Please post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.old thread: >>4460704I just copied and pasted the old OP because no one would bake a new breadThread Question: To what extent do you digitally edit your film scans?
>>4464845I'm just going to dump some off the rest of this roll so the thread doesn't feel so empty and unwelcoming. Like, "come in, anon, we'd love to have you"
>>4464853One more after this
>>4464858Don't talk to me or my son ever again
>>4464845Why u make nu?
>>4464914Oh wow it hit image limit. Good job fgt.
>>4464916Thank you ngr
>>4464845>Thread Question: To what extent do you digitally edit your film scans?As little as possible
Ilford hp5+ shot at 200 iso is really nice for portraits.
Look at this insane camera thats been on ebay for a couple weeks. Would you buy it? Thoughts on the design?
>>4465265I saw one of these operate once I think, at least I think it's the same one. They're insanely rare and actually really well spec'd especially for the time. It's a very impressive design. I would be hesitant to buy one though as I'm sure something as old and complex as that is really fragile and hard to fix, and it's also probably really hard to sell since so few people know about them and they're not from a well known brand.
i heart b&w
>>4465266Only 4000 were produced. They are the smallest 35mm camera ever made, but don't shoot normal 135. They can do 35mm sheets and these tiny 35mm rolls that are like 120 spools, but tiny. It has an analog light meter on it, rangefinder, ground glass and a zone focusing guide. Shoots up to 1/500th. Super nifty lil cameras that were made by a watch company.I like cool cameras, but I would want to use it as well.
Please enjoy this exceptionally boring landscape shot I took. Just look at that edge effect! Yowza!
Does anyone else go through their photos and try to remember the situation or story that made you take the shot?>Be at the Nathans Hot dog eating contest in Brooklyn NY>Packed crowd, hundreds of people all around >Police barricades prevent us from leaving except wading through a crowd of thousands >It's nearly noon and the sun is beating down>There's a feeling of stress in the air>Man with a bicycle pushes himself through>im_walkin_here.mp3>He lifts his bike up in the air>Hoists it onto his shoulder>The back tire is hitting people in the crowd as there's no way to escape>He's pushing through and nearly at the end of the crowd>Reaches the police barricade and starts to jump over>Cop runs over and tells him to stop immediately >AYO I GOT MY BIKE AND->Cop completely disregards him and says to turn back around>man does a walk of shame back through the crowd
>>4465294The main reason I took up film photography as a hobby was because I was going through my grandpa's slide collection and I realised we collectively lost something when shooting film became an optional part of taking photos. Making records of your memories is such a fundamentally human thing, we want to have things that remind us of where we've been and what we felt, and we also want to leave things behind after we're gone. If the photos you take are mixed in with a thousand random images on your camera roll, or they're on a memory card or a server farm somewhere in china, it's really not the same as if they were in an album you can take off the shelf and flip through. My grandpa has been dead for 20 years and I barely remember him as a person, but there's a box full of thousands of photos of the world he lived in, and I really felt like going through them was an indirect form of communication from him to me, and I think that's cool and that we should all leave some photographs behind.
>>4464863Do yall dev as c41 or proper ecn2? Seems like I get some odd colors in c41 but idk if that's normal for vision3.>>4465336I like this look a lot, I got a few rolls I'm excited to shoot, but expensive shipped from europe. I suspect it's the same as kono color 200 which is sold in bulk rolls but it's not that much cheaper. It looks a lot like phoenix2 too so maybe I should just shoot that.
>>4465383My vision 3 rolls are all the new AHU stock without the remjet, so I just develop in c41, but I did also buy a batch of ecn2 chems so I'll try that at some point just to see if it's any different. From what I've heard the ecn2 developer is a bit less "potent" so to speak, so you'd get less contrast which makes sense for a film designed to be scanned. Honestly, the scans I posted have somewhat weird colours because I had affinity photo set to a dark background and it was fucking with my vision, and I also accidentally exported in adobe rgb. I'm not a fan of now flat they scan, I almost feel like I'm editing digital raws. Idk how some people get such amazing colours out of 250D, maybe they just edit the shit out of their scans.Opticolour on the other hand is great, I think it's my new favourite film stock. I just do a basic inversion, adjust the blue and green curves until it stops looking blue yellow pink, whatever, man, and I immediately like the colours. I like the halation too, it's subtle and doesn't feel gimmicky like cinestill 800T. I meter it as if it was a 125-160 speed slide film because I feel like real ISO is around that, just like with phoenix. Google says kono color 200 is the same emulsion
Some old photos for fun>>4465294I was hanging out with a friend and this random black dude then this guy in a diaper walks right by. I wonder if he lost a bet or something...
>>4465533
>>4465534
>>4465535
>>4465538
>>4465539
>>4465540
>>4465541End.
>>4464845>I just copied and pasted the old OP because no one would bake a new breadthen do it properly and post in the last thread that there's a new one and redirect people to this one because no one's gonna guess italso bring back the stickyanyway I'll make the next thread, don't worry
>>4465545Thanks dad!
Gave my OM-1 to a friend and now I need another 35mm cause my RZ67 is a little unruly walking around. My mind says Nikon F3 but my heart says M6.
>>4465535I loike it. What happened to the negative?>>4465541If the box of marlboro was sharp this could be an ad>>4465558Don't fall for the leica bait, anon. >F3Have you had one before? I love my FA but I'm thinking of getting a second body just so I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often, and getting another FA just feels like a missed opportunity to satisfy my desire for a new shiny thing. I've been looking at the FM3A but the F3 looks nice too, especially with the removable eyepiece, it could be like a little baby RZ with the wlf
>>4465547no worries, sonare you winning?
Shout out to mannequin anon.>>4465636No clue what happened to the negative, but it was a happy accident. Could have been improper loading of film, or maybe a double exposure or maybe both. Cant remember.>>4465638Yes. Another pig is in labor and she built a wonderful nest to give birth in. I think this pig will be a lot better than the last one that tried to give birth. Thank you.
>>4465558I started shooting on a OM-1, also have a RZ, and now M6.Also have a F2, its a great camera, very solid, but once you pay the red dot tax its hard to go back. Its not so much the flex, but just how small and easy it is to use, its unironically the last mechanical 35mm you will ever need. If you have the spare coin, get it. You can always get your money back if you don't like it.
>>4465636>>4465667I’m one of those retards that needs what my heart wants otherwise deep down I won’t like it. Even the Mamiya felt like a cope at first till I took it on a trip and realized it was a kino machine. Think the decision now is to decide what specific version I want. Leaning toward the reissue just cause it’s new and the MP glass, brass and lightmeter. My only qualm here is I’m trying to save money for traveling. $1000 here or there could almost pay for an entire trip.
>>4465699Honestly, anon, if a few thousand dollars is saving up tier money to you, dropping 3k or however much an m6 is on a 35mm film camera is a bit silly. Especially if you live in a place where 1k will pay for a trip. I live in a very remote place and I have to pay thousands just to get anywhere that isn't the fucking desert.I know they're smol but it's not like most film slrs are big either, and they'll take the same photo anyway. And film gets expensive too, even if you mostly stick to budget film stocks.I have an rz as well and it truly is kino, taking it out and framing a shot with it still feels like a sort of special occasion. I don't have any photos to share because I don't have a 120 scanner so I just never develop the 120 rolls lmao. I'm sitting on like 30 of them now
>>4465701dunno but I would rather buy minolta cle
>>4465701I should specify that by “save” I mean allocate my disposable income for the express purpose of taking a trip. If not it’ll just go to something else.
>>4465336This makes me want to get prints made.>>4465533>guy in a diaper walks right byI guess you could say he didn't give a shit xD
>>4465638She gave birth to 9 healthy piglets early this morning and she appears to be a great mom. We are doing her maternity shoot right now!
Put together a scanning, trying to find a way to manage the film feeding into and out of the film holder and advancer. Anyone know of a 3D printable solution? I almost want to learn blender to make something that works with the aluminum extrusion frame I used for the rig, but that's a time investment I'd like to avoid if there's an option already out there.
