The X-700 is the best SLR ever made.

>>4363907
Sony shill

>>4363907
>muh souless jap scrap
try a kine exakta sometime boyo

hehe, got 'em

File: A7R03224Dynax60Sigma50mmScala.jpg (918 KB, 1370x2048)

918 KB JPG

>>4363907
It's really weird to me that americans fetishise menelta. They're not terrible, but at the same time Canon and Nikon have always been obviously superior devices.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	100 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Brightness	0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1370
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4363916
personally I just really like the feel of using an X-700
and it's not like the body makes any difference in how your photos will look, that's down to the lens and film and Minolta lenses are really really nice

>>4363916
Pentax*

>>4363919
the hipster choice

>>4363916
You fucked that shot up, boy.

>>4363907
Amen.

File: 37.jpg (3.64 MB, 3072x2048)

3.64 MB JPG

Just got back my first roll of color film and I think pic rel is the best of the lot; pls r8 and comment. I also have a crop coming in a sec.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 22.2 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:21 12:27:41
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3072
Image Height	2048

File: 20240923_0036.jpg (2.44 MB, 2048x2420)

2.44 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	darktable 4.2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:23 15:24:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	2420

File: 04.jpg (1.2 MB, 3072x2048)

1.2 MB JPG

And this one is what I'd consider my second best.

>>4363925
fat pikachu best pikachu

File: 36.jpg (1.24 MB, 3072x2048)

1.24 MB JPG

>>4363928
It's always fun seeing the ghetto-ass unlicensed prizes at carnivals. Family guy seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years despite being huge into the 2010s and there's more weebshit than ever before.

File: IMG_20240923_145243271.jpg (188 KB, 1526x1146)

188 KB JPG

My second to last roll of Foma R100 developed as negative (HC-110 dilution H for 12 minutes). I have read about its mysterious anti-halation layer that somehow sits between base and emulsion, instead of on the back, and is neutralized during reversal development (by bleach I'm guessing). Well as it is, it just looks foggy as hell. Not pretty, but I'll see how it scans. I've seen worse. Tmax developed in the same bath for comparison.
No surface bubbling though! So it must be one of the reversal baths causing it (again suspecting the bleach, basically sulphuric acid with potassium permanganate solution). Or just sitting submerged for almost an hour during entire reversal process, versus about 20 minutes when done as negative.

File: 2024-09-23-0012.jpg (1.21 MB, 1963x1419)

1.21 MB JPG

>>4363793
>>4363836
okay I think I might have figured out the problem?
half of it was because I was saving as sRGB
other half is the fact I don't have a profile for the 9000
before, I was checking the slide by holding it up to a light with a different white point than any of my monitors
if I hold this slide up to the same screen I'm viewing this scan on, they look more or less identical
so that means the scan is good, even if it doesn't look good (and I can't do that until I make sure my monitor's calibrated which I've been too lazy to do)
>>4363936
no I mean the white balance of the scan not the photo
I want to accurately record the film, regardless of how shitty it is

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-9000
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:23 18:46:43
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1963
Image Height	1419

File: 1727131782391.jpg (2.77 MB, 3404x2252)

2.77 MB JPG

>>4363907
Based

File: 2024-09-23-0010.jpg (1.19 MB, 1419x1963)

1.19 MB JPG

>>4363939
not all these slides will be so forgiving though
this is my most successful attempt to get anything usable from this slide
the first time, the white cardboard mask reflected more scattered light from the scanner than the film let through
ended up with a double-pass scan at 8x and 16x analog gain
>inb4 who buys a 9000 to scan shitty 50yo family slides
this is just all I have to test with right now

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-9000
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:23 18:46:59
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1419
Image Height	1963

File: A7R03232Dynax60Sigma50mmScala.jpg (982 KB, 1431x2048)

982 KB JPG

>>4363922
I know, I just like the light too much in that photo to scrap it.
I've also taken sharp photos with meneltas, but that doesn't stop them being clacky pieces of shit. If it wasn't for the likelihood that I'll convince myself to buy the zeiss 135/1.8 and/or the 200/4 apo macro one day I'd probably not have any.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	100 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Brightness	0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1431
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4363907

X700 is amazing, it’s an om1 with av mode. I just got a minolta flash for mine so will see how the photos come out this weekend with it.

File: 1727131922432166 edit.jpg (1.68 MB, 1963x1419)

1.68 MB JPG

>>4363939
1 second white balancing

>>4363954
Green snow

>>4363954
okay and?
that's not what the original film looks like

>>4363957
And that disgusting blue original is? Get a better film stock then

>>4363939
>no I mean the white balance of the scan not the photo
The scan is numbers in a computer. Those numbers only correspond to real life to the extent that they've been adjusted to match.
Get an it8 slide target and spend 9000 hours dicking around with calibration software if you want to be autistic about it.

>>4363957
heres a secret BIG EMULSION doesn't want you to know...

film can look any way you want it to

>>4363964
>>4363972
they're fucking 50 years old and stored who knows how
I'm trying to test whether the fucking scanner is working, not trying to get nice looking scans of these particular photos
>>4363966
this guy gets it
calibration is the next step

>>4363919
Pentax is also just better than Minolta, yes.

File: 1000010918.jpg (963 KB, 1565x1037)

963 KB JPG

Test shots on my new F1

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	EZ Controller 7.42.004 (220216)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:29 15:51:52
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1565
Image Height	1037

Has anyone ever experimented with making unsharp masks in a darkroom setting?

