>>4385613
that is not color plus mang

File: da twikwome.jpg (995 KB, 667x1000)

995 KB JPG

that is not trichrome foma

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2536
Image Height	3674
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:29 00:30:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	667
Image Height	1000

>>4385613
based cheap filmfag. Not like most will even notice the diff, including yourself.

>>4385624
I kneel

>>4385624

holy shit, had to google, amazing you can do this with black and white film.

>>4385624
Holy based.

>>4385613
It literally is colour plus, its the same film

>>4385613
It's definitely really good, but saying its better that portra is a cope

>>4385644

na ultramax is brighter, hence the name, i think ultramax they just boosted contrast and colors.
Portra is much flatter to allow it to work in more lighting situations.
Colorplus is somewhere in between.
I like colorplus as well, it takes nice photos, just ultramax is better.

Kodak 250D is the best colour film

>>4385632
>amazing you can do this with black and white film
How the fuck is it amazing

>>4385654

Lets see your shot combining 3 black and white photos on a film camera together for a trichrome shot?

For me, it's pro image 100

File: scan0116.jpg (3.86 MB, 2000x1367)

3.86 MB JPG

>>4385613

here is an ultramax i am editing right now.
It has a ton of dynamic range, more than enough.
and yes im aware its a touch purple, i kind of like it with that tone.

god I am so fucking jelous

>>4385887

of what?

>>4385885
I was out taking some photos a few weeks ago when some old boomer dudes stopped me to ask me about my camera. they were amazed someone was shooting film in 2024 and started talking about the gear they used to have. one guy turns to the other and says "fuji or kodak? I always liked fuji, the green felt more natural to me than everything being so fuckin blue and purple and yellow on kodak." the other guy just laughed and said he just bought whatever was on sale and didn't think much of it since it was about the same. they were both disappointed when I told them that as far as I know fuji now just sells kodak stock under its branding

anyway thanks for reading my blog you mentioning the purple made me laugh thinking about that old guy

>>4385910

its fuji that makes stuff purple, its either green or purple.
Kodak portra makes stuff blue, kodak gold makes stuff yellow. Ultramax can kinda just do any of those things lol.

>>4385910
I was working at the farmers market selling eggs and chicken meat. I noticed a guy with a leica slung around his neck. I said nice camera to him and he just nodded and kept walking. Is this the common experience with leica lickers?

>>4385929
From my experience of owning a leica for like 6 months, people stop you to talk about it way too often, like cmon its just a camera.

At least the context is positive, unlike point n shoots where I've gotten stopped by people asking me what the hell I'm doing while taking photos of neon signs.

>>4385930
Some ass had a nikon rangefinder and I tried showing him my contax T3 thinking we were film bros and he gave the camera to his friend while he continued talking to me thinking I was going to pull some shit. I chuckle about the memory now.

I think it was digital leica, so the convo would not have been in his favor anyways. If only Leica owners were more like people who owned interesting dog breeds. They're always down to chat for a moment.

>>4385929
To be fair, if anyone came up to me while I was buying eggs and shit and commented about any of my cameras I'd wonder why the fuck this random person is talking to me.

>>4385934
You misunderstand. Mr.LeicaGodofWorld was walking through a small farmers market and as he walked past me and my egg stall we make eye and say nice camera/I like your camera. He just nods his head weirdly and keeps on walking.

Someone with my favorite breed of dog that's quite rare walked past me and I almost ran up to them to ask where they got their dog from, but my gf wasn't there so I couldn't leave the stall. I'm still in pain from the missed opportunity to pet their dog and ask them if they got it somewhat locally.

>>4385934
I've only seen a Saluki 2-3 times in the wild, and I've never before have I had the opportunity to actually interact with one before. :(

>>4385936
dude just sounds like an asshole but i get him, sometimes u just dont wanna talk

>>4385940
I get him as well, but he dissapointed me, especially as a fellow nice camera appreciator. Us filmfags should stick together. I mean some random chicken farmer noticing your leica camera surely sounds like a cool opportunity to take some dope pictures. Poor guy was probably too focused on taking pics of people's backs and building corners.

File: 20210507 Some of my favou(...).jpg (369 KB, 2048x1381)

369 KB JPG

>>4385936
>>4385937
never beating the allegations, DESU

>>4385950
I love this picture, but you would not catch me DEAD with a view camera on a tripod like that, OR using a ball head. YUCK.

