This is the Film General Thread, aka the /fgt/.Please post film photos in this thread.It's ok to ask about film gear in this thread.>it's not gay to post in the /fgt/, unless you rock branded apparel from digital camera companiesold thread >>>4358702Thread Question:>What's your sickest piece of photo swag?
The X-700 is the best SLR ever made.
>>4363907Sony shill
>>4363907>muh souless jap scraptry a kine exakta sometime boyo
hehe, got 'em
>>4363907It'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 MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)100 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Brightness0.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1370Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4363916personally I just really like the feel of using an X-700and 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
>>4363916Pentax*
>>4363919the hipster choice
>>4363916You fucked that shot up, boy.
>>4363907Amen.
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 SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.2 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3072Image Height2048Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:21 12:27:41Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3072Image Height2048
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera Softwaredarktable 4.2.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:23 15:24:07Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height2420
And this one is what I'd consider my second best.
>>4363925fat pikachu best pikachu
>>4363928It'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.
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.
>>4363793>>4363836okay I think I might have figured out the problem?half of it was because I was saving as sRGBother half is the fact I don't have a profile for the 9000before, I was checking the slide by holding it up to a light with a different white point than any of my monitorsif I hold this slide up to the same screen I'm viewing this scan on, they look more or less identicalso 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)>>4363936no I mean the white balance of the scan not the photoI want to accurately record the film, regardless of how shitty it is[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelLS-9000Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:23 18:46:43Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1963Image Height1419
>>4363907Based
>>4363939not all these slides will be so forgiving thoughthis is my most successful attempt to get anything usable from this slidethe first time, the white cardboard mask reflected more scattered light from the scanner than the film let throughended up with a double-pass scan at 8x and 16x analog gain>inb4 who buys a 9000 to scan shitty 50yo family slidesthis is just all I have to test with right now[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNikonCamera ModelLS-9000Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:23 18:46:59Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1419Image Height1963
>>4363922I 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 MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7RM2Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)100 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Brightness0.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1431Image Height2048RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4363907X700 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.
>>43639391 second white balancing
>>4363954Green snow
>>4363954okay and?that's not what the original film looks like
>>4363957And that disgusting blue original is? Get a better film stock then
>>4363939>no I mean the white balance of the scan not the photoThe 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.
>>4363957heres a secret BIG EMULSION doesn't want you to know...film can look any way you want it to
>>4363964>>4363972they're fucking 50 years old and stored who knows howI'm trying to test whether the fucking scanner is working, not trying to get nice looking scans of these particular photos>>4363966this guy gets itcalibration is the next step
>>4363919Pentax is also just better than Minolta, yes.
Test shots on my new F1[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 7.42.004 (220216)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:07:29 15:51:52Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1565Image Height1037
Has anyone ever experimented with making unsharp masks in a darkroom setting?
>>4363942Love the tones
>>4363756You're assuming I post anywhere else than 4chan?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution458 dpiVertical Resolution458 dpiImage Created2024:04:21 17:38:19Image Width13995Image Height20899
>>4364013very cozy anon, like it alot
>>4363640>>4364013Based digital photos with fake exif
>>4364016Suck my dick, choke on it.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-M5MarkIICamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5Color Filter Array Pattern17096Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2024:09:24 07:24:31Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3456Image Height4608RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormal
>>4364015Thanks breh[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution457 dpiVertical Resolution457 dpiImage Created2024:09:24 07:28:02Image Width14048Image Height20864
>>4363901[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width3130Image Height2075
>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 vignettinglife would be simpler if i stuck to 35mm but how can i go back after seeing those massive negs
>>4364072Just wait until you shoot your first 8x10 sheet.
>>4364036very based
>>4364072>life would be simpler if i stuck to 35mm but how can i go back after seeing those massive negsI'm the same anon, got a 6x9 and now 35mm just doesn't do it.
THE VOICES ARE TELLING ME TO BUY MORE EKTAR[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFujifilm eSystems, Inc.Camera ModelDigital LinkCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution95 dpiVertical Resolution95 dpiImage Created2024:09:19 21:48:22Color Space InformationsRGB
I fucking love Ektar
>>4364108>>4364110The first step is realizing you have an issue.