>>4363942
Love the tones

File: W45KG2SPT2309.jpg (4.96 MB, 1989x3000)

4.96 MB JPG

>>4363756
You're assuming I post anywhere else than 4chan?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	458 dpi
Vertical Resolution	458 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:21 17:38:19
Image Width	13995
Image Height	20899

>>4364013
very cozy anon, like it alot

>>4363640
>>4364013
Based digital photos with fake exif

File: P9240307.jpg (1.94 MB, 2233x2920)

1.94 MB JPG

>>4364016
Suck my dick, choke on it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	17096
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:24 07:24:31
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	4608
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

File: W45KG2SPT2303c.jpg (4.17 MB, 1950x3000)

4.17 MB JPG

>>4364015
Thanks breh

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	457 dpi
Vertical Resolution	457 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:24 07:28:02
Image Width	14048
Image Height	20864

File: 1702536851320422.jpg (1.94 MB, 3130x2075)

1.94 MB JPG

>>4363901

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	3130
Image Height	2075

>try to scan medium format with dslr
>need to buy new everything because it doesn't fit my 35mm setup
>set up ghetto as rig
>huge vignetting
life would be simpler if i stuck to 35mm but how can i go back after seeing those massive negs

>>4364072
Just wait until you shoot your first 8x10 sheet.

>>4364036
very based

>>4364072
>life would be simpler if i stuck to 35mm but how can i go back after seeing those massive negs
I'm the same anon, got a 6x9 and now 35mm just doesn't do it.

File: R1-02593-003A.jpg (2.85 MB, 3517x2345)

2.85 MB JPG

THE VOICES ARE TELLING ME TO BUY MORE EKTAR

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Fujifilm eSystems, Inc.
Camera Model	Digital Link
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:19 21:48:22
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: ektr.jpg (176 KB, 1460x973)

176 KB JPG

I fucking love Ektar

>>4364108
>>4364110
The first step is realizing you have an issue.

>>4363996
Aside from few anons people here barely ever print photos, you’re asking a lot for that small few to used more advanced forgotten techniques besides just printing straight up lol

>>4364072
Similar boat here, I seem unable to get satisfactory results at 1:1 magnification with my mirror less setup. No matter which software I’ve tried, there is always stitching artifact or defect somehow, it’s baffling. I do have a flatbed which gets me by, but the quality from that feels inferior to the mirrorless

File: W45KG2SPT2314.jpg (3.16 MB, 1891x2206)

3.16 MB JPG

Jesus Christ how dead is this place these days

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	458 dpi
Vertical Resolution	458 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:24 20:15:32
Image Width	13995
Image Height	20829

>>4364304
calm down I am developing a roll

>>4364304
>4 hours since last post
>place is dead
Holy ADHD, try /b/, /v/ or /pol/, they should be more up to your speed!

>>4364304
It'll take at least a week for my last roll to get developed at the lab but I am not going to post my photos here anyway lol

File: W45KG2SPT2324.jpg (4.57 MB, 2015x3000)

4.57 MB JPG

>>4364313
I only post here but it takes me about a year to get off my ass to process a scan so I guess it's not my place to lecture. Here's another shart that just turned one, ain't she a cutie?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	457 dpi
Vertical Resolution	457 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:24 21:47:24
Image Width	14048
Image Height	20885

>>4363907
I have one and from the moment I bought it I regretted it. I really hate that it needs a battery and having to turn it on and off. I really want to sell mine but I can't be bothered getting a new film camera.

>>4364072
With negatives that big you can use a flatbed scanner with a glass on top to keep it flat and leveled, and one of those A4-sized drawing backlights.
Way better setup, workflow and consistency in results.
>>4364165
Anything beyond 4800ppi will give you amazing results. It's not difficult to find scanners that reach 7200ppi for around 100-150$ brand new.

>>4364328
O got lucky and found a Canoscan 9000fv2 for 20 bucks locally, but no film holders. I think part of the reason it’s not as good is it’s not focused on the right spot without the holders. But new holders cost like triple what the scanner cost me lol. Should just save up for an Epson.

>>4364329
if you know someone with a 3d printer you can get holders

>>4364324
batteries last forever and you don't really have to turn it off as the battery only gets drained when you activate the metering

>>4364304
>>4364314
yeah so I don't have any amazing nature like that here anyway so there's nothing amazing to share

File: 203922315.jpg (203 KB, 1470x1952)

203 KB JPG

and done
HP5 at 1600, 13mins in stock (Ado)XTOL
negatives came out pretty dense
>>4364314
that's a nice landscape, I think it would also be pretty cool pictured on ultra wide frame, like from xpan

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4364395
Mucho contrasto

Man I want a RX-1 so bad, might take the plunge even tho it's way too expensive
I am curious about development tho, do labs have issues with panoramic shots on 35mm?

>>4364403
Just get a linhof technorama 617 if you want to spend big bucks on a panoramic camera.

>>4364403
typo, meant Fuji TX-1
>>4364405
now that's just ridiculous

>>4364328
>>4364329
>4800ppi
>7200ppi
yeah but what's their real resolution

>>4364408

Depending on which 6x17 you get, it could be cheaper than a TX-1.

>>4364329
>But new holders cost like triple what the scanner cost me lol.
You could try to get holders 3D printed. I know a few libraries in my area now offer 3D prints for free, or you could probably get them done at your university for free as well if you are a student. Here's a link for a holder that would probably work with your printer.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4736399

>>4364426
Even funnier 4x10 could be cheaper yet.