>>4385950
This is actually huskyfag aka cinefag

He likes confusing schizos by throwing up 50 different falseflags

Ultramax, together with ektar, colorplus and portra 800 is okay if you like garish flaming garbage colors and to please niggers whose brain is wired to favor everything tacky in the world
Nothing will ever come to Portra 160 and 400
Only thing close to it is Kodak gold which is budget portra with stronger color casts

>>4386124

Why would I pay more for less colour and contrast? Just like color and save a ton of money from avoiding portras meme pastel wedding look.

>>4386129
It doesn't need to be pastel looking if you shoot it at the right iso. Vision-3 films are the best and most affordable color negative films anyways.

>>4386124
>muh portra
>muh gold
this nigger faggot has never shot real Fujifilm in his life and it shows

File: sergei-mikhailovich-proku(...).jpg (546 KB, 1600x1383)

546 KB JPG

>>4385658
Bruh

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1383

>>4386405
Damn I didn't know Sergey Prokudin-Gorski himself came back to life and started posting here.

portra 400 is the ugliest. Overrated film

>>4386428
white man posted this

>>4386422
Shows what little you know.

>>4386447
bro really decided to be hateful on a Laotian boat making forum

I shoot Portra 400 at ISO 200 on a Nikon FM2.

>>4386486
It is not hate. It is tough love.

>>4386514
I could never tell the difference.

>>4385950
I own both those boardgames
And a Leica M4
I'm not a furry, though.

E100 is the only color film worth shooting

>Doesn't degrade over time
>Amazing colors
>Fine grain

It can be a bit blue but overall it mogs anything else that's color.

>>4387226
that's exactly what a furry would say

>>4387231
takes one to know one

>>4387230
for me its Provia
but it seems like they don't make that shit anymore :(
Ektachrome it is then.

File: 14536400094_3bb1d92c0f_k.jpg (1.07 MB, 2048x1289)

1.07 MB JPG

How well does it handle push processing?
+1 stop doable?
+2 stops?
pic related is supposedly developed at +2 but shot at 1250

>>4385613
its not bad at all, but i swear portra 400 has a lot of exposure tolerance. I feel like thats the only reason to shoot it lol. You could probabily match the tonez of ultramax to it easily with a decent digital scan and filtah.

>>4386447
lol

>>4385624
that came out pretty good, nice job

>>4388292
>supposedly
says who? I think it looks nice in that shot, more examples would be nice

>>4388349
some guy on flickr

>>4388446
Now that I think about it that has got to be like one good result from a largely shitty roll, underexposing by over 2 stops should give a worse average result than that.

It might be worth testing anyway

>>4388465
he wasn't underexposing, he was pushing it
overexposing/underexposing = no development correction
pushing = londer dev time
pulling = shorter dev time

>>4388466
>he wasn't underexposing
Explain to me how shooting a 400 speed film at 1250 isn't underexposing it...I know what pushing and pulling are

>>4388467
well I think it's important to differentiate between underexposing without any additional processing and extending the dev time to compensate
with black and white film no one uses "underexposing" as a stand in for "pushing" either

>>4388467
400 pushed two stops is 1600
it's actually overexposed if metered for 1250, negs will be denser than 400 exposed at 400 at least in theory

>>4388490
Whoops you're right, still, in my experience 400 shot at 800 and pushed or developed normally already will get you some muddy shots, shooting at 1250 I can only assume is worse.

But I've also seen a few examples of 400 speed film at 800 and 1600 and pushed 1 or 2 stops that turned out really well.

>>4388471
Well yeah, I know that, I'm just surprised that shot came out well since a lot of times you'll see color film shot even at box speed and it still comes out underexposed and ugly

>>4385624
Absolute kinó

>>4388594
i really need to do some more shit like this, need to get new filters though
mite do medium format next for dat 900 megapickle res

>>4385613
Yesbut
in a dick sucking contest between UM, Ektar & spankynuts5000, how much fucking fun is it to correct for all the negative "character" on every image when you digitize them? Or doesn't it matter bc every image is just the result of the artist making myriad choices to create an image that they choose to represent what they hope to communicate by its creation, with any real bearing on realism completely arbitrarily interpreted and chosen or not. Further, what is the sound of one hand clapping, what is the sound of a butt cheek flapping? Bc it's these little things, o these little things, that piss me off.

