File: 000099580025.jpg (4.84 MB, 3130x2075)

4.84 MB JPG

Traded some shrooms for a crappy point and shoot in Kyrgyzstan. Here are some photos

new film point and shoot what do i think of it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-E_shfVzlk

>>4471648
>point and shoot
I don't care.

>>4471648
>plastic chinkshit
what do you think
>>4471602
cool shit

>>4471648
What the fuck are those YouTube comments this is basically a run of the mill late 90s early 2000s snapshitter you could get for fifty bucks, am I really that out of touch? This is trash.

>>4471648
Looks gigantic for a p&s when they should be pocketable
I scrubbed through the video and they didn't have any photos either so I'm gonna say it'll be shit

>>4471595
You made London actually look like a nice place there, so I have to at least hand that to you.

File: IMG_3006.jpg (1.24 MB, 1206x1717)

1.24 MB JPG

>>4471648
Zoomers always trying to reinvent the wheel and thinking they’re such fucking geniuses for it is a weird trend.

Fuck you jobo for being so expensive. Anyone have experience with their film processors?

File: 000007120023.jpg (649 KB, 1512x1003)

649 KB JPG

>>4471668
London is one of the most beautiful cities on Earth mate. Isn't hard.

File: file.png (651 KB, 810x985)

651 KB PNG

we are so fucking back
https://www.instagram.com/p/DPRHtyQjenU/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
the most important thing is that this is actually branded by Kodak Eastman which produces all films and not by Alaris. Which means Eastman invests in film R&D

>>4471884
>1st pic is a dog
Oh fuck they hired a 4channer

>>4471884
>These films are sub-brands of existing Kodak films
What did they mean by this?

>>4471919
That they are packing existing emulsion with old names and not giving alaris a cent
so based
>>4471829
travel more

>>4471919
People are assuming that Kodacolor 100 is either ProImage or GA100 (Lomo 100). 200 is just ColorPlus.

>>4471931
Ok maybe I don’t understand the fuck I was with Alaric’s and the licensing, where does gold fit into this? It’s also 200 and it’s widely believed Fuji repackages gold for their 200. What a tangled web lol

>>4471931
>>4471938
Kodacolor 100 its a gamble, but the 200 surely is going to be Colorplus
>>4471938
To my understanding, Alaris are the only ones with the rights to sell consumer films that were avialable after 2013 or so. BUT Eastman the manufacturer can sell film to whoever they want just not use the commercial names, so that is why Fuji is repacking their shit, Lomo does the same, etc.

In this case since they weren't using Kodacolor brand at the time its outside this arrangement and they can start selling it again, no matter what emulsion they are using lmao

>>4471595
Do you guys do any post processing on Lightroom or DT? 99% of my shots are unedited after scan

Feel free to laugh at me, but: Do you advance your film right before taking a shot or after each shot so it's ready for the next?
It's something I've never questioned for some reason (quite new to film, been shooting for less than a year). I though that maybe if I cock the shutter preemptively after each shot, it might go off accidentally and also I thought that maybe keeping it cocked for a long time between shots would put additional mechanical stress on some mechanisms or something.
But I recently saw someone who always advanced the film right after taking a pic

>>4471946
Of course.

>>4471946
I don't do my scans myself and they usually come out of the lab just fine. I think if I did my own scans I might do a little bit of color tweaking.
Though just being content with what I get is part of what makes film photography so relaxing to me. Whenever I want to go heavy on the editing I shoot digital

>>4471921
>travel more
lol
I guarantee I've been to more countries and more cities than you have. There are streets in London which nobody goes down which would be the main attraction in many other cities around the world. Its variety and age of its architecture and quantity of it is unparalleled.