>>4364329
epson holders ain't cheap either, you may as well shell out. I used to tape my film to the glass but it sucked.
welcome to scanning, it's very tiresome.

File: Gold100_F24_december1991.jpg (761 KB, 1885x1252)

761 KB JPG

Is there a way to recover the dark areas? It was Gold 100 in a basement with a subpar flash.

File: 1718704156936320.jpg (1.1 MB, 3166x2111)

1.1 MB JPG

Can someone explain what's going on in the borders of the picture? Where does this light bleed come from? It only happens in dark pictures, is it a scan problem from the lab? Are the light seals on the camera fucked?

>>4364461
Nope, if it's not burned into the film it's not there.

>>4364475
I get this a lot, I always suspected it was due to weak chemicals but I don't know for sure. Sorta like the color version of the effects you get with stand dev. I always use my chemicals well past their rated number of rolls because I'm a cheapass.

File: W45KG2SPT2315c.jpg (3.92 MB, 3000x1820)

3.92 MB JPG

>>4364337
Wouldn't necessarily say that, to me this is all commonplace and generic, yours might be exotic. Although I do love our nature and it kills me that I'm unable to depict it in a way that does it justice.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	458 dpi
Vertical Resolution	458 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 07:18:41
Image Width	20881
Image Height	13995

>>4364583
Have you tried a uv filter?

>>4364585
I'm not into paying money for things that do nothing on lenses manufactured after the early 60's.

>>4364587
Are you going to post another extremely hazy landscape shot or what?

>>4364589
Sorry but Mr. Scheckelberger needs a new yacht, you've gotta carry this thread until I'm off the shift. You can do it, I believe in you.

>>4364424
4800/7200ppi. If you want it in mpx roughly 20-24 and 36 respectively. And if you want the dpi at that point the limiting factor is the printer/paper you're using for the copies.
An epson v39ii will give you similar quality to a D810+macro lens minus the cumbersome setup and workflow, at a fraction of the cost. But of course you loose the flexibility of a raw file.

>>4364585
A UV filter does nothing besides protecting the front element without sacrificing image quality. The only useful landscape filters are CPL and ND, and not for all focal lengths.

>>4364636
Don't forget a GND for the horizon landscape shots

>>4364072
Flatbeds are cheap

>>4364587
What does that have to do with lenses?

>>4364636
People started saying this when digital cameras became common, which almost all have builtin UV filters
in the film days they actually did something. Or so they say, I never use one and never did any side by side comparison

File: EpsonPerfectionV800_USAF_(...).jpg (35 KB, 272x288)

35 KB JPG

>>4364635
doubt.jpg
scanners almost always advertise their max multi-sampled DPI on the moving axis as their "max DPI"
the DPI on the fixed axis is usually much lower, say 600 for document scanners
so even with multi-sampling, because the photosites are so large, you basically just get a smear down the moving axis
looked up the v850 just to make sure I wasn't being completely retarded, Epson says it has a 4800x9600dpi hardware resolution
they don't say which DPI in which direction, but since that can increase to 6400x9600 I assume it's 9600dpi across the sensor?
so maybe I'm technically wrong but then does it matter when the "6400 DPI" scan looks like picrel
now just to be clear, I'm not advocating camera scanning, but I would definitely choose it over flatbed scanning when concerned about quality (convenience/price is another story)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 12.0 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4177
Image Height	4589
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:05:15 10:18:16
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	272
Image Height	288

File: 17053.jpg (103 KB, 700x722)

103 KB JPG

>>4363907
lol
lmao even

>>4364635
stop smoking crack my dude

>>4364110
I fucking love Sheboygan

>>4364681
They were relevant in the archaic era of single-coated simplistic lenses which would let a lot of UV through. By the 70's coating technology and simply having more glass in the lens would reduce the UV transmission rate to near irrelevancy. There are still situations where you would get a noticeable effect with one but those are not everyday landscape situations. Haze from air moisture content is a much more relevant concern and for that UV filter does absolutely nothing, only a CPL and color filters can help with that.

>>4364696
Assuming you already did not, one can get small but noticeable increase of sharpness on flatbed by wet scan.
I have not touched film for many years but before covid era I did try it, just slapped a negative in some lighter fluid on a piece of thin glass and scanned that. Of course one should use appropriate mounting medium to do it for real. (II should have the boring scans somewhere but just search for examples.) And flatbed is good for large format and ok I guess for medium but for 135 honestly sucks, dry or wet.

File: IMG_0805.jpg (383 KB, 1280x849)

383 KB JPG

Im so disappointed in myself, just got two rolls back and almost hate all of the shots on it.
I got this old Olympus on eBay and the shutter is stuck on 1/60 and all I have is a cheap 50mm lens, but fuck me, this shouldn’t be a limit.
Anyways here they are

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 20:56:05
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	849
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_0844.jpg (311 KB, 848x1280)

311 KB JPG

>>4364857
I did a Gilden

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 20:54:07
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	848
Image Height	1280
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_0854.jpg (341 KB, 848x1280)

341 KB JPG

>>4364858

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 20:58:22
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	848
Image Height	1280
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_0812.jpg (295 KB, 848x1280)

295 KB JPG

>>4364860
This is the only ok one in my opinion but again, it’s ok because the rest was so bad so this is probably average too
>yeah yeah tattoos and all

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 20:54:42
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	848
Image Height	1280
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4364858
>making bald wagecucks uncomfortable and capturing that on film

mmm yeah, i am thinking BASED

Does anyone have any advice on cleaning old oil from the aperture system? I have a pentax k 50mm auto chinon F1.9 with sticky aperture blades. It works fine for a while after closing and opening the aperture repeatedly, but the problem persists afterwards. The aperture lever isn't bent so it seems it's just a problem with old oil. I don't mind opening it up and it's a cheap lens so I'm not worried.