>>4363996Aside 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
>>4364072Similar 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
Jesus Christ how dead is this place these days[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution458 dpiVertical Resolution458 dpiImage Created2024:09:24 20:15:32Image Width13995Image Height20829
>>4364304calm down I am developing a roll
>>4364304>4 hours since last post>place is deadHoly ADHD, try /b/, /v/ or /pol/, they should be more up to your speed!
>>4364304It'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
>>4364313I 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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution457 dpiVertical Resolution457 dpiImage Created2024:09:24 21:47:24Image Width14048Image Height20885
>>4363907I 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.
>>4364072With 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.>>4364165Anything beyond 4800ppi will give you amazing results. It's not difficult to find scanners that reach 7200ppi for around 100-150$ brand new.
>>4364328O 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.
>>4364329if you know someone with a 3d printer you can get holders
>>4364324batteries last forever and you don't really have to turn it off as the battery only gets drained when you activate the metering
>>4364304>>4364314yeah so I don't have any amazing nature like that here anyway so there's nothing amazing to share
and doneHP5 at 1600, 13mins in stock (Ado)XTOLnegatives came out pretty dense>>4364314that'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 SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:
>>4364395Mucho contrasto
Man I want a RX-1 so bad, might take the plunge even tho it's way too expensiveI am curious about development tho, do labs have issues with panoramic shots on 35mm?
>>4364403Just get a linhof technorama 617 if you want to spend big bucks on a panoramic camera.
>>4364403typo, meant Fuji TX-1>>4364405now that's just ridiculous
>>4364328>>4364329>4800ppi>7200ppiyeah but what's their real resolution
>>4364408Depending 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
>>4364426Even funnier 4x10 could be cheaper yet.
>>4364329epson 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.
Is there a way to recover the dark areas? It was Gold 100 in a basement with a subpar flash.
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?
>>4364461Nope, if it's not burned into the film it's not there.
>>4364475I 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.
>>4364337Wouldn'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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution458 dpiVertical Resolution458 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 07:18:41Image Width20881Image Height13995
>>4364583Have you tried a uv filter?
>>4364585I'm not into paying money for things that do nothing on lenses manufactured after the early 60's.
>>4364587Are you going to post another extremely hazy landscape shot or what?
>>4364589Sorry 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.
>>43644244800/7200ppi. 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.
>>4364585A 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.
>>4364636Don't forget a GND for the horizon landscape shots
>>4364072Flatbeds are cheap
>>4364587What does that have to do with lenses?
>>4364636People started saying this when digital cameras became common, which almost all have builtin UV filtersin the film days they actually did something. Or so they say, I never use one and never did any side by side comparison
>>4364635doubt.jpgscanners 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 scannersso even with multi-sampling, because the photosites are so large, you basically just get a smear down the moving axislooked up the v850 just to make sure I wasn't being completely retarded, Epson says it has a 4800x9600dpi hardware resolutionthey 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 picrelnow 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 SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 12.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width4177Image Height4589Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2015:05:15 10:18:16Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width272Image Height288
>>4363907lollmao even
>>4364635stop smoking crack my dude
>>4364110I fucking love Sheboygan
>>4364681They 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.
>>4364696Assuming 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.
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 MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 20:56:05Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height849Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4364857I did a Gilden[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 20:54:07Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width848Image Height1280Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4364858[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 20:58:22Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width848Image Height1280Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4364860This 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 MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.1 (iOS)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 20:54:42Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width848Image Height1280Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4364858>making bald wagecucks uncomfortable and capturing that on filmmmm 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.
>>4364857could have been interesting but it's lacking something>>4364858and just like Gilden it's yet another boring photo that tells nothingit's just a regular guy in a regular environmentabsolutely forgettable>>4364860pinterestbut it's cute>>4364861there seems to be a good amount of light and could have been a pretty touching portraitget your shutter fixed, because this could have been at least 1/125" and half the aperture to get a softer background and no motion blurit 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 MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6000Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.5 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 16:27:50Exposure Time1/80 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Brightness1.4 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4364857This one could have worked with better framing, but it seems you kinda tunnel visioned on the green shirt man.Two suggestionsLook at bro cutting up fish with these rich people yachts in the background.OrLook at all these fish workers doing things in a compositionally pleasing way.
>>4364513>>4364475At 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 realiseThis 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
>>4364696Hm 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.