>>4471948
This made me want to check my camera and it is indeed cocked. I never thought about it but I guess its just habit. You always want to be as ready as possible when taking a photo and I think i've missed out on a lot of good photos because I didn't realise my camera wasn't cocked and I went to shoot and lost that decisive second

>>4471977
>his camera has a cock
lmao

File: IMG21118.jpg (701 KB, 960x1200)

701 KB JPG

>>4471948
>advance your film right before taking a shot or after each shot so it's ready for the next?
heh, not something I have to think about
because I don't have a choice

>>4471948
for me its as simple as abc
always be cocked

>>4471992
Can you do that in another thread pls

File: r u cocked.jpg (755 KB, 1474x2091)

755 KB JPG

>>4471948
>Excuse me young blood, are you cocked?
y-yes?
>A'ight, you have a good night then
y-you too

>>4471884
Photos don't look very exciting. Why don't they just remake Kodachrome??

>>4472069
Because it's a lost formula.

>>4472069
Because like herpes, developing it is a real bitch.

>>4472012
He looked like a monkey in the thumbnal wtf

File: Untitled 1.jpg (1.31 MB, 2838x2167)

1.31 MB JPG

8x10 slide film, e100vs. My first shot. Controlling contrast and calculating exposure for this scene was pretty tricky.
Pretty cool to look at in person. I tried cleaning up the color cast and making the scan look like the slide.

>>4472180
And of course the color looks totally different on 4chan than it does on C1. Reee

>>4472181
Proof and export in srgb and accept that 4chan strips color metadata so c1/local software, gimp, photoshop, chrome, brave, firefox, and safari will all render differently and the 4chan upload and ctrl+o view in browser will most likely differ as well.

>>4472186
Thank you. I will try that with the next one.

File: 000403220016.jpg (3.01 MB, 3024x2005)

3.01 MB JPG

>go to camera store
>ask for kodakcolor
>guy gets mad
>overcharges me for portra


support your local business :^)

File: Untitled (41).jpg (1.15 MB, 2225x1769)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4472180

>>4472193
>Nudity storage
What did they mean by this?

>>4472193
fuck filmlabs
in my country I buy film only in online shops. Films are ridiculously overpriced in filmlabs, foma shit costs like 2 times more than in the internet or bulk-rolled.
Also shit and expensive scans (I scan or print myself so not a problem for me)

OKAY SO IS IT PRO IMAGE OR VR???

>>4472236
someone on r*ddit shot Kodacolor 100 with good scans and it doesn't look like proimage so maybe VR
still it doesn't mean shit until someone makes good tests

>>4471948
your instinct is correct, COCKing your shutter puts pressure on the springs, the elasticity of the springs degrades over time but this is very much accelerated if you keep them in that high-pressure state out of rest, they'll lose their ability to return to rest, so definitely don't store your camera with the shutter COCKed and maintain the good habit of only COCKing when ready to focus and fire

>>4472236
Aerocolor? The sample images look sorta like it.
Things are changing on the Alaris front. Vision3 AHU means that movie film can be used for stills without going through sketchy remshitters, just after Alaris killed direct sales of vision3. Is Eastman moving to break free of their shackles?

File: 000459780004.jpg (1.09 MB, 1545x1024)

1.09 MB JPG

Finally got my first roll developed and i'm super excited.

>>4471689
As a zoomer myself (22) what really annoys me is how lazy many people in my generation are about getting a "nostalgic" look.
They always want to take shortcuts or fall for obvious scams like "VHS style digital camera!" stuff like that, I don't get it.
If you want to record a video and have it look like it was recorded on a camcorder from 1995, then go buy a camcorder from 1995 and record a video... why are they so dumb?
If you want to shoot film and have a "nostalgic" look, then just go buy a film camera. Go buy an SLR. They're not that expensive at all.
I don't get why people are so stupid and want to take these shortcuts to achieve a look they barely understand.

>>4472435
We are living in a material world anon, and they're just material girls. People want a look and see something that on the surface seems to match. Why think too deeply about it? There will be a new look soon anyway, so no sense getting hung up on specifics when a general impression is all anyone has or wants.

File: 14.jpg (753 KB, 3072x2048)

753 KB JPG

>>4472440
I don't know. I've always thought too deeply about what goes on in the common persons brain. I am an alien, that is why I take pictures, so that maybe others can see what I see.