>>4465849Use autocad or another CAD program not blender.
>>4465860I should, just somewhat familiar with blender.
This is what I came up with to keep track of notes and test strips during a print session. Seems to keep things more streamlined compared to the scribbles I had before, but there's a prerequisite of scanning digitally (which I don't mind since I use that as proofing to filter out what's worth making a print of anyway).
>>4465950I just want you to know I know you're a fucking freak and I would make sure you stayed far far away from children if I ever found out I knew you irl
I'm going to say it, film is fucking trash, you will feel the fatigue after seeing more than 5 pics made on film
>>4465985It's funny, I don't get fatigued by seeing the same tropes on film again and again, but I do immediately swipe, close the tab, scroll past or otherwise skip whenever I see a peter mckinnonesque HSL slider maxxing lookinass dehaze filter lookinass luminance mask lookinass photo of a girl with her back turned walking towards a mountain or a lake.
>>4464845>To what extent do you digitally edit your film scans?1) invert using base color taken from a scan of the roll leader2) set post-inversion exposure & black point so the brightest & darkest areas are just barely starting to clip (something I've started doing for my digital photos recently too)3) if I really fucked up the exposure, apply a tone curve and see if I can rescue it, better a manipulated photo than no photo>>4465759oh hey I know exactly where that is lol>>4465950man fuck that, I just want to like take photobut hey I do like the results, so good on you
>>4466004nice, forgot my image
>>4466005What editor is that?
>>4466011darktable
>>4465648>>4465805cool pics and cool pigsglad to have built an identity with my ART
>>4466013
>>4466014>TQnegative film was meant for editing/processing before being printed, so I feel free to do a fair amount. I got a bunch of rolls of just expired wolfencolor film and have been shooting on it recently, it definitely feels like a film made with digital post-processing in mind. picrel is out of the scanner no correction inversion
>>4466016and my attempt at editing>>4466005I like darktable in theory but whenever I use it to invert negatives all the other settings get really fucky and I don't know why.
>>4466017>all the other settings get really fucky and I don't know whymodule ordernegadoctor defaults to after most of the normal modules, so stuff like exposure white balance etc. are invertedwhile that sounds backwards unfortunately there's no good default they can ship, since placing it before would then fuck with people who camera scan (in which case you might need two copies of some modules, one before & one after — imagine trying to explain that to users)re-ordering & creating new instances of modules is super easy though, I think a lot of complaints about darktable are people not knowing it's a thing you can donew instance is the little double square icon on a module header, reordering is ctrl-shift-drag (at least on mac)
>>4466019>>4466017I would suggest disabling sigmoid or filmic as well; those can really mess with the results.Typical scanned neg to positive procedure:-Turn off sigmoid/filmic-Whitebalance selecting an empty part of the sprocket hole showing the scanner white-Denoise-Monochrome-Lens correction-Crop to image area-Auto exposure; make sure that nothing is clipping-Turn off crop-In negadoctor, select film base color picking part of the rebate-Turn crop back on-Autoselect dMax, scan exposure bias, corrections, black point, exposure adjustments in negadoctor-Adjust contrast, etc. to taste from here.
>>4466037I do my scanning on a dedicated film scanner tiff so basically nothing is applied upon importjust input & output color profilesorientation is there because I have to scan 2/3 of my negatives upside-down because that's how stephan's holders workfor digital I use sigmoid
>>4466013Wow mannequin anon likes my pigs and my pics! What a great day! Im developing the pics I took of mama pig nursing right now. Ill have scans in some hours.
>>4466043That would greatly simplify things. I'm stuck with DSLR scanning for the time being`
>>4466052>DSLR scanningI wanna do this instead of paying to have my film scanned. Anything I should know?
>>4466066Get a macro lens if you don't have one. You can make do with extension rings, but your corners may be softer and lens correction becomes more important. Diffuse your light source, eliminate vibration (use timer or remote for your shutter control). Make sure you manage dust well; get an antistatic brush. Use your histogram to set your exposure and keep it the same for the entire roll. There are plenty of youtube essays on how to do this; this is a recent one that covers some of the more advanced rgb light source stuff that's been in recent development for hobbyist scan rigs. What I've learned is that consistency is key to success; you want to scan once and not have to go back and redo the roll so make sure your first exposure's settings are right before proceeding to the rest of the roll.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwkqmmzz9J8
>>4466066If you're scanning color get a RGB lightsource, then you can just set white balance, black and white point. White light creates cross-talk between color layers and bayer
Pig pic 1
Pig pic 2. I think this one is stronger than the first one.
There's a ps945 on ebay for 8000 dollars... absolutely seething it does not cover 8x10.
>>4466066If you mostly shoot 35mm just get a plustek for like $250>>4466077>White light creates cross-talk between color layers and bayerIsn't this still the case for an rgb light source that doesn't perfectly match the bayer filter on your camera? I'd expect every digital camera to be slightly different. Or is it close enough that it doesn't matter?
Bask in my newly acquired Sironar N 360mm f/6.8HP5+, XTol 1:2
>>4466124Based. Is this your first copal 3 shutter? I love those chunky bois so much.
>>4466127It is. I had to print a lens board for it, and the size of the hole in it didn't give a good impression of just how big the lens would be. Initial results look really promising. I'm thinking I'll do a family portrait session with it at the next get-together
>>4466132They're amazing lenses. Very very sharp and great contrast. I love my 300mm sinaron se, which is a rebranded apo sironar s.Have you considered a soft focus lens like the imagon? I think you could have a lot of fun with them for your doll pics. The inexpensive ones don't have a shutter, but you can also find ones that are on a copal shutter. I got my imagon for like 300 w/o shutter.
>>4466134I haven't considered those. Does the soft focus effect come from the zone plate-looking attachments or is it just a property of the lensI could just try making a zone plate with my laser cutter for shits and giggles
>>4466146I don't think it is just the aperture plates that gives the effect. The imagon lens is a single compound element design. The cooke soft focus lens is a 3 element and it overlays spherical aberration onto the sharp image by moving the middle element more or less out of alignment.You may be able to play with image softness by unscrewing the rear or front element on one of your lenses halfway or whatevet and then stopping it down more or less to control the softness, but I don't think that would really give the same effect. Never tried anything like that.
>>4466146Two element compound lens. I don't know lens terminology. Sorry!
>>4466148>>4466149This is what I was looking at which searching for the imagon stuff. Hadn't seen this sort of aperture plate beforeat any rate, I think I'm going to be sticking with basic lenses for now
>>4466150Damn! I was hoping to get another LF photographer onto soft focus lenses! They're amazing, especially for portraits. My two pig pics have such a nice dreamy and soft sort of vibe that I think looks really pretty. Maybe one day you'll see the soft and glowy light.The lens comes with two or three of those gridded plates with varying sizes of holes so you can control how much softness or sharpness you want and the equivalent f stop. They even rotate to let you close the holes around the main one to go inbetween sizes.They call it an H number because it technically isn't f stop, but the H stop is the same as f stop when setting exposure. If you notice on your pic it has two H stops. One for the holes fully open and one for them fully closed.
Aperture Wide Open - Sticky Blades Boogaloo 2
Should have been at 8 m instead of infinity.
>>4465290It just werks.
Seagull City- Pop: 2000
>>4466146>>4466148>Does the soft focus effect come from the zone plate-looking attachments or is it just a property of the lenseither or both, depending on the lensyou can get the effect with just the aperture plate, each hole projects its own copy of the image slightly offsetor you can do it with spherical aberration alone, or you can combine the twocombining them may give better results than just using the aperture plate with a corrected lens, if you think about the central aperture as being closed down to limit SA but then the halo apertures add in a smaller amount of light from the edges of the elements — that would be very complicated to design analytically, these lenses were probably just designed via fucking around>>4466213nice
>>4465950I really like your research but i really hate your subjects.>Lilly & Akira Fuck you
>>4466213>>4466212These two are my fav. Nice colors.
>>4466218You also get these really fun highlight flares that are in the shape of a flower. Look at the eyes.