>>4364861Cute, what’s his name?
aforementioned HP5 1600 in XTOLsome 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 MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D610Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern844Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 23:02:00Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4364893>Gives you a handy>Rips off your cock
>>4364898I 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 MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D610Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.0 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern844Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 23:22:17Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4364893>>4364900born 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 coolvirgins as shit
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.
>>4364915
>>4364904>under 30s dont know what ugly bitches look likethey 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)
>>4364915Definitely had fun hiking with it, looking forward to fall trips
>>4364915Use a smaller aperture.
>>4363907For 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 MakeGoogleCamera ModelPixel 7 ProCamera SoftwareHDR+ 1.0.540104767zdhSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)24 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.9Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2936Image Height2268Image Created2024:09:25 16:02:33Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiISO Speed Rating287Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramF-Numberf/1.9Exposure Time4167/100000 secSubject Distance RangeMacroSharpnessNormalFocal Length6.81 mmFlashNo Flash, CompulsorySaturationNormalContrastNormalMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageScene Capture TypeStandardSubject Distance0.21 mExposure Bias0 EVImage Height2268White BalanceAutoBrightness-0.2 EVImage Width4032Exposure ModeAutoLens Aperturef/1.9Color Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustom
>>4364932For 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.
>>4364936Depending on the lens you will get sharper images at like f5.6-f8 if you can keep the camera steady.
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.
>>4364583>>4364314how do you get such smooth clouds. every time i scan the clouds come out grainy like this.Fuji superia 200
>>4364958I went to watch the video just because you posted itnever 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 onesthe 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 topthe 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 courseFinding 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 buttonbut almost always they look like they could have been more interesting than they really are had he waited a little moremany of them seem hastyalright, take the photo right away not to lose whatever is happening, but then wait and get a good one for sure afterit seems like the majority of them lack input from himand 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 producesbut 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 aroundyes, he has some great shots, and some very good ones toobut they're mostly just well donelike, 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 timeanyway stop watching youtubers and go shoot
the bad part of getting a new camera is testing itcurtains were kinda fucked already, got worse in this last roll, and then the motordrive finally destroyed itleft the camera at the repair shop last week, it'll be ready in the nextwell, 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 MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.5 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 23:13:48Exposure Time1/50 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Brightness1.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4364976>faulty camera turns snapshit into kinomany such cases
>>4364979and his name is Nino>kino nino
>>4364958i exclusively watch videos from boomers. none of this le vibe nonsense
>>4364971Bigger 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 SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 19:36:47Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4364985these 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/1.8Is 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4908Image Height3276Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:09:25 21:44:49
>>4364889I don't think it's so much upscaling as it is intentionally over-optimistic presentation of the optical designbasically 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 numberthose 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>>4364936that pic looks perfectly fine>>4364987what size filmafter a certain point more dpi doesn't help film photos, the grain is part of the physical film
>>4364987Drop 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 SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 20:07:57Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4364995They're all soft.
>>436499535mmlens may had fungus in it, i dont remember. it was an old screw thread lens.>>4364996ok 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4908Image Height3276Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:09:25 21:19:30
>>4364997they look fine for 35 scanned with an unknown method>>4364999fungus shouldn't matter for grain sizethe grain looks a bit large for 35, what film stock?
>>4365000the negs just say fuji 200, but it could be superia, or whatever budget rolls you'd find at a walmart in 2013idk why the EXIF says 72dpi Silverfast says its scanning at 3600[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4908Image Height3276Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:09:25 21:42:05
>>436500172dpi 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
>>4365000I 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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.1.1 (Android)Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2024:01:22 00:08:01Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4364314Man I must get back to Finland.
>>4364971They'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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution457 dpiVertical Resolution457 dpiImage Created2024:09:25 21:56:22Image Width14048Image Height20863
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.
>>4364958I 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>>4364994Link 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 dudsAm I a real photographer now?
>>4365073I 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 bookslmao, look at this nerdWhich ones do you recommend?
>>4364889>plusteks only provide 50% of the claimed dpiThere 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8200iCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.36Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution852 dpiVertical Resolution852 dpiImage Created2024:09:26 07:55:08Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4365151>There is definitely more detail in my 7200 dpi scans than 3600My 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.
>>4365068do 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>>4365153when 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8100Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width4908Image Height3276Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2024:09:25 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 goodIt's a Fujifilm Frontier SP3000, I like the results from it.