Im travelling to Poland. Whats the cheapest place to pick up 120 film?

Thinking: HP5+, Portra 160, maybe Gold 200, maybe Fomapan 200 or 400 (dont mind shooting either at 100 and developing accordingly). Wanted to try Retropan 320 but doesnt look like it exists now. Mostly for portraits.

>>4472440
>>4472435
Unfortunately some people care about the actual art and the end result they get. Instead of rightfully autistically obsessing over the technical process of production and taking the same photos of street signs, parking lots, gas stations, protests, pets, etc over and over again with different film stocks, slight variations in dev, but also making sure if they ever publish an article comparing 2 film stocks to only post completely different photos so people cant use it to help make an informed choice.

File: mannequin - coverup.jpg (4.23 MB, 2370x3542)

4.23 MB JPG

>>4472444
I didn't mean my post as a critique of you. Just that everyone has their hobbies or things they're super into, but for most people superficial knowledge of everything else is enough. Hell I'm sure there's plenty I'm skimming the surface on even if I like to think of myself as more curious than the average bear. Anyway I'm gonna shut up before I post anything more cringe, but I appreciate the photo you posted so I figure I should do the same too.

>>4472446
Sometimes obsessing over technical details leads to good outcomes and art and sometimes it doesn't. Same with just vibing.

File: 000061600030.jpg (4.02 MB, 2435x1614)

4.02 MB JPG

>>4472447
I did not take the reply as a critique. I am just autistic and like to say weird things. Here is a shitty street photo I took when using my 2nd or 3rd ever roll of film.

>>4472446
Did you mean to say "Unfortunately some people DONT care about the actual art and the end result they get"? Otherwise this reply seems very confusing to me. But yeah, they're not doing it out of passion or art. They're just doing it because they want to be quirky and post "nostalgic" type photos on their instagram. Normal folk are usually surface level like that.

>>4472445
Hp5 is really cool. You can shoot it all the way down to like 25 iso with good results.

>>4472450
Should mention I'll shoot 6x7, and I want a nice classic look with good skin tones, and I want obvious visible grain when viewing the image as a whole, but not like pepper grain, but continuous tightly packed grain, I dont want to shoot overexposed and pull dev too much to make grain disappear. Found some TXP 320 only I might get if I can get it in time

>>4472456
foma might be a better contender then

File: 1759563425049.jpg (191 KB, 1500x2000)

191 KB JPG

Okay so this fucking thing is dead on arrival. Blue light only, the only button it has just does dimming, so no way to change the colour and some of the LEDs are just dead.
>>4470006
Like I said, incredibly cheaply made and not worth the money
Do not buy the cinestill spectracolor, you could honestly make something much better at home. This is a scam product

>>4472479
For what it's worth I tried scanning a photo with it and there's almost 0 detail in the red and green channels save for a tiny bit in the blacks what I assume is just the clear filmbase. So at least the rgb bands really are narrow enough to avoid crosstalk between the different colour channels

>>4471946
>99% of my shots are unedited after scan
So do you exclusively shoot slides or do you just say fuck it and post photos where people's skin are blue?
If your negatives' colours are inverted then it's edited, moron
Just not by you, but they sure are edited
Not to mention everything in the process is editing
Choosing double-x, portra or foma is editing
Using Rodinal or D-76 or whatever has an impact on the looks of how your latent image is developed and is editing
Developing at 20°C or 15°C or 46°C is editing
There's no such thing as an unedited image (even slides, although we could try and have the digital image be as loyal to the slide image as possible)
Rid yourself of the illusion of purity and understand that "not editing your photos" simply means you're letting the standard settings of a scanning machine or a tech lab do this work
Letting the final look of your photos be determined by the lab tech/machine is like cooking a meal and then letting a McDonald's burger flipper plate it
>tl;dr be in charge of editing your photos because they sure as hell ARE edited

>>4472496
>>4472479
>at least the rgb bands really are narrow enough to avoid crosstalk
yes, that's how color LEDs work
any crosstalk would come from the sensor you use to scan with

Theres a cheap sinar shutter on ebay right now. Really versatile piece of kit.

Been shooting with a cheap (but in great condition) Nikkormat ft3 for a while and i always shoot either gold or kentmere 400. Whats will all the gearfagging in the film community? i understand some of the digital side of things as they're still "innovating" over there but film has been the same for decades. Why would I want to upgrade to a FM3, M6, or other more sought after body? Why would I want to shoot nothing but portra or ektar?

>>4472615
For fun, auto focus, better metering, or "better" lenses

>>4472612
I think I saw that one, the electric one right? and I do have a 4x5 monorail, but what is it actually? Why would I buy it?

>>4472615
Sometimes the answer doesn’t go deeper than “because I wanted it”, see my 4 leica bodies lel

File: DSCF9428.jpg (904 KB, 2000x1429)

904 KB JPG

Thoughts on my favourite photo from Lisbon?

>>4472617
This one is fully mechanical and goes between 8s and 1/60s. If you ever wanted to use any lens without its own shutter the sinar shutter is one of the best options for it. You can adapt them to some monorails like the cambo, I think, but it's obv going to be easiest to just use a sinar monorail.

If you ever wanted to get into vintage brass body lenses it is a really excellent option.

>>4472623
Ah gotcha, yeah mine is a cambio but I’m sure adapter boars or something are out there. That’s good to know, I have seen some fun looking vintage “tube” type lenses when searching eBay for lenses already mounted on cambó boards.

>>4472624
Yeah there's a lot of cool lenses and lens designs you can mess around with and 4x5 examples can be pretty affordable. The one potentially annoying thing about the sinar shutter is that it only gives you less than half an inch clearance between the back of the lens and shutter. You can use a third standard with bag bellows to get the extra clearance, but it gets kind of annoying to move both around so you don't get vignetting. It's not too bad, but sometimes I forget about it.

File: ferry.jpg (3.86 MB, 4011x6048)

3.86 MB JPG

Shot from my first roll

>>4472615
I bought a nikon FA because it has matrix metering, 1/4000 shutter, a cool late 70s early 80s "tech" look, and because it was like $150 so why not? If I was into rangefinders I'd probably get a leica too because I like mechanical shit made by germoids

>>4472639
The faster shutter is the only thing at the moment that i kinda want.

>not a single good photo in the thread
Yep, this board is dead. Adios.

>>4472653
Im on a bit of a hiatus due to life. Sorry!

You should have saved this thread with the only good photo.

File: 1759637221866.jpg (1.75 MB, 2400x1600)

1.75 MB JPG

poasting photo, hopefully whinging anon likes it uwu

File: 1759637444320.jpg (1.74 MB, 1600x2400)

1.74 MB JPG

I tried the original phoenix and the dynamic range is *very* limited, but I kinda loike it

File: zelda house.png (1.06 MB, 1023x682)

1.06 MB PNG

>>4472653
post your good photo anon! itll probably be the best in the thread right?

Im picking up a working besseler dichro 67S2 enlarger on tuesday
will finally be able to do the entire film process on my own once I learn to use the thing

Is the FD 50mm 1.8 genuinely shit? No matter what I did I would get ~2mp worth of detail from it, while the 28mm 2.8 was very sharp. I want to back into having a 35mm SLR with a 50mm again and the AE1 was generally my favorite that I had, and I want to try shooting some portraits with a 50mm, but would like a good 50mm, I've had a bunch of other 50mm's in the past which were all good

>>4472673
Never tried it because I've only ever shot nikon, but it's probably misaligned or something. I think it's almost impossible for an 50/1.8 prime to be soft beyond f/2.8.

>>4472677
Hmm I did a bit more digging i might get a Nikon, Canon EOS, or Minolta. Model depending, some of these work with Godox triggers in HSS, and apparently the Minolta's work with Sony godox triggers that I already own. Though I enjoy the aesthetic of the AE1 and that era of SLRs in general

File: 2025-03-16_santacolor100_(...).jpg (235 KB, 1024x666)

235 KB JPG

Blues

File: DSC07990-50%.jpg (1.14 MB, 2357x1524)

1.14 MB JPG

it's not good but it's a photo

File: DSC07996-50%.jpg (1.08 MB, 2133x1480)

1.08 MB JPG

I like pigeons

>>4472692
Homo drop

File: 1759660348041.jpg (1.15 MB, 1333x2000)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4472692
Is good
>>4472694
look at this dumbass pigeon tryna order a kebab

>>4472712
what a silly little guy

>>4472712
looking for his wife :(

>>4472722
wife turned into kebab

Im getting the itch to start my manual photography hobby again.
I have a Nikon N75 with a crappy 28-100 kit lens and darkroom equipment for developing c41 and b/w. I really want som new equipment. Hear me out please.
I want to get a good 50mm Nikon AF-S 1:8
The thing is i don't even own a DSLR, but i really want to make a full DSLR film scanning setup.
Im thinking of getting a used Nikon D3400 with a macro lens. I just don't know which objective is a good choice, it would also be awesome if it can be used with my N75 as well as DSLR? Also the Valoi 360 starter kit with light table and film holder. Im planning to build a DIY Copy stand. How does this sound? Any ideas on alternative equipment? I think im getting a good price on everything but the Macro-lens which i am clueless about. Please help

>>4472819
Ehm i meant a D3400 btw.
Aand i found cheap Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 AI-S, is this a good choice for film scanning?

Is the Minolta Riva Mini a good starter point and shoot? I'm new and just wanted to get into something simple and basic. Thanks

>>4472863
yeah it's cool. a bit slow and noisy to turn on and off maybe but not a big deal.

Just ordered one of the TTArtisan Light Meter II. Did I fuck up? The light meter in my camera is iffy and I usually use my phone to meter but i'm tired of retards asking why i'm taking the photo twice.

File: Screenshot_20220407-025306.jpg (474 KB, 1079x1076)

474 KB JPG

>>4472863
I'm not trying to sound rude but I really dont understand how a point and shoot can help you get started at all.
I see them recommended sometimes for beginners but I don't get it. They aren't comparable to real cameras at all.
Why not just go to a local camera store or look online for a used SLR, most still have the kit lense attached and they aren't really expensive.
It will help you get started with real photography way better than a point and shoot, the lenses on a point and shoot just tend to suck.
Real SLRs will give you more freedom, more aperture, possibly even zoom capabilities though many Kit Lenses were prime (non-zoom).
Just something to think about. Use a Point-and-Shoot for fun if you want, I do sometimes, but don't use it as a way to "Get Started" with photography.
Just buy an old SLR.

>>4472871
P&S are a cheap gateway into film, but you're correct otherwise. A 50 dollar slr with a 50mm f1.8 in decent condition will be a way better camera to learn film on in the long run.

>>4472692
>>4472694
>>4472712
So awful I wouldn't even waste time uploading them much less editing with a resize. How the fuck are you this bad? Don't tell me these were the best of the roll...

>>4472871
Some of my best work is on a 35mm point and shoot. They let you learn within the limitations of a focal length without needing to worry about exposure control. All the freedom of a SLR is wasted if you cannot take a proper composition for the life of you.

>>4472895
>without needing to worry about exposure control
Learning about Exposure Control is pretty important for a beginner.
The person I was responding too was saying he wants to "get started" with Photography using a 35mm point and shoot.
I said, that is not a good idea because it barely teaches you anything about photography.
I also said that I use Point and Shoots occasionally for fun, but I already know the basics of Photography.
I dont have a problem with Point and Shoots, I just wouldn't consider them a good tool for beginners to learn anything except *maybe* framing, maybe.