>>4466220Thank you, and fuck you too>>4466218>each hole projects its own copy of the image slightly offsetWith those aperture plates are you placing them in front of the lens or in between the front and rear assemblies like normal large format diaphragm apertures?>>4466248Neat
>>4466286On the imagon it is infront of the glass a couple inches. Look at >>4466148 diagram. The fujinon version has them inbetween and right in front of the normal aperture. These fujinon soft focus lenses are suprisingly inexpensive, but not nearly as versatile as the imagon.If you made a little disk that fits onto the front of a UV filter I bet it would work. Easy to 3d print too.
>>4466286>>4466287>are you placing themall the ones I've seen aside from >>4466148, the aperture plate is adjacent to the iris aperture, if anyI'm sure there's add on "filters" you can screw into the front of a lens but I haven't seen them, and not sure they'd work the same wayI mean they'd probably do something, but since they're not sitting at or near the focal point I don't know how that would affect the projected imagesome more discussion over here >>4461621 in case >>4466286 missed it
What a busy day
>>4466338you need a 5 reel tank bro
>>4466361Get the 8 reel tank. The only problem is that you need big containers and multiple packs of color dev, which is annoying, expensive, and then you need to use the all that dang developer before it goes bad.
>>4466361Oh I have a 2 and a 3 reel that you can't really see in the picture (it's behind the kit bag). I did it in 6 batches, it still took me 6 hours end to end (from mixing chemicals to washing all the equipment after). I thought I'd be done in 3-4 hours desu, but with washing and drying between batches and loading the reels each batch ended up taking about 45-50 minutes.At least I beat my record of rolls developed in a day, previous one was 6 lol >>4466362>Get the 8 reel tank. The only problem is that you need big containers and multiple packs of color dev, which is annoying, expensiveYeah I'd need to get almost everything else (pitchers, cylinders, storage bottles etc.) in that size too. I'm currently set up for 1000 ml (3 roll tank) and that's usually plenty enough for me. >and then you need to use the all that dang developer before it goes bad.This was my second time doing C-41 at home. The previous time I did it in 1-2 roll batches over the course of 3 weeks, and the last few rolls were visibly color shifted despite storing developer and blix as instructed. So this time I decided to do it in one go. I'll see if the last batch looks fine after scanning.
>>4466364I have some 4L pitchers and they come in handy all the time. Good job. A long developing day for me is like 4 or 5 8x10 sheets lol. Each one takes like 30 minutes depending on how I wash them. I try not to let them get backed up like that.Im never doing color or e6 at home either. It's just too annoying. My b&w developer is one shot and the stock solution lasts for like a year or longer.
>>4466362>>4466364>>4466365I've been doing the Kodak 2.5L kit with replenishment, stored in Amazon wine bags with argon, as per that one Reddit threadso far it's been working for me, my replenishment stock does not appear to be going badthe only odd thing is the bleach working solution (stuff I'm using, not the mixed stuff in bags) turns grey after sitting around for a week or so, then comes out the tank deep red againI am led to understand that the bleach has something to do with iron & oxygen so this kinda makes senseunused bleach is still piss yellow of course>>4466338I just bought a Jobo 1520 because I got sick of how hard Paterson tanks are to closealso my Paterson's starting to leak under the red ring (not the first owner)tbd on whether I prefer the reels, but the tank itself is definitely an upgrade
Just finished cutting and sleeving everything, I think I got a couple of winning shots between those 13 rolls. Can't wait to scan tomorrow.>>4466365After my first time doing C41 at home last year I told myself I would never do it again, but then all this cost me just a little over 1/3 what I would pay to the lab. At this volume it starts to make a difference. Was it worth my time and effort though? I'm not sure. Next batch is going to the lab anyway since I found a stray E6 roll AGD im nie buying a kit just for one. Otherwise I'm similar, only using one-shot developers (HC-110 and Rodinal 99% of the time), and one tank takes about 30-40 minutes. I just process whatever I shot during the week, which is rarely more than 3 rolls. >>4466366Tell me about that reddit argon thing please. Sounds like your setup had bleach and fixer separate, right? This one was simplified with blix, which was nice because it would take even longer otherwise. I just wish it didn't smell like ass cancer.I forgot to mention that I didn't realize the Cineshill kit did not include the usual C41 hexamine stabilizer, because of course they are cheap fucking shits. I probably should have noticed that before buying, but literally every other kit I looked at did include it. So I finished them all off with photoflo, but I'm a little pissed about it.And funny that the developer started almost clear but gradually turned deep brown, almost like blix. And I did pre-soak/rinse all rolls, so it wasn't polluted with anti-halo stuff. I have a few gallons of exhausted fixer saved up, and now half a gallon of C41 blix, I need to finally get around to the project of recovering silver from them for the lulz .Pattys are a bitch to close, but I like how I can press the lid down when closing to create a bit of a vacuum inside. That way it does not leak no matter what since it's trying to suck the air from outside in.
>>4466401Oh shit I should have proofread that>I found a stray E6 roll and I'm not buying a kit just for one
This may be a stupid question, but is there any way that the frame lines on a rangefinder camera can be so misaligned that the difference between composition through the viewfinder and the final scan is almost like comparing 50mm to 35mm? This shot for example, I remember composing it so that the framelines ended just at the end of the chair on the right but clearly this wasn't the case. I'm also noticing this on other shots from the roll, where the actual frames seem to include quite a bit of the right side of my subject compared to when I'm composing for the photo at the time. My camera's viewfinder has a .7 magnification so this probably plays a part too.
>>4466416sometimes when i take a shot, i take a photo of what the viewfinder sees just so I know what to expect later on. i don't really use a tripod though, so its not 100%there will be a little parallax when using a rangefinder, I have never tried this, but you can do the scotch tape thing and look at them side by side.
No idea where this light leak came from, maybe from when i sealed the roll?
>>4466069>>4466077Where the heck do you even get a narrow band rgb lightsource?
Finally finished the scanning setup. The Chinese macro glass is surprisingly sharp if you nail the focus.Just need to finish cleaning up the baseboard so I can get it off of the damn floor.
>>4466212I used to live in Bodø, visited Lofoten many times. Great place
Why does B&W cost more to develop than colour?
>>4466465because it's done manually by a lab technicianColour is just thrown into a film processor that spits it out when it's developed
>>4466245>>4466218Thanks. >>4466464>Bode I'm so, so sorry to hear that.
>>4466472>I'm so, so sorry to hear that.lol it's ok, I live in a nicer place now
>>4466248I like the glow. It was sort of what I was looking for when shooting Ortho 80.
I Brought an UNTESTED Camera for my Summer Holiday & This is What Happened!
>>4466478If you would have told me that this was the earliest known photograph from the 1800's I would have believed you.>>4466477Great shot
>>4466440Nice, anon. What's the light source?
>>4466440What do you use for the clamp and camera? I got one off of amazon and my problem is that after a couple scans the camera starts to sag down so I have to readjust and refocus.
>>4466525The clamp looks like a manfrotto super clamp.
>>4466401>Tell me about that reddit argon thing please.https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/nma0wlthat's the main thread I used as a reference but ironically that one doesn't talk about the argon, not sure where I got thatbut basically the idea is you mix up one of the larger Kodak kits, split it into working and replenishment batchesthe working batch is development volume and I store than in chem bottles topped with argon (they don't have to be filled with argon, it's heaver than air and acts as a surface seal)the replenishment volume is most of the batch, that goes into Amazon special wine bags with more argonthe wine bags empty from the bottom so they stay protected even when you decant for replenishmentsome things have changed since the original post was writtenfor one, after a period of being unavailable, CineStill's parent company got the license for Kodak C-41 kits, and they're now available in "smaller" 5L and 2.5L kits, instead of 10+L batches of chemicals you had to buy individually along with separate replenishment mixes(so yes whether you buy the simplified CineStill or full Kodak kit, it's the same company)second is there is now official published replenishment instructions for the kit, full details on the product site but basically 40mL/rolllong story short, for a bit of up-front investment (bigger kit, bags, kitchen argon can) and careful handling, you can have 50+ rolls' worth of C-41 chemistry with practically unlimited shelf life
>>4466439RGB LEDsLEDs are by nature narrow-band light sources, except for white LEDswhite LEDs are actually UV LEDs with a phosphorescent coating, which look white enough for lighting purposes to our eyes and can even be temperature tuned, but don't have a very flat spectral curveRGB LEDs have an even worse CRI than white LEDs, but for negative scanning that's actually a benefit since you're trying to extract discrete dye channel densities for processing (inversion)>>4466421oh that's a cool trick>>4466440how did you get your negatives so wrinkly
forgot some stuff>>4466401>developer started almost clear but gradually turned deep brown>I did pre-soak/rinse all rollsyeah it does that, something something bromidesactual data is hard to come by but according to boomer forums fresh C-41 dev is actually too active, and reaches proper concentrations once you're replenishing used solutionprobably only matters for motion picture honestlyalso pretty sure Kodak says not to pre-rinse for C-41, but again it's probably something that doesn't matter that much>vacuum on paterson so it doesn't leakthe 1520's lid has a large depressable section in the middle for pressure relief so that isn't a problem, plus it's much easier to put on even though it has a larger sealing area
>>4466518CineStill's CS-LITE>>4466525Monfrotto Superclamp onto some Monfrotto tripod head I can't remember the model name of. I can check and update you in a bit.>>4466538>how did you get your negatives so wrinkly1. Leave them rolled up in a box for a few weeks waiting for your scanning rig to arrive2. ???3. Profit!They still turned out suprisingly alright, but it definitely wasn't the smartest move.
Would it be worth buying 100 foot roll of agfa apx 25 that has been frozen?
>>4464845I’m shooting my shit on Kodachrome anyway. Fuck it (yes fuck it Err), I’ll develop that shit myself in B&W someday when I’m old and sad when my mum died ages ago and I suddenly remember that I have a bunch of rolls of B&W Kodachrome shots of her that no ones ever seen. Is okayyy
>>4466546>Leave them rolled up in a box for a few weeks waiting for your scanning rig to arriveI'm literally doing this exact thing right now...
>>4466555Anon, if you're going to ask whether it's worth it, you've got to give us a price
Dumping some successfull shots from the last roll
>>4466662Most of this roll was spent practicing photography of people
>>4466663
>>4466665
>>4466668
>>4466669
>>4466671
>>4466663>>4466668>>4466669>>4466671>>4466672I ordinarily let it go but if there were a way for me to put you away in some kind of shooting the back of people's heads drunk tank for a night to think about your actions I would do it.
>>4466668>>4466669>>4466671>>4466672let me guess, your other camera is a Fuji.The car photo is the best one lmao
>>4466641It 95 bucks + 35 for shipping.
>>4466713Good thing for me there isn't>>4466714I only have one camera, but its a second hand Nikon so I guess it doesn't change much
Ilford hp5+ is pretty cool. Seems like you can get good results with it at 1600 all the way down to like 12 iso.
Backyard dragonfly on expired Ektachrome E100S. Exposed at ISO 64.
>>4465386>My vision 3 rolls are all the new AHU stock without the remjethow are you getting these? I thought they clamped down on selling motion picture film to respoolers.
>>4466477what film is this
>>4466537Where do you get your argon gas? Bloxygen canisters?
>>4466555That is $125 or about $7 per 36 exposure roll you make. Fresh bulb rolls cost less than this so keep that in mind, if you just want film to shoot it's not worth it. If you specifically want that film then maybe it's worth it
>>4466671>>4466669>>4466668>>4466663nothing is happening in these
>>4466802I've heard pretty good things about apx 25, which is why I ask.
>>4466801I bought AirGone (heh) off Amazon but those look like exactly the same thing so either would work
>>4466787You can get them from budachrome in eu, it's €12 on their website but they do €10 in person if you're ever in Budapest. 35mmdealer in germany also does them for €13 but I reckon that's pretty expensive for what it is. I think reflx lab does it in the us but they're chinese so it's up to you whether you want that on your conscience. If you're in aus you're out of luck, but I could send you some, I honestly don't like it as much as I thought I would. I'll be shooting opticolour 200 instead, it's really nice
Just had my first roll of film fail to advance, lost a whole weekend of shots :(Appears that the top part of the strip crimped when I loaded it after attaching it to the spool. Is there any way to check if film is seated and advancing properly?
>>4466852Use your ears.
>>4466852The rewind spool will spin (sometimes takes a few frames to start as the advance pulls film to tension)
>>4464845there is possibility of vuescan color restore
>>4464845I only shoot movies on film. I used to dick around lighting and metering every shot like a damn DP, and not the fun kind. Finally got my head out of my ass and realized that unless I want some dramatic lighting effect, most of my lighting is used to boost the natural lighting (always in flux anyway) of the scene for proper exposure purposes. Well fuck, I have no need to do that anymore, bc not only can I fine tune it much more accurately in post digitally, but by eyeballing my exposures in the field and letting the film capture it “close enough”, I can get much better shots by being open & responsive to the action rather than worrying about the gear. It’s rare that I have to crank something in post more than a couple stops anyway, never so much that noise becomes apparent, & frankly even if I did it’d be fine bc it’d be obscured by the grain given the high resolution scan quality of 16mm. So I can literally run & gun, shoot from the hip, get better action, then make image quality consistent for the final print as part of the finishing process, where it should be.
>>4466803What's your advice, not shooting unless there is something worth shooting?
>>4466903well, yeah. There's something to be said about shooting a lot and getting lots of practice but why take photos of the backs of people's heads? there's no point unless you like it for some reason
>>4466904Guess I just like it for some reason
>>4466904>why take photos of the backs of people's headsBecause I'm either too slow or too scared to get their face
>>4467023>im tiredheh, at least here you can see something unusual and some action going. the other anon photos are literally people standing still
>>4463473As promised. I was busy taking snapshits with that H35N. Developed them today using Rodinal 1+50, Fomapan 400.Funny little camera.
>>4467074Whoops. Wrong post I meant>>4463477
>>4467075
>>4467077Had some fun with flash. Overall pretty good experience for the money.
>>4467074I really like this one. Nice job, anon.
>>4467078There is more, but they are mostly snapshits. So I think that's enough.
>>4467079Thanks!Ok, maybe one more.
>>4467080Looks like a shot from an old German impressionist film. Really cool.
>>4466798Provia 100F
Not super in love with my rodinal BW and I don’t want to cough up more money to Ilford for DDX. Anybody have any other developers they like? I’ve seen one homemade recipe that’s like phenidone and ascorbic acid in propylene glycol with a part b mix of borax, anybody tried mixing their own stuff?
>>4467156Try Fomadon LQN - cheap but goes bad pretty fast once opened, so you have to use it pretty fast, or pour it over in the smaller bottles. Not as grainy as Rodinal, so definitely different effects.
>>4467139thanks
Can somebody help me figure out what's going on here? Shooting my Canon AE-1, Rollei Retro 400S shot at 1600. Is this a light leak I see here? It doesn't happen on every shot but it happens often enough. I'll post some shots that came out ok so you guys can see.
>>4467174this one has no issue
>>4467175and this one again has it
>>4467177this is definitely a light leak, isn't it?
>>4467178Could be light leak or surge marks from the development process. Are you agitating propery ?I've also seen something like this, when there was too much tension put on a film when rewinding it back to the cassette.
>>4467174It looks a lot like light piping which aviphot is prone to but since it's in the same spot every time probably not. You might be able to guess where the leak is by figuring whether affected frames are before or after you carry the camera around a while. Or just replace all the seals.
>>4467178>>4467177>>4467174>hey guys is this obvious light leak a light leak?Yes fix your seals; because it's not favoring top or bottom of the frame I'd guess it's on the left or right of the door when you're shooting horizontal that's giving you trouble. Could be happening when you're advancing the film and the frame is positioned near the door hinge/closure.