File: raw0004.jpg (1.57 MB, 1000x1500)

1.57 MB JPG

>>4388627
dont correct for anything, harman phoenix is the way forward

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3888
Image Height	2592
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:05 02:18:09
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500

>>4388629
ur shits be real backwurdz sir

File: harman.jpg (4.76 MB, 1657x2500)

4.76 MB JPG

>>4388629
based harman green appreciator

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

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

>>4388629
>>4388642
it just looks so crispy, and not in a good way

File: harmann.jpg (3.54 MB, 1651x2500)

3.54 MB JPG

>>4388647
i kinda like the punchy really rough grain, and after all it's a prototype, its not really intended to compete with sharp/smooth/flat Kodak...
But please show some 'good crisp' i'm very curious

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

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

>>4385613
I shot ultramax recently, the scans look very digicam,

>>4385613
portra 160nc was the best kodak film

>>4391181
thats just regular 160, unless nc was even more neutral which is gag-worthy to even think about

>>4391181
>Portra
>160
>nc
dunning kruger photography

File: Screen Shot 2024-12-11 at(...).png (217 KB, 1364x342)

217 KB PNG

>>4391264
>>4391279

>>4391286
yes I understand you either long for the even more dogshit 160 or just like the (still dogshit) modern 160 and I believe you are just plain stupid

you don't think you are stupid
but you are

I have been saying that for years, that's all I shoot. Well, now I do a lot of Phoenix 200 too.

>>4391290
based vibrant film enjoyer

>>4391289
okay retard lmao

File: da94fa220fc035e93913305fe(...).jpg (58 KB, 800x800)

58 KB JPG

>>4391292
>no u
kek, way to prove me right

>>4391286
I don't understand your point please elaborate.

>>4391298
>no u

>>4391264
i used to like you until you uttered that opinion

>>4391300
If your approval of me was teetering on such a thin edge that my preference of film is enough to swing it, I don't need it.
I love modern Portra 160 btw.

>>4391306
you crave the approval of others.

who the hell cares anyways
proimage 100 mogs portra 160

File: needmana.png (444 KB, 436x474)

444 KB PNG

>>4391308
Real men crave the satisfaction of another man's touch as they send a right hook into your jaw in the middle of a street fight
feetfucker here is more of a flaccid, yet interesting /p/ contributer. Not a man per-se but more like a sponge with a funny colour to it.

File: topo.jpg (516 KB, 2232x1464)

516 KB JPG

>>4391314
>>4385692
luv me proimage, cheap and beautiful stock

>>4391344
woah how did you get colours like that from proimage

File: flower.jpg (493 KB, 2232x1464)

493 KB JPG

>>4391346
shoot at box speed, have the old asian lady at the local lab develop and scan it in a probably three decade old fuji scanner

File: dog2.jpg (430 KB, 2232x1464)

430 KB JPG

>>4391347
actually some of these might have been overexposed by 1/3 or 2/3 a stop if i'm thinking about it

File: rider.jpg (623 KB, 2232x1464)

623 KB JPG

>>4391348

File: sky2.jpg (612 KB, 2232x1464)

612 KB JPG

>>4391349
ok enough snapshits thank you for your time I hope you will consider proimage 100 in your future film endeavors and post some shots with it

File: raw0006.jpg (1 MB, 1042x1500)

1 MB JPG

>>4391347
ive shot proimage at box speed before and i got this horrible washed out look, the only time i got nice colours out of it was when I shot it at 800 and pushed it in development, picrel

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	LS-2000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:01:27 22:33:52
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1042
Image Height	1500

>>4391314
i was just about to load up some expired proimage today. it's the only color film my local shop sells by the box

>>4385613
okay, but what 35mm color film should I use if I want to take grainy 70s and 80s looking photos?

There are probably some lomo films or something, but those cost as much as 3 rolls of ultramax for a single roll. Expired film is also more expensive than buying 3-packs of "Fuji 400" (aka Ultramax), on sale.

Does anyone know if the cheap Fuji 200 and 400 films (which are actually just Gold and Ultramax now) can produce something grainier like an older film formulation? Underexposing, pushing, pulling, whatever?

if you really want to grainmax:
>take canister of your film of choice
>bake it in the oven to simulate aging and damage from decades of improper storage
>put it in a half-frame camera
>take every shot from twice the distance you're framing for
>make sure you're underexposing by at least three stops
>during development push it three stops and don't forget to expose the film to as extreme a temperature shock as you can manage so as to ensure reticulation
>crop in to the resulting images by 2x to compensate for the distance you shot them at
>enjoy your fresh batch of sand portraits

>>4391903
Colorplus

>>4385910
I'm still mad that fuji discontinued most of their stock, I liked the green.

>>4391911
Easier version of this would be to shoot delta 3200 in half frame and stand developing in rodinal

File: DSCF9621.jpg (4.7 MB, 5939x3981)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4388629
>>4388647
Yeah it's weird, the halation in the highlights is interesting but the colors are just fucked

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: DSCF0489.jpg (2.87 MB, 5664x3717)

2.87 MB JPG

>>4391911
also mix dick cheese in your developer

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T30
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	94 dpcm
Image Created	2024:12:05 18:01:08
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown