
one 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 me
none 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 available
My relative said they'll just double bag it and put it in their luggage
They're a frequent flyer and pretty much never gets asked to have their luggage looked at, so it'll probably just pass without notice
Worst 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.
>>4358029
This 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.

>>4358115
In 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.

>>4358130
What sort of third world shithole do you live in where rodinal isn’t available? It’s like one of the most basic developers.

>>4358239
There's D76 readily available as well as C41, ECN2 and E6
There'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 date
So I'd like to buy Adox's original product
I 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 so
Universal healthcare is readily available though, so there's that

>>4358241
I 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.

>>4358244
nice cope, brother
I'll have both Rodinal that'll last me a lifetime and still have universal healthcare

>>4358248
I'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 product
sorry bud but if you aren't buying Agfa stuff you will always be buying copies.

File: AGO-2-cut.png (77 KB, 794x650)

77 KB PNG

I'm getting my AGO film processor on the 11th. Anyone interested in a review? (Not sponsored)

>>4358317
Definitely 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.

File: 000048520037.jpg (1.13 MB, 1463x2075)

1.13 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	RawTherapee 5.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Exposure Time	0 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	0.00 mm