>>4467177desu to me it looks like curtain problems
Can someone spoonfeed me on bulb mode?What and how do I use it for?I assume it's for super long exposure for shit like low light photography? So do I just put my camera on a tripod, let a lightmeter tell me how long the exposure should be and keep the button on my cable release pressed for that long with a timer? I guess it makes sense that if the exposure is 10s+ it doesn't matter if I get it exactly right or am off by a second or two
>>4467298>let a lightmeter tell me how long the exposure should beYeah and then add time based on the reciprocity failure characteristics of your film
>>4467298>I assume it's for super long exposure for shit like low light photography? So do I just put my camera on a tripod, let a lightmeter tell me how long the exposure should be and keep the button on my cable release pressed for that long with a timer?Yes. That's basically all there is to it. You also need some sort of a shutter release cable to avoid shaking the camera and for your comfort.
>>4467300Nevermind, you wrote about release cable. I'm retarded
>>4467298>it doesn't matter if I get it exactly right or am off by a second or twoRight, I usually just count seconds. Not that my exposures are especially accurate but it usually comes out fine. I also generally ignore reciprocity failure but my exposures are usually 5-20 seconds.One thing to consider is a lot of scenes where you'd use bulb mode (aside from large format still life type stuff) don't follow the usual exposure rules. Like star trails or taillights or artificial lighting at night or whatever, you have small bright lights that might move during the exposure plus very dark areas. The reciprocity failure applies to each part of the film independently, so the dark parts will get darker and give increased contrast. If the lights are moving then the actual exposure of the lights is how long the light stays in one place.
>>4467299Oh snap, I wasn't aware of that. I did two test shots yesterday at about 12s I guess I'll see how it turns out.>>4467300>>4467304Neat, thanks guys. I'm thinking about getting some ND filters and also trying out long exposure during daytime, but I own lenses with like 3 different sizes so I'm not sure which ones I'd like to get them for.
>>4467316>I'm thinking about getting some ND filters and also trying out long exposure during daytime, but I own lenses with like 3 different sizes so I'm not sure which ones I'd like to get them for.The general consensus is to buy filters for your largest filter size and use step up rings to adapt them to your smaller ones.Stops the use of using a hood, and can look a bit funny (I used to adapt some 77mm lenses to a 43mm filter lens), but is the most cost-effective way to do it unless you're buying a lot of shit filters.If you're doing shit like 5 minute long exposures in daytime to get rid of moving "objects" (cars, people walking around etc.) you'll need something like an ND100000 at least.
Just finished my first roll of double exposures (shooting through the roll twice). I'm happy if the whole roll isn't just completely overexposed and I'll be overjoyed if at least a handful aren't absolute trash. Hope to get them to the lab soon.
My lab surprisingly did this roll of TMAX in under a day. Unsuprisingly, it looks like it may have been a bit of a rush job.A lot of the negatives have damage or bands where I'm guessing the developers wasn't evenly spread across the emulsion.I kind of like it, though. I think I'll just roll with it and even skip painting out the dust/scratches.
>>4467362
>>4467363
>>4467362I can see some uneven development amateur job avoidance this lab
I've done almost all of my shooting with color, and I think i've started to really get a feel for it over the last year and a half. I even got good/positive feedback on my memefilm thread. I think i;m ready for the next level and to start shooting + home deving my own b&w rolls. maybe even doing some home b&w printing, which I could probably manage if I stayed pretty small in my print sizes. but that's putting the cart before the horse. first gotta get my rodinal and paterson tank
>>4467390Please consider not using rodinal, and especially dont do stand dev(bad for printing). It's not bad, but there's better developers out there, especially if you are considering darkroom prints. Consider one of the many pyrocat variants. Cheaper if you mix your own, just as easy to use, better push processing, and it's higher accutance than rodinal! :D 510 pyro is a good beginners pyro because it is single solution instead of a two part. Use syringes to measure your dev and it's cake.
>>4467376Nah, these guys have been really good to me. I've run a couple dozen rolls through them at this point and this is the first time I've ever had any issues.I guess I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it was just a new guy or something went fucky with the machine or chems.
portra 400 on a nikon teletouch :)
Just looking for critique. Took this some time ago on Ektar 100.
>>4467298>What and how do I use it for?exposure by flash, that's why it's called bulbyou open the shutter in your dark studio, fire your strobes to make the exposure, then close the shutter
>new youtube video of some guy showing off his gx680iii>full kit, angle viewfinder, several md lenses, alt bellows, hood etc.>and what's great is you can get all this for about $2000 :)aaaaa fucking wheredo I just have to be a member and stalk every single film forum out thereat this point I'm even willing to pay ebay prices but the selection is barely half what it was 6mo agoplus now there's the whole import & tariff shit going on
>>4467643Be patient on ebay.
>>4467648I've been looking for over two years now, mainly to keep an eye on market trendswhich is why it's so frustrating now that I'm ready to buy one, there's shit for sale
>>4467651Damn. Well I've gotten my best deals by checking ebay once or twice a day sorted by newly listed. Sucks that the trend is moving upwards for your kit.I would think long and hard about just biting the bullet and getting a view camera. There are inexpensive 120 format adapters, or you can get a sinar zoom that lets you shoot all the formats up 612 on one roll with no wasted space. They're expensive, but really nice and fit any camera that takes 4x5 film holders.
>>4467643>aaaaa fucking whereIn his fantasy where he's the man. Every "film youtuber" faggot is lying about how much they paid and how they got a contax t2 at a garage sale for $5
>>4467655really I'm just ventingit's not so much an upward trend, more it feels all the decent deals already got picked off and there have been no replacement listingsthe reason I'm not considering a view camera is partly because I just want the more convenient SLR experiencebut the main reason is because I'm not looking to get this camera to shoot film — the only reason I shoot film is because I've wanted to use this cameraI already do film because I told this to a friend and he went "don't buy a 680 lol we have MF at home" and gave me all his gearso while I'm extremely grateful, been making the best of what I have and yeah it's fun but also feels like copeif I was actually serious and not just trying to larp as a 90s product photographer I'd invest in a tethered digital technical camera setupbut now we're talking actual can't afford and not just "ree why things spensy">>4467660you know that's a very good point
How do I take photos like Fred Herzog? Is this look achievable on modern 35mm C-41 film? Or will I need to shoot E100 to get as close to this as possible?
>>4467643Literally from ebayhttps://www.ebay.de/itm/177400443684?_skw=gx680iii&itmmeta=01K53P4EG9EG1CPYRYAXJCMK25&hash=item294de3f324:g:w-UAAeSwIUVowERN&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA0FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1c92VXWXSFEjpeI31EDboZA1Q81nwI1FDlcClVHa7FZTJuFd1CmKrEtNJitn8NFYGtJHzesmUVJ0cMIh5k9%2Fspcb%2BWRlt4FeGn7YEGxWrbsVcYawAeXMGR82qEettZDWMHmETzDpyL3PjFwPu0kN5cxdrqGlFzN54%2FS6bXgyH2Ktg8ERZabXX2TkZ%2FENTC%2FKOhbutzLjxHaLCULwN6ZwmB5%2BFAArjW283XbDhQ%2BX1%2FbIuKybef0eSaoGOQlQ04NrDw%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR4zpkfaoZg
>>4467762I don't know what it is man, you can immediately recognise kodachrome, and I've yet to see a single emulation or edit of a digital shot that wasn't obviously fake. It doesn't make sense to my brain because I know modern digital sensors capture more information than kodachrome ever did, so it should just trivial subtractive editing but it seems to be impossible. E100 won't get you there either, but if you can afford it, why not? For a c41 film with saturated colours and fine grain, I really like aerocolor lately.
I am new into film photography and tried to take a few pics on my Olympus OM2-n with a Kodak Gold 200 film! This is one i personally like the most, hope u like it too!
>>4467772>here you can spend less and get less than that guy claims he didthanks I guess?what you linked is essentially the base setup with two kit lensesnow not saying those aren't great lenses, but they also aren't MD lensesand who knows I might even end up buying that one to start, we'll see what else pops upbut the specific kit I mentioned from the video is easily twice what he claimed at current prices I see on ebay (+yaj), that's what I'm saying
Tried a roll of provia through my bargain basement pentax67.
Retard here. Came across Ilford BW development kit (example https://www.ilfordphoto.com/catalog/product/view/id/1657/s/ilford-paterson-film-starter-kit/category/70/), looked it up on Youtube and now I'm curious. Is this a retard trap or does it produce rewarding results (assuming, say, I then scan the negatives with a digital camera)?
>>4467974Nope, looks great. But you could also just buy that same Patterson tank system + bottles of developer and fixer and be set to develop a lot more rolls for not much more money.
>>4467762Well for starters, he shot in a pretty peculiar light (sunny fog/most) that's common in Vancouver. That gives his photos a unique look.Pro Image 100 will get you the rest of the way there.
>>4467969>>4468037nice photos anons, I like
First time shooting film after spending a thousand hours trying to figure out what apeture means. I shot a black and white roll and couldn't salvage a single photo due to I think too low a shutter speed and not keeping still enough.I think next roll I'll methodically scribe my camera settings for each photo and figure out what the fuck I'm doing.
Another trichrome
>>4468228Most of the time anything below 1/60 would be fucked unless you have a good pulse or are using a tripod.Just learn the Sunny 16, or buy a thyrstor flash (they are automatic) if you are taking photos indoors. >>4468288Really jealous of your cute dolls anon
>>4468228How are you metering your exposures?
Gratuitous use of f/6.8 to see what it would look like>>4468296Thank you
Did anyone here mess around with long exposure on film? Especially with ND filters during daytime.I'm wondering if it's something I should tackle or maybe try on digital first to get out some of the rookie mistakes.Calculating the correct settings and getting the timing right by hand in bulb mode (since my camera doesn't have a shutter speed slower than 1s) sounds kinda scary to be honest.
>>4468228>due to I think too low a shutter speed and not keeping still enoughKek, my exact experience with my first roll. Half the pictures look like this or worse. Plus I was shooting everything at F3.6 because it was December and not very sunny and being used to auto focus on digital I underestimated how hard manual focus can be sometimes.Like the other anon said, try to not go below 1/60 when handheld unless you want a blurry picture for artistic effect (for example when following moving objects and wanting some blur to emphasize the motion)You can do it, I believe in you.
Random snapshit from my trip to Iceland.I can't stress enough how incredibly relaxing it was to take my SLR on hikes and keeping the DSLR in my backpack for most of the trip. Usually I'm stressing out that I want to capture every little beautiful vista and moment and I hated how that took me out of the moment of actually enjoying my surroundings.But when you only have 3-5 shots per day, you worry a lot less about it. I think on my next trip I'll just leave my digital camera at home to be honest.
>>4468337Dial in exposure with digital and then calculate Reciprocity failure for your fipm exposure. If you're really autistic you can reduce dev time to maintain normal contrast levels, but it isn't totally necessary.
>>4468337The longer the exposure, the more forgiving the times become. Say the correct exposure calls for 8s. If you accidently go to 15s, that's only +1 stops. If you undershoot and only go 4s, that's only -1 stop. Id play around on digital first for a day or two and then full send on film if you'd like. Make sure you factor in reciprocity if the film needs it.
>>4468340That is the feel I experience when shooting 8x10, especially if I'm hiking with it, and a big part of why I really enjoy it over smaller formats.I can only bring 6 shots with me when out with my deardorff, and it takes me 10+ minutes to unpack,set up shot, take shot, repack everything. Most days I feel like shooting I will take one or two pics and that's more than enough for me.Every non view camera feels like an ultra compact and extremely convenient experience as well. It felt weird only needing my light meter, camera, and a few rolls of film when I brought my tlr out. Hah
>>4468337I just use one of those chinkshit shoe mount meters and do what it says, I ignore reciprocity entirely. Probably not accurate but the pictures come out fine.If you get one of those meters get the one with the screen instead of the two dials since the dials don't go to long exposures.
>>4468501Can you post examples where you ignored reciprocity? What film?
How did I do bros? first film camera bought on a whim
I'm not much of a gearfag so don't really known.Are new Film Cameras still being made? Are they affordable? My second hand Minolta from the 60s is still going strong but I am worried about it breaking eventually (and it already has a few non critical issues)
>>4468568The only current production cameras I know of are half frame ones like the Pentax17 or the Kodak ones. Nikon was making its latest plastic blobs until the late teens so those are probably your best bet for new-ish slrs I think. Everyone else stopped shortly after the new millennium
>>4468568Leica makes the same camera they always havePentax makes a super shitty plastic half frame without even a rangefinde rand thinks its worth almost a grandKodak makes basically the same camera but for $40 with only one shutter speed and apertureit's fucked m8. especially for medium format. every time a bell rings a bronica becomes a brick.
>>4468569>>4468572Grim, I was hoping maybe with the resurging interest in film photography among the younger generation someone would maybe make a new model. Then again I have no clue what the market looks like, I've heard photography in general is becoming more expensive, because there is no demand for budget cameras anymore because you either make snapshits on your phone or upgrade to a big boy camera if you want to take it seriously.Guess I'll just live in a tent in the park for half a year and buy a Leica then.
>>4468575>because there is no demand for budget cameras anymore because you either make snapshits on your phone or upgrade to a big boy camera if you want to take it seriously.There is demand, HUGE demand, for quality budget cameras, but the japanese camera industry is convinced they ought not satisfy it and they should instead release larger and larger and even more expensive "professionals only" cameras, and split those off into "videographers only" cameras that dont even have shutters to discourage photographers from buying them despite them being compact.The camera industry is also having major trouble competing with itself. Why would people buy a $1599 new camera from canon like the a7c, when they can buy a $900 a7c, set it to raw, and load a canon copycat profile that some amateur colorist made for $50
>>4468547Great price if everything works.
>>4468547Nice. A good beginner film camera. What film are you going to start with and when will you post photos for us to look at?
>>4468537Here's one I think. Probably somewhere between 4 and 30 seconds. Portra 160.I'm not saying you ought to ignore reciprocity failure, just that I do and it's good enough for me. At 30s it's like a stop or two difference and I don't go longer than that.
>>4468568When I'm rich I'll reverse engineer the nikon fa + mechanical shutter speeds at every full stop like the fm3a because I have the same anxiety about mine eventually breaking. I also want future generations to be able to take photos on film cameras and I think the world will eventually run out of working cameras made in the 1960s and 70s. Like you wouldn't expect them to be widely available second hand in working condition when they're 200 years old.Let me know if you want any other features added
>>4468568There are some still made but not for poors.That or for ultrapoors (disposable cameras)
>>4468636But shen haos are the poor person knock off of ebony cameras.
Lads I got my first batch of E100 back from the labSeeing these on a light table is crazy; I want to shoot more slide film now. Except it isn't in stock anywhere
>>4468642Very nice colors! The last one is especially nice looking.Tommorow I am dropping off 8 or 9 8x10 sheets of e100vs and 1 sheet of fujichrome 50D. Very excited to see my snapshits. I won a listing for 100 sheets of e100vs a couple months ago, so I will not be running out any time soon. Not too bad at like 10 dollars per sheet! :D Look on ebay. You can find plenty of 4x5 slide, even frozen fuji shit.
>>4468572>>4468575>Pentax makes a super shitty plastic half frame without even a rangefinde rand thinks its worth almost a grandthe fuck you smokingit has a rangefinder and MSRPs for 500
>>4468578>>4468581Shutter fires and sounds accurate, just threw a battery in it and the meter works as well. First film camera so I don't know everything but i'm excited to use it. I ordered a roll of HP5 and a roll of gold to test further for light leaks or whatever else could be wrong. So far love the feel of it and how serious of a tool it is compared to my digital cameras.
>>4468652>it has a rangefinderno it literally doesnt its zone focus you shill bastard
Ok lads, its (hopefully) time to go 4x5. I found a Burkes and James press camera for very little and seems to be in better condition that most Graflex that I have seen. Now two questions:How can I develop the film? Would it fit on a paterson tank that fits two 35mm rolls? Has anyone tried Lucky film sheet film? I am planning on going that route or Foma because I know that I would probably fuck up a few times so I want to save as much as I can.