File: doubles.jpg (4.33 MB, 2988x4456)

4.33 MB JPG

>>4364857
could have been interesting but it's lacking something
>>4364858
and just like Gilden it's yet another boring photo that tells nothing
it's just a regular guy in a regular environment
absolutely forgettable
>>4364860
pinterest
but it's cute
>>4364861
there seems to be a good amount of light and could have been a pretty touching portrait
get your shutter fixed, because this could have been at least 1/125" and half the aperture to get a softer background and no motion blur
it also looks like she's a blind person instead of someone having a moment of bliss or something

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 16:27:50
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4364857
This one could have worked with better framing, but it seems you kinda tunnel visioned on the green shirt man.

Two suggestions
Look at bro cutting up fish with these rich people yachts in the background.

Or

Look at all these fish workers doing things in a compositionally pleasing way.

>>4364513
>>4364475
At the risk of constantly repeating myself for years on end like screaming into the void
>lab scans are fucking garbage
>they are garbage in myriad ways that people who don't try to scan their own film never realise
This is could be some auto hdr shit that it does when you have an underexposed frame, but what it actually looks like is an overdone vignette correction. It could also be that the scanner has fucked 20yo light seals. It is definitely the case that the sensor is fucking caked in dust.
It could also be fogging from an adjacent bright frame on the roll, but I doubt that.
>inb4 i don't keep my negatives

File: Screenshot.png (1.02 MB, 1366x768)

1.02 MB PNG

>>4364696
Hm I didn't know that. Seems like these things are all upscaling. According to this guy even the plusteks only provide 50% of the claimed dpi. All things considered I still think flatbed scanning provides more than acceptable results and it's by far the cheapest and easiest, specially to create contact sheets of the whole negative.
Pic related is the screenshot of a 100% crop. The negative was scanned at 1200ppi with an old epson stylus SX235W.

>>4364861
Cute, what’s his name?

File: _DSC4326.jpg (3.6 MB, 3941x5903)

3.6 MB JPG

aforementioned HP5 1600 in XTOL
some night photos shot on Rokkor 50mm f1.4
not bad, the grain is pleasant, but I hoped for it to be slightly less present, I will try developing with DD-X or Microphen next time

[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/4.8
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	2024:09:25 23:02:00
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
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

File: Screenshot_20240925-232256.png (349 KB, 691x399)

349 KB PNG

>>4364893
>Gives you a handy
>Rips off your cock

File: _DSC4328.jpg (3.44 MB, 3986x5971)

3.44 MB JPG

>>4364898
I shot mostly on f2 and sharpness of some frames is disappointing and other look sharp so it's probably because I am a arthritic piece of shit and I can't hold my hands still while shooting at 1/60s

[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/4.8
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	2024:09:25 23:22:17
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
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

>>4364893
>>4364900
born with a vagina but has hit the wall and does fitness n shit. Can understand that your coombrain would think it's a tranny.

>>4364893
>>4364900
>unable to recognize a woman
>think they're cool
virgins as shit

File: Roll1_711190-R1-07-6A.jpg (843 KB, 1818x1228)

843 KB JPG

Bought a Nikon F3 the same day i went on a 3 day camping trip and finally got the scans back. Taking any input/feedback/observations anons might have. This is my first film camera and i'm just getting started with /p/.

Film is the cheap fuji color they had at the shop, 28mm, mostly on f2.8 and just trusting the meter. Shop said it might be off by a stop, but it looks ok? Mostly struggled with manual focus.

File: Roll1_711190-R1-21-20A.jpg (1.29 MB, 1818x1228)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4364915

>>4364904
>under 30s dont know what ugly bitches look like
they are lucky for they know not what hell awaits a single man who is not rich enough to dodge nonsensical pedophile accusations (she’s 19 u sik fuk)

File: Roll1_711190-R1-23-22A.jpg (1.37 MB, 1818x1228)

1.37 MB JPG

>>4364915
Definitely had fun hiking with it, looking forward to fall trips

>>4364915
Use a smaller aperture.

File: PXL_20240925_230217936~2.jpg (1.18 MB, 2936x2268)

1.18 MB JPG

>>4363907
For me, it's this SR-T 200 that used to be my dad's and no longer has a functional meter because the battery terminals got corroded to shit from him leaving a battery in it for 40 years.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Google
Camera Model	Pixel 7 Pro
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.540104767zdh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2936
Image Height	2268
Image Created	2024:09:25 16:02:33
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	287
Exposure Program	Normal Program
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Time	4167/100000 sec
Subject Distance Range	Macro
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	6.81 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance	0.21 m
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	2268
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	-0.2 EV
Image Width	4032
Exposure Mode	Auto
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom

>>4364932
For sure. I'm making a point to shoot the rest of the roll i've got at smaller apertures to see the difference in depth of field.
I wasn't sure how much i could close it up without negatively impacting light/shutter speed so i didn't touch it too much.

>>4364936
Depending on the lens you will get sharper images at like f5.6-f8 if you can keep the camera steady.

File: willem.jpg (92 KB, 725x575)

92 KB JPG

Have people finally stopped giving a shit about YouTuber filmbros?
It's incredible how mundane this guy's photography actually is when you see it with clear eyes. 4 years ago I idolized him when it came to film photography and aspired to shoot the way he does. Now I just cringe at how soulless his photos are.

File: file.png (2.72 MB, 1225x991)

2.72 MB PNG

>>4364583
>>4364314
how do you get such smooth clouds. every time i scan the clouds come out grainy like this.
Fuji superia 200

>>4364958
I went to watch the video just because you posted it
never liked film youtubers, but I've watched some 10 or so videos of this guy and although I found the majority oh his photos just average, as least he has some cool ones
the one at the beginning of the video is a good photo, although it feels like it could be better, the one with the limo on the beach and the people on the sofa on top
the thing is most of his good photos are kind of like this one. they're basically cool because the guy found a cool scene, which is a merit on his own, of course
Finding cool scenes and having an eye for it is part of what makes a photographer. But then you gotta do something with it, and it's not just framing and focusing and choosing a speed and DoF, it's also determining when it's time to press the button
but almost always they look like they could have been more interesting than they really are had he waited a little more
many of them seem hasty
alright, take the photo right away not to lose whatever is happening, but then wait and get a good one for sure after
it seems like the majority of them lack input from him
and when he actually puts something into them, it seldom works
I mean, many of them are good, like the boy in the pool, which is nice because of the angle and the distorted image the water produces
but they're mostly "just good", not "wow really good"
or he deliberately "makes" a scene and it's just straight up shit, like the one of his friend sitting with a comically short neckstrap, and of course it's holding a Leica™, and then there's Verbeeck himself in the reflex of the window, that photo's just cringe as fuck all around
yes, he has some great shots, and some very good ones too
but they're mostly just well done
like, they're in focus and well exposed, but if you actually look at them individually for more than 5 seconds you'll get that there's nothing really there most of the time
anyway stop watching youtubers and go shoot

File: cyberdog3000.jpg (4.83 MB, 4672x4000)

4.83 MB JPG

the bad part of getting a new camera is testing it
curtains were kinda fucked already, got worse in this last roll, and then the motordrive finally destroyed it
left the camera at the repair shop last week, it'll be ready in the next
well, the good thing is I'll know everything is fine and finally shoot it properly instead of testing times and see what's happening every time it gets kinda stuck

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6300
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 23:13:48
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4364976
>faulty camera turns snapshit into kino
many such cases

>>4364979
and his name is Nino
>kino nino

>>4364958
i exclusively watch videos from boomers. none of this le vibe nonsense

File: 1727315297851337 (1).jpg (1.3 MB, 1225x991)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4364971
Bigger film and you can give them more detail in post as well. They look a little flat in your pic.

Do you remember what your aperture was at?

[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	2024:09:25 19:36:47
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: JUN13_07b.jpg (2.94 MB, 4908x3276)

2.94 MB JPG

>>4364985
these were all scanned at 3600DPI would more dpi help recovery?
i dont remember what the aperture was, these were shot in 2013 on a muggy summer day with a Mamiya DSX1000 and a 55mm f/1.8

Is there a trick to give these a little help with PP? they come out very flat straight from the scanner

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4908
Image Height	3276
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:25 21:44:49

>>4364889
I don't think it's so much upscaling as it is intentionally over-optimistic presentation of the optical design
basically instead of testing the hardware to find the effective DPI, the manufacturers just use the smallest step the sensor servo can make because it gives a bigger number
those scans you got look pretty decent, I'd say some flatbeds can give good enough resolution for posting to social media (which is what everyone does now anyways)
I'll stick to dedicated desktop film scanners for now though, until I get autistic enough to build a custom enlarger setup with a scanback or something (or rich enough for a drum scanner)

>>4364915
>>4364932
>>4364936
that pic looks perfectly fine
>>4364987
what size film
after a certain point more dpi doesn't help film photos, the grain is part of the physical film

File: 1727319025619829 (1).jpg (4.47 MB, 4908x3276)

4.47 MB JPG

>>4364987
Drop exposure, up the contrast, up highlights, drop blacks, sharpen. Increasing dpi won't do much for recovery, but sharpening will make it look sharper as you can see. May have gone a little high on sharpening, but whatever.

Just doing this quickly on my phone, so the colors may be fucked. Seem okay for me and my

[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	2024:09:25 20:07:57
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4364995
They're all soft.

File: JUN13_06b.jpg (3.35 MB, 4908x3276)

3.35 MB JPG

>>4364995
35mm
lens may had fungus in it, i dont remember. it was an old screw thread lens.

>>4364996
ok now to me those clouds look red and the trees are nearly black

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4908
Image Height	3276
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:25 21:19:30

>>4364997
they look fine for 35 scanned with an unknown method
>>4364999
fungus shouldn't matter for grain size
the grain looks a bit large for 35, what film stock?

File: JUN13_10b.jpg (4.72 MB, 4908x3276)

4.72 MB JPG

>>4365000
the negs just say fuji 200, but it could be superia, or whatever budget rolls you'd find at a walmart in 2013

idk why the EXIF says 72dpi Silverfast says its scanning at 3600

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4908
Image Height	3276
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:25 21:42:05

>>4365001
72dpi for whatever reason is the standard "screen DPI"
so basically whenever you see that it means the file doesn't have any real DPI info embedded

File: Image 60 (1) (1).jpg (4.2 MB, 2648x3962)

4.2 MB JPG

>>4365000
I was going for a darker/evening vibe to sort of accentuate the clouds, but the pictures were probably taken midday lol. There's still color in the clouds in your original picture.

Try dropping highlights and you'll see the cloud detail start to pop, but then you have to balance the ground/trees or it sort of looks unnatural imo.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.1.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:01:22 00:08:01
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4364314
Man I must get back to Finland.

File: W45KG2SPT2325.jpg (4.61 MB, 2000x3000)

4.61 MB JPG

>>4364971
They're shot on 6x9 so it's just the bigger negative. With 35mm you've just kinda gotta get used to that, unless you shoot some whack shit like CMS 20 II.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	457 dpi
Vertical Resolution	457 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 21:56:22
Image Width	14048
Image Height	20863

File: R1-02322-0000.jpg (2.39 MB, 3606x2412)

2.39 MB JPG

Not grainy clouds anon, mine look like this.
It's Fuji 200 (Kodak Gold) and the scans are like this from the lab, did nothing in post. 35mm obv.

>>4364958
I don't watch photography youtubers who are shit at photography.
It's the most cringe shit when they talk about photography as an art form and then show shitty pictures of some mundane subject with absolutely nothing interesting going on.
There was this female youtuber and her videos were like satire yet she gets lots of views despite her photography being absolute garbage.

>>4364696
>>4364696
>>4364889
>>4364994
Link for those interested
https://filmscanner.info/en/FilmscannerTestberichte.html

>shoot my 36th frame
>lever advanced 1 more time
>huh
>shoot 37th frame
>lever still advances
>uh...
>shot 38th frame
>lever no longer advances
>nervous sweating
>see final results
>38 exposed frames, no duds
Am I a real photographer now?

>>4365073
I don’t watch photography youtubers because youtube is low quality schlock for retarded children. Read a fucking book if you want to learn how shit works. The information density should be much greater in a video but isn’t bc we’re talking about goddamn youtube.

>>4365082
>reading books
lmao, look at this nerd
Which ones do you recommend?

File: 7200_vs_3600.jpg (264 KB, 496x531)

264 KB JPG

>>4364889
>plusteks only provide 50% of the claimed dpi
There is definitely more detail in my 7200 dpi scans than 3600. But it's not double. Here is with the 7200 downsampled to 3600, you can see there is a bit more detail in the thin branches and less noise.

As you might imagine, they're going to try to get the absolute biggest number to put on the box without making it more expensive. Which means they're pushing every component to the limit - optics, steppers, adcs, etc. It is better but there are diminishing returns and it takes forever so I scan almost always at 3600 and go to 7200 only for pictures I really like. Same story with the flatbed, I scan at half the max resolution except when it's something I want the absolute max detail. But I would rather have higher max DPI that is only a minor improvement than a lower DPI scanner where the max is worse than the same DPI on the higher DPI scanner, because they cut the same corners but started with worse components.

Obviously you should ignore anything that is pure software upsampling, that's just a scam. "optical dpi" is the real dpi.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	852 dpi
Vertical Resolution	852 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:26 07:55:08
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4365151
>There is definitely more detail in my 7200 dpi scans than 3600
My understanding is that is due to the scan head moving more slowly and smoothly when in "7200 dpi" mode, which results in a sharper scan. When I was using a plustek, I would scan at "7200" and then downscale to 3600. Now I camera scan and I've never looked back. The quality is better, but more importantly, it takes 10 minutes to scan in a roll of 135 with the camera rig instead of most of a day with the plustek.

File: JUN13_08b.jpg (3.76 MB, 4908x3276)

3.76 MB JPG

>>4365068
do you know what scanner the lab used? maybe i just got a shitty one. Its a plustek 8100 and i thought it was supposed to be good

>>4365151
>>4365153
when you figure 4-5 mins per scan (7200dpi + ME, plus post editing) x 36 it really is an all day affair. If i had a better dslr I'd shoot the negatives but alas

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4908
Image Height	3276
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:25 21:36:09

>>4365161
>do you know what scanner the lab used? maybe i just got a shitty one. Its a plustek 8100 and i thought it was supposed to be good

It's a Fujifilm Frontier SP3000, I like the results from it.

>>4365151
>>4365153
make sure your downsampling method doesn't also apply a sharpening effect
for a fair comparison that is, if you like the results feel free to use it

File: DX8FC2072335.jpg (2.86 MB, 2000x1313)

2.86 MB JPG

>>4365161
>do you know what scanner the lab used?
Probably a Noritsu machine, the photo certainly has all the familiar symptoms of one. If you want that same look with your Plustek then just crank the unsharp masking on and scan at 3600 mode, and it will look like that. If you want actual results, you'll disable all sharpening in the software and scan at 7200. In software use the histogram to set the color balance around where you want it, then the rest you adjust in post. In post you clean whatever filth was on the picture, add high pass, downscale and then add a little bit of final sharpening to taste. Then fine tune color and contrast. Scanning will take a long time especially if you use the infrared dust removal, and there's no getting around that, your only other options are digital camera scanning or paying premium for mediocre ultra sharpened noisy Noritsu scans. Also never use multi-exposure mode while scanning, it does absolutely nothing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	44 dpi
Vertical Resolution	44 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:02 20:19:49
Image Width	10248
Image Height	6744

File: gr.jpg (853 KB, 1980x1320)

853 KB JPG

Trying Ultramax for the first time and it's a lot grainier than I perhaps expected - is this normal or have I fucked the development somehow?

File: KARSUMXSEP23215 (2).jpg (3.12 MB, 1327x2000)

3.12 MB JPG

>>4365190
Highlights look kinda normal to me but the shadows are pretty mushy, but might just be the scanner trying to lift the shadows. Did you use unsharp mask or something? I highly recommend using high pass instead with grainier stuff. Pic related is Ultramax, I find it quite serviceable for murky forest photos when you can't be assed with a tripod.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	44 dpi
Vertical Resolution	44 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:13 10:30:59
Image Width	6757
Image Height	10169

>>4365198
It's a camera scan, but thanks anon I might redo the roll and pay a bit more attention - that's a very clean scan, especially handheld.

File: W45KG2SPT2319c.jpg (4.33 MB, 2000x3000)

4.33 MB JPG

>>4365202
Ever since I found the 1.2/50 MD lying around at a flea market I've defaulted to it and Ultramax for 35mm walkaround stuff, just does everything and can handheld even in shit conditions. Ultramax is lovely stuff and I don't really see any reason to pay extra for Portra 400 at least in my leaf and rock realm. Pic unrelated, just another 6x9 shit off the assembly line.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	457 dpi
Vertical Resolution	457 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:26 18:50:29
Image Width	14078
Image Height	20858

File: W45KG2SPT2326c.jpg (1.99 MB, 2000x2667)

1.99 MB JPG

My camera went off by accident I swear.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	452 dpi
Vertical Resolution	452 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:26 19:29:44
Image Width	14284
Image Height	20976

>>4365229
>Ever since I found the 1.2/50 MD lying around at a flea market
Wish I had this sort of luck, I am pretty happy with my MD 50mm f/1.4 tho

Why isn't it possible to make digital look exactly like film?

>>4365257
Because you need to compress an engineer's interpolated reality scan down into an artistic reality impression

File: W45KG2SPT2331c.jpg (3.52 MB, 2000x3000)

3.52 MB JPG

>>4365246
Yeah it's a crazy stroke of luck, rarely ever happens. Usually just some garbage 3rd party zooms placed in glass cabinets like ancient treasures.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	460 dpi
Vertical Resolution	460 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:26 20:24:33
Image Width	14198
Image Height	20391

File: 449847658_800627968274515(...).jpg (149 KB, 1080x1350)

149 KB JPG

What do we think of grainydays? I like the videos but the subject matter of his photos is usually boring(abandoned buildings). Everything is technically fine but is lacking in humanity for me.
https://youtu.be/ltMHgHFee0k

>>4365269
i call that camera reviewer photography

>>4365269
that is one really nice photo tho

>>4364981
i like this rambling boomer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848X0c2NlCQ

File: developping_kit.jpg (410 KB, 1246x846)

410 KB JPG

Brasil anon updates
my stuff, including chemicals, came through the TSA just fine
>fuck the police
now I just gonna finish the roll in my camera and test the whole thing
there's also a changing bag that's not in the image
any tips for a first time home development?
also new to Rodinal
I've developped D-76, C-41 and ECN-2 a couple times before, but in a lab, never at my own home

Fm2n vs fm3a if I want a camera that will last longer than me?

>>4365269
>Everything is technically fine
I see people say shit like this all the time, who fucking cares jesus. everyone's phone is a light meter, we have 200 years nearly of photographic tradition to build on with charts and tables and INFORMATION about EV and zones and film speed and apertures and so much more.
if you're taking a static picture of static objects the bare minimum is it being in focus and properly exposed, why do people post inane shit like "oh well it isn't overexposed and blurry but for some reason I don't like it????" are you literally a robot or is your brain so addled from gearfagging and comparing youtube literally whos that you never bothered to consider the importance of composition or subject matter?

>>4365288
Practice outside of the bag first, then just keep your eyes closed then do it in the bag, then do it with the real thing. You can skip steps if you feel comfortable, of course. Don't forget your scissors also!

keep inversions really gentle as well.

>>4365271
Photographer response, the decisive shitpost

>>4365297
Anti-gear gearfag response with prerequisite tldr length and anger as mandated by the gearfag code of conduct

>>4365296
if you want something that'll outlast you, it has to be mechanical
the thing is, the FM3A is pretty much a hybrid
so it's mostly about whether you want to use the aperture priority mode and such forever (which may fail in the future, but the camera will still be completely operational apart from those modes)
I recently bought a FM2 and I'm liking it a lot
it's way cheaper, and I don't like electronics
if aperture priority is important for you, then get the FM3A
if not, I'd go for the FM2n

File: KARSKG2SUM2415.jpg (2.61 MB, 1289x2000)

2.61 MB JPG

>>4365269

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8200i
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	44 dpi
Vertical Resolution	44 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:11 21:30:03
Image Width	6768
Image Height	10224

>>4365299
>Practice outside of the bag first
yes, will do!
I've inserted films in reels before but it was never that easy for me
also only ever used the metal ones, so I'll see how these plastic ones feel
>keep inversions really gentle as well
how's your process for Rodinal? I've seen many different ways people do it

>>4365307
>gay
Lol

>>4365311
I only use rodinal for semi stand, so 20c 1+100, 60 min dev. Pour, Smack the tank on a solid surface a few times to remove bubbles, 1 min of inversions to start and then about 10 at the 30 min mark.