>>4365151>>4365153make sure your downsampling method doesn't also apply a sharpening effectfor a fair comparison that is, if you like the results feel free to use it
>>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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8200iCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution44 dpiVertical Resolution44 dpiImage Created2023:11:02 20:19:49Image Width10248Image Height6744
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?
>>4365190Highlights 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 MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8200iCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution44 dpiVertical Resolution44 dpiImage Created2024:01:13 10:30:59Image Width6757Image Height10169
>>4365198It'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.
>>4365202Ever 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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution457 dpiVertical Resolution457 dpiImage Created2024:09:26 18:50:29Image Width14078Image Height20858
My camera went off by accident I swear.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution452 dpiVertical Resolution452 dpiImage Created2024:09:26 19:29:44Image Width14284Image Height20976
>>4365229>Ever since I found the 1.2/50 MD lying around at a flea marketWish 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?
>>4365257Because you need to compress an engineer's interpolated reality scan down into an artistic reality impression
>>4365246Yeah 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 MakeEPSONCamera ModelPerfection V800Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution460 dpiVertical Resolution460 dpiImage Created2024:09:26 20:24:33Image Width14198Image Height20391
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
>>4365269i call that camera reviewer photography
>>4365269that is one really nice photo tho
>>4364981i like this rambling boomerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848X0c2NlCQ
Brasil anon updatesmy stuff, including chemicals, came through the TSA just fine>fuck the policenow I just gonna finish the roll in my camera and test the whole thingthere's also a changing bag that's not in the imageany tips for a first time home development?also new to RodinalI'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 fineI 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?
>>4365288Practice 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.
>>4365271Photographer response, the decisive shitpost>>4365297Anti-gear gearfag response with prerequisite tldr length and anger as mandated by the gearfag code of conduct
>>4365296if you want something that'll outlast you, it has to be mechanicalthe thing is, the FM3A is pretty much a hybridso 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 lotit's way cheaper, and I don't like electronicsif aperture priority is important for you, then get the FM3Aif not, I'd go for the FM2n
>>4365269[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePlustekCamera ModelOpticFilm 8200iCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.6Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution44 dpiVertical Resolution44 dpiImage Created2024:09:11 21:30:03Image Width6768Image Height10224
>>4365299>Practice outside of the bag firstyes, will do!I've inserted films in reels before but it was never that easy for mealso only ever used the metal ones, so I'll see how these plastic ones feel>keep inversions really gentle as wellhow's your process for Rodinal? I've seen many different ways people do it
>>4365307>gayLol
>>4365311I 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
>>4365313You 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
>>4365318Depends on your highlights. Sometimes, but not too often.>>4365316Imagine 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>$30you 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>>4365321regarding the drag mentioned by the other anon, I always did inversions by rotating the tank upside downWith this Paterson tank there's this little rod to shake the film reels counter- and clockwiseIa 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 tankI 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)
>>4365338Oops 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.
>>4365329that's for film, development and scanningof 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 downthanks, manI'll read more into the whole process with Rodinal, but as eager as I am I don't rush thingsThere'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 itmy other cameras are loaded with color filmso I'll have plenty of time to read about itp.s.: no fucking way I'll wait until I finnish a second roll to develop them together thoughI'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" itselfHave 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 otherI 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
>>4365396Yeah, 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?
>>4365446Go Konica Hexar imo. Better made and there is no way it's going to lose value.
>>4365450>fully electric auto bing bing wahoo bodyGood luck when your circuit boards die nerd
>>4365396>KACHUNK>click>BRRRRRRT[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-1Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:26 22:28:41Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1919Image Height2400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>>4365452Yea 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 shelfGet real
>>4365455Get a better prism, that one is shit. The Tamron-made SQ-i prism mogs it.
>>4365457why should I get a better one, this one workswill it improve my photography?
>>4365455Supremely based. Is that the SQ? Looks chunkier than my etrsi but I can’t really tell
>>4365459SQ-AiI'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 MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.Camera ModelPENTAX K-1Camera Softwaredarktable 4.8.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)70 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:09:26 22:39:09Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating2000Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1919Image Height2400RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeClose View
>>4365458It 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.
>>4365458NTA 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.
>>4365450i 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
>>4365458>this one works>will it improve my photography?based>>4365461>that one you have on there looks like shit>It basically turns the camera into a Aperature priority SLRthe based photography-centered chad vs. the gearfag virgingo suck a dick, consoomer pleb lmfao