>>4468734Press cameras are okay for a first 4x5, but limiting in terms of camera movements. Depending on what you want to do it may not matter. There are some view cameras that got for like 200-300 thst are way less portable, but you can do a lot more with them.I like the mod54 sheet holder for developing 4x5. Lets you do 6 sheets with 1L of developer in a paterson tank. Easy to load, but you have to remember to orient your film correctly or you'll get little marks on the side of your film. There's other dev tanks for 4x5, but I get the best results with the mod 54.Foma is fine in 4x5. It sucks compared to better films, but you can still get pretty good results with it. I've really been enjoying hp5 in 8x10. You can shoot it anywhere from like 12 iso all the way up 1200 with decent results depending on your developing time.Another inexpensive option is to get some film off ebay. Dont get anything that's over 10 years expired to start off with.
>>4467352Should get the results soon, but I'm getting a little anxious.I looked at some of my older negatives and realized that the spacing between the frames isn't consistent, probably because after half a century the feeding mechanism isn't perfectly accurate anymore. Makes me worried that the error caused by this might add up over the course of 36 exposures and my frames will be way off.Or maybe it's not that bad and every frame will just be slightly off either left or right.Either way kinda sucks because I'm guessing this is the sort of thing you kind of just have to pray for when buying a used camera since I doubt any of the ebay resellers check for that shit.
>>4468764I think most 35mm cameras basically count holes. That sprocket shaft thing on the takeup side will only stop at specific points. I figured it would have 8 teeth (the width of one frame) but I checked one I have and it has 6, so it comes back to the same place after 3 shots (0,6+2,6+6+4,6+6+6+0=0). Anyway it shouldn't "drift" along the roll since it is always relative to the sprocket holes. There might be an offset through the whole roll and there may be some jitter shot to shot but it should always stay within one sprocket hole.No doubt there are cameras out there that work by some other mechanism but common SLRs probably all work this way.
>>4464845>Film General Thmm...>must be a thread for Tmax enthusiasts>shouldn't click, I prefer TriX>...>ok let's see it, I used Tmax for some years this ain't the time to get snooty>...the fuck this ain't even about sweet sweet triangular T grains
hey you fuckin /p/edophiles i need an LTM L39 (NOT M39 GO AWAY) camera with 1/1000 shutter speed, no rangefinder necessary cuz its for ultrawides with an external finderanyone got a clue?>inb4 the boat anchor known as zorki 4 which doesnt even reach 1/1000 despite the dial saying so
>>4468878Bessa L. $100, 1/2000th max ss, built in meter with a sick readout on the top of the camera. It was literally designed for ultra wide angles. You could also get a Bessa R and have a vf if you want.
>>4468886based as hell, thank you
>>4468791I find tmax to be quite a bland and often muddy looking film, but I have seen very very good results from it. Way too expensive in 8x10 compared to ilford films that give me great results.I knew this old master photographer that would shoot tmax 12ish stops overexposed, develop it in a secret way, and then use enlargers with a dimmer switch so it took 3 hours to expose printing paper. Unbelievably incredible results from tmax, but he never told me how he developed, and I never got to see any of his negatives. I moved away and he died from fucking covid. I have his photography book somewhere at least.Steve carver. Really good dude and I learned a lot making prints with him. Rip.
>>4468990Another one. I think it took him over a decade to make his book of cowboy/western pictures. He would have famous western actors/actresses pose for them in his studio. All the sets were designed by him. Very cool to see his studio.
>>4468990>>4468993>So, I opened up my own photography lab called The Darkroom in Venice Beach. And I started working on doing replicas off of old negatives. These were old, thick negatives. When a picture was taken in early times, certain images were recorded as time exposures. Because the film was so slow, the photographer would actually walk into the frame to fix the tie or the hair or whatever, and during the exposure would walk out of the frame. When these negatives were printed, the emulsion would be so thick because of the time exposure, that you wouldn’t see the photographer who walked into the frame. >Now, when I would get these thick negatives and print them, I could actually make several prints and they would be like motion pictures. Let’s say I would have a thick negative of a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and let’s say he blinked while the photo was taken. When I would develop the photo, and I would look at the paper, he would actually be blinking while it was developing. He would appear to be alive. It would be like a motion picture, because there would be several pictures in the negative. Using this technique, I would be able to get the ghosts out of them. That’s why it’s called ghost photography.>But then I got busted, because I did some famous replicas that were sold as counterfeits. They tracked them down to me. I was able to talk my way out of it, by showing them that I specifically sold them as replicas. sounds like quite the dude, rip
>>4468994Yes! I remember him telling me about that! He figured out how to replicate those old school dense negatives with his super pulled film and extended printing times. I think he told me it took him like 10 years to figure out his development recipe, which is why he wouldn't tell me lol.He had some insanely cool prints hung up around parts of his studio. It was always so cool going over there.
my first prints made few days ago, excuse the shitty photo, I don't have a setup for scanning prints yettoday few more, will post later when they're driedI still need a shitton of things in my darkroom, and it's a fuckton of work setting everything up, but I am satisfied.
>>4468989The normal ones have plastic knobs and dials. If you get one of the colored editions with silver knobs, they're actually made of brass. Makes the camera feel a lot less cheap. >>4469042Hellya dude
>>4468990Let's theorycraft, someone with some chemistry knowledge start throwing ideas out there so anons can test them out. Surely we can reverse engineer his method so it doesn't die with him
This was shot on a Voigtlander 35mm and Portra 400. So nothing necessarily special. How come my film photos don't look like this? How to achieve that 70s movie look?
>>4469136good lightinggood scannersome edits
>>4469136>This was shot on a Voigtlander 35mm and Portra 400. So nothing necessarily special.you think gear is what gets you good photos but it's secondary to skill and knowledge so brush up on thatlooks like good use of key and fill lightthose skin tones are also amazing so whoever scanned / edited it knew what they were doingtl;dr: git gud, stop being a gear fag
>>4469136>>4469167also, it's a nice composition and use of depth / layering
>>4469138lighting is huge here, it would look like shit if it was just the dim lamp on the workbench indoors and the outdoor backlighting the subject but the photographer clearly brought in their own light source(s) to get the nice fully illuminated front/face
>Photography is the art, application, and practice of creating images by recording light>light is important woah
>>4469136>How to achieve that 70s movie look?You mean how to make a photo look like a movie scene with a full lighting setup? Shoot the photo with a full lighting setup.Also, Portra 400 is the most milquetoast film you can shoot. At least get Portra 160.
>>4469294
>>4469295I have tried taking multiple cloud pictures and something always goes terribly wrong. I figured I'd share this one because it's still kinda cool to see an 8x10 cloud pic.
hey, /p/Long time no seeWent to a local velodrome the other day with a friend, took some photos of him, and then directed him on shooting me as wellHe did a really good job!That's me in the photos, rather than behind the camera, where I usually am
>>4469410
Damn dude, why are light meters so expensive?My phone, the internal lightmeter or just butterfingering the settings and hoping for the best is enough for me most of the time, but for night photography I don't think the internal light meter is accurate enough and I'm not sure if I can trust my phone, hear people say it becomes unreliable for longer exposure times.
Fgtsisters, do I still have to worry about film at airports? I doubt the minimum wage zoom zooms at TSA/CBSA even have ever seen film and I have a trip coming up where I want to bring a few rolls. Any of you travel with film recently? Yes I searched already and it says “ask” but what websites say and what you run into irl are different.
>>4469443Sorry to break it to you, but your phone lightmeter will do a better job at very low light metering than just about all professional meters.
>>4469410>>4469411These are nice, but I would’ve liked to see maybe a little bit of motion with them. But I understand if your friend was shooting you and he’s not familiar with cameras and such it probably be pretty difficult to ask him to do that in track and everything. But it’s an interesting setting for sure.