You can dev different films and speeds all in the same tank.

Lower dilutions if you want more contrast.

man with film I really feel like I have to take some good photos, too bad I am trash
>do you want to pay $30 for 36 awful photos?
>yes pls lol

>>4365313
You don’t get bromide drag doing stand dev? I’ve done a few rolls now at 1;100 stand and everyone has had the streaks. Feels bad man

>>4365318
Depends on your highlights. Sometimes, but not too often.

>>4365316
Imagine paying 40-50 dollars per shot if you shoot 8x10 color. B&W is like 8-15 depending on the film choice. Totally worth it.

>>4365316
>$30
you are getting ripped of

>>4365313
>Lower dilutions if you want more contrast.
by lower dilution you mean more concentrated, right? like
>1:50 = more contrast
>1:100 = less contrast
>>4365321
regarding the drag mentioned by the other anon, I always did inversions by rotating the tank upside down
With this Paterson tank there's this little rod to shake the film reels counter- and clockwise
Ia there any practical difference in terms of drag or something else by doing each of these methods?
I like rotating it upside down because it feels like it's pretty much guaranteed that all the fluid will be completely redistribuited throughout the whole tank
I doubt there's any difference, the fluid will flow regardlessly, but I get way into my head sometimes and would like to do everything right and know stuff beforehand
(also hate wasting film)

>>4365338
Oops yeah. Higher concentration of rodinal = more contrast.

No clue about reducing bromide drag, but I have fucked up film by only using the stick thingy, so probably don't do that.

>>4365329
that's for film, development and scanning
of course there's some cheaper film and labs

>>4365342
>but I have fucked up film by only using the stick thingy, so probably don't do that.
that's enough arguments for me to just keep turning the whole thing upside down
thanks, man
I'll read more into the whole process with Rodinal, but as eager as I am I don't rush things
There's some 6 shots left in the rollei 35, so it'll probably be at least some 4 or 5 days for me to finish it
my other cameras are loaded with color film
so I'll have plenty of time to read about it
p.s.: no fucking way I'll wait until I finnish a second roll to develop them together though
I'll just fill the whole tank up and monoreel this shit

>>4365257
>Why isn't it possible to make digital look exactly like film?
I don't want to agree with the map poster but 99% of the "film look" are flaws from digitization. When I'm looking at high quality prints in a gallery I usually have to check the process. At the other end of the scale, it's pretty easy to Lomo-fy a 500p image. What I see on /p/ the most are film snapshits whose only redeeming feature is the "filmness" itself

>>4365384
>What I see on /p/ the most are film snapshits whose only redeeming feature is the "filmness" itself
Have you seen the shit people post in the recent photo thread or the Instagram thread? Not a single good photo anyway, film or digital

>get back two rolls
>like 5 shots from one and 9 from the other
I guess the hit rate is going up. going to go out again tonight to the observatory and SNAP. cranking the film advance lever, dialing in the aperture, twisting the focus to be just so, i'm fucking addicted bros

>>4365396
Yeah, I've been feeling the same. Just got my summer rolls after starting shooting in May and it's noticeable how the rate is going up. It's a shame that the Lab is kinda slow, 3 weeks per batch but it's nice to support a small lab.

8x10 evaporated rodinal macro shot if you want to see it >>4365443

if i have three old digi bodies that are retardedly overpriced on the used market these days because zoomers are literally retarded, am i just as retarded if i think it's a good idea to sell while they're inflated and buy an m6 so i can see what the fuss is about and then sell it down the road, given the m6 is probably more likely to hold more of its value than the digi bodies?

>>4365446
Go Konica Hexar imo. Better made and there is no way it's going to lose value.

>>4365450
>fully electric auto bing bing wahoo body
Good luck when your circuit boards die nerd

File: IMG10735.jpg (1.3 MB, 1919x2400)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4365396
>KACHUNK
>click
>BRRRRRRT

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:26 22:28:41
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	-2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1919
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>4365452
Yea you said that about Contax, Nikon F4/5/6 EOS1's etc etc and all are still going well. Also:
>implying you will ever shoot more than 10 rolls anyway before it gets dust on a shelf
Get real

>>4365455
Get a better prism, that one is shit. The Tamron-made SQ-i prism mogs it.

>>4365457
why should I get a better one, this one works
will it improve my photography?

>>4365455
Supremely based. Is that the SQ? Looks chunkier than my etrsi but I can’t really tell

File: IMG11193.jpg (1.19 MB, 1919x2400)

1.19 MB JPG

>>4365459
SQ-Ai
I've been shooting some color rolls since the first set of b&w I posted but not quite enough to develop yet (almost there)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1
Camera Software	darktable 4.8.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:26 22:39:09
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1919
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>4365458
It basically turns the camera into a Aperature priority SLR and it's a far nice viewfinder. Also that one you have on there looks like shit.

>>4365458
NTA but since you seem to like taking more photos of your Bronica, rather than with it, it might be nice pair it with the SQ-Ai's accessories rather than frankensteining it with old crap.

>>4365450
i actually thought seriously about that too but if this is an experiment i figured i may as well experiment with a brand i don't have a long term interest in so at least i have had the experience.

>>4365462
>rather than with it,
see >>4365460