>>4469684>Sorry to break it to youI mean if that's actually true I'm all for it. Just heard people say that past a few seconds of exposure time your phone readings are shit.Maybe I should just fuck around with a DSLR for a bit and see what the results are like
>>4469724Use a dslr to double check your phone meter.
>>4469724phone meters are absolute horse shit and they are totally offchecked with sekonic, minolta and dslr
Hitler, we have a problem... I thought this combo was compatible, everyone's been shilling it and I finally fell for the meme. Now I have to build a stupid ass frame for the holder >>4469629Every airport I've ever been to had a procedure in place for this, they've seen it a thousand times. It's not 2014 anymore, a lot of people shoot and travel with film. I just ask them nicely, tell them I know the scanners are "safe" but I have "special 12k iso film in there", and they call another person over who's like the line leader or whoever, they swab the canisters and give me my bag back all within like two minutes.
>>4469775how do you like the spectra color, does it make a big difference compared to the regular one?from the official comparisons, I like the frontier and noritsu ones better but I wonder how it compares to the original cs-lite
>>4469775Yeah I hope you’re right everything I read online says it should be fine to just ask but going through airports a few times in the aLast couple years where it seems like the agents are just the lowest iq morons they could find doesn’t give me hope.
>>4469629I've flown a few times with film including during busy holidays and the major airports in the US I've flown through have done a hand check when asked.
>>4469443What sorts of exposure times are you hoping to be metering? Honestly once you're into streetlight scenes and darker, memorizing a few rows of this chart will cover your bases wells. Don't forget to calculate reciprocity.
>>4469893If this isn't your vibe, the sekonic l358 will measure down into the minutes. Again, you'll need to factor reciprocity yourself.
>>4469893>>4469894Good question, I think I would like to try getting some light trails from cars from an overpass close to here. So probably like 5+ seconds depending on how busy it will be.So do I understand this correctly, for the example above I would probably go with 4 EV since the street has streetlights. And then I go down the column for my respective ISO and pick and choose which Aperture/Time I want from that row (+ reciprocity)?Sounds fun, I'll give it a try
>>4469296almost awesiome>>4464845>To what extent do you digitally edit your film scans?i've been cloning out dust spots and lint
>>4469813I haven't had time to use it yet but I'm already getting buyer's remorse. It feels incredibly cheap. Maybe I'm stupid for not looking it up but I expected it to have a flat LED array, but it's literally just a strip on the side. I have serious doubts about uniformity across the frame, at the very least I'd expect to see a mirror inside or something. It also comes with a soldered power cable with usb-a connector and I couldn't figure out why they would do that instead of a standard plug or just use a usb-c port so people can use their phone chargers, but then I realised it's probably because this is just what the cheapest led strip from alibaba comes with. This thing is worth like $25 for the collimating sheet and the fact that it's assembled for you but for $90 it's a straight up scam. Luckily I bought a bunch of film from cinestill with the same order and they're so much cheaper than aus film sellers that I still saved a few bucks even if I count this thing as a total writeoff
>>4469999Yep, bingo bango you got it.
Did my first double exposure shooting through the roll twice.Lots of garbage, but I'm very happy it worked out at all with all pictures overlapping nicely and I only fucked up the settings on some of them.Plus it's a crazy amount of fun, when the ones that do line up well feel like magic
>>4470013Hoped something more interesting would land on this one. But at least the placement of the flower is spot on.
>>4470014Ghost car parked in the garage
>>4470015This one feels pretty much perfect for my current skill level and is my favorite from the whole set.There is another one that could have been perfect, a nicely lit golden hour portrait of me but unfortunately most of where I'm standing is eaten by the negative space in the second exposure
>>4470016this one slapsI have a roll of pro image that I shot a bunch of flowers, foliage and textures like concrete, bricks and clouds on, and I'll try to find shots with a lot of contrast like sharp shadows or geometric shapes for the second exposure. Thinking about it now I have a feeling they'll turn out pretty shit but we'll see.
>>4470021ThanksHonestly it sounds like that might work out pretty well. A big lesson this roll taught me was how hard it is to think about these double exposures if you don't have a plan. Like half of these were just random snapshits and I wasn't sure how to decide on if I need a subject, how prominent it should be etcI think your idea about doing one pass of texture and one pass of interesting shapes should work quite well.I think what I'll try next is convince some friends to let me take portraits of them and then do a second pass of texture or just minimalist touches like a neon sign or some bokkeh or light trails.
>>4470016Worth it for this pic, very cool anon
Accidentally posted this in the old threadd; I'll just ask again:Does anyone have any advice for semi-stand developing with caffenol? I'd be using the process to develop some Kentmere 200 and I want high contrast and something moderately sharp. My biggest fear is fog, and I can't get potassium bromide for a reasonable price locally. I've read some stuff online that suggests that iodized table salt can be used to prevent fogging, but can't find anything about it being used during semi-stand development. Anyone have experience with this?
>>4470179Why do you want to do a semi stand?
>>4470188>>4470196>>4470198Very nice, especially the second one.
>>4465558f801 go brrrdat f3hp stou
Should i get fuji if i never used professional camera before? I really like the style of photos but i dont know if its worth investment for me since im noob in photography
>>4470060Thanks mate. I'm also in disbelief how well that lines up
I need to pick a B&W film to use for medium format portraits. I am thinking non-T grain because I want some nice grain to show up on a screen or in print at normal size (eg not zoomed in), but I want it tightly packed, not sparse or blotchy. Wont be using a flatbed scanner, so no need to worry about softening.I was curious about Lucky SHD 400 too, and maybe rating it at 100 given the results on flickr.Though Im thinking Tri-X maybe.
>>4470246Also looked into using HC110>cheapest is ~$90 dollarydoosouch
>>4466871How do you afford to shoot movies on film?
How many of you actually print as opposed to just scanning?I've been shooting film for a while and i'm starting to question whether I should move to printing instead of using my scanner but I'm not sure if that will just be too complicated and i'll be more focused on printing than taking photos (Especially since none of my photos do anything)
>>4470246>I was curious about Lucky SHD 400 too, and maybe rating it at 100 given the results on flickr.huuuh, they also make Lucky SHD 100 so no need for doing it m8.I always develop those in Rodinal and came ok, not as much for the 400 it results too grainy for my taste even at 6x9.
>>4470279Physical photographs are the devil and you should eschew the thought lest you become a mindless faggot.Nah but for real, printing is a great avenue to go down and I wholly support more phyiscal media in your life. Get a cheap 6x4 photo album for the good shots and frame the great ones in 8x10 and 6x6.
>>4470279I print but I do it the retarded roundabout way with digitizing film then printing it on my pro200. Don’t have a darkroom setup but I do want to get one eventually. But this makes printing colour quite simple as well. Prints really are the end game, nothing compares to holding a crisp 13x19 in person
>>4470280Lucky shd 400 seems overrated in the speed if I go by the results, hence 100 should work much better in theory.
>>4470279meright now
>>4470233Like a fuji digital camera? Probably yes, honestly. Just skip the raw editing rabbit hole that ends up being a timesink and use the film simulations. A shit photo with the best lightroom edit is still a shit photo and a good photo that's just a sooc jpeg is still a good photo. I think that's why most of us started shooting film, you just let the film stock do 90% of the look for you and focus on finding nice angles of nice subjects.
>>4470185I wanted to get higher contrast photos, but I've slept on it and don't think that it's worth it for the photos that I'll be developing.
>>4470635Lower dilutions and more agitation produce higher contrast. You should also push your film and increase dev time for higher contrast. Pyro based developers are great at increasing contrast, and reducing contrast.
I bought pic related as my first 35mm camera. What am I in for? I mostly bought it to use on my vacation to Roswell next month.
>>4470666I have the 220/SL which is almost the same thing.It's an absolutely fine camera, however it was made before "compact" became fashionable. So next to my chinons it is comically huge and heavy and the shutter slap will rattle your teeth.It has a needle meter which is broken on mine so I just sunny 16 it.
Tried using expired film for the first time.The results were pretty nice.
>>4470688Whn4w
>>4470689