>>4472907
>Learning about Exposure Control is pretty important for a beginner.
Disagree unless he is working in a studio as an intern. Messing with exposure control when he is confronted with an interesting subject or scene could brick a shot he would have otherwise nailed with an auto exposure. And after he is good enough to be consistently confronted with captivating opportunities to photograph, where adjustments to exposure would enhance rather than detract from the photo, then he can get learn that technical skill. Mastering composition and matching it to context is a far bigger determinant of an image's value than technical exposure aptitude.
>I said, that is not a good idea because it barely teaches you anything about photography.
Disagree again.
>I also said that I use Point and Shoots occasionally for fun, but I already know the basics of Photography.
According to you.
>I dont have a problem with Point and Shoots, I just wouldn't consider them a good tool for beginners to learn anything except *maybe* framing, maybe.
I don't have a problem with SLRs either, and using one on full auto with a prime is fine. But some people do seem to bond with a smaller point and shoot and bring it out every day. That can make a difference in ensuring one gets enough experience and practice early on, without being overwhelmed by too many techniques to learn.

File: 13.jpg (693 KB, 3072x2048)

693 KB JPG

>>4472929
>Messing with exposure control when he is confronted with an interesting subject or scene could brick a shot
If he's using Sunny 16 then his exposure settings should already be set. He should be adjusting throughout the day based on weather anyway.
>Disagree again.
"How do I make the background blurry in my picture?" "What does aperture mean?" "What does changing the shutter speed do?" "How does different focal length affect the subject?"
You wouldn't know how to answer any of these questions if you "learned" how to take pictures on a point-and-shoot with fixed settings.
>According to you.
Not that many basics to grasp. Most people learn them in one semester of "Photography" in High School
>without being overwhelmed by too many techniques to learn.
Buy SLR with Prime Kit Lens. Watch a video about the Sunny 16 rule. There you go, that is the basics of shooting film with an SLR.
Your first roll will probably be shit, but after that you should grow.

>pic related, I took it with a point and shoot in Vegas.

>>4472930
>If he's using Sunny 16 then his exposure settings should already be set. He should be adjusting throughout the day based on weather anyway.
So use manual settings to lock it at Sunny 16. What exactly does he learn from your strategy?
>How do I make the background blurry in my picture?" "What does aperture mean?" "What does changing the shutter speed do?" "How does different focal length affect the subject?"
You wouldn't know how to answer any of these questions if you "learned" how to take pictures on a point-and-shoot with fixed settings.
Wrong, you can blur backgrounds with an auto exposure by simply increasing the distance between the subject and the background. There are many techniques you can learn with auto exposure.
>Not that many basics to grasp. Most people learn them in one semester of "Photography" in High School
Highly disagree. I'd like to see your work over a month of shooting daily with pure manual exposure settings. I have a feeling it would not be consistent nor intentional.
>Buy SLR with Prime Kit Lens. Watch a video about the Sunny 16 rule. There you go, that is the basics of shooting film with an SLR.
Your first roll will probably be shit, but after that you should grow.
No issue with a SLR and prime lens as long as he carries it every day, as I said. Point and shoots sometimes get a lot more use from them. And you would be surprised how far someone can go with a limited tool that they otherwise would just suck at.
>pic related, I took it with a point and shoot in Vegas.
Case in point. I am sure you could do better than this.

>>4472930
The humorous thing here is saying a beginner should use sunny 16 yet having an intuition for light levels and how your film will respond to them is something that takes experience. What did he mean by this?

>>4472940
Using Sunny 16 will teach him how to use the Aperture and Shutter Speed. It will also teach him reciprocity.
Sunny 16 is how I learned exposure control when I first started with film. Its pretty basic, you just judge the exposure based on the weather.
I've also never owned a light meter because they're expensive, none of my film cameras have working ones. So I had to learn Sunny 16 and I'm happy I did.

Also, blurring the background by increasing the distance between the subject and the background seems more complicated and less educational than just changing the aperture.
That isn't to say what you described is hard to pull off, but if he had an SLR he could just set the aperture to a lower number and boom, no moving required.
And, once again, it would teach him what the aperture does and possibly reciprocity.
I used 2 rolls of film this weekend in Chicago. I'm expecting them from the lab today. I can show you some pictures I took if you want.
Remember, I dont own any sort of light meter so they're all gonna be Sunny 16 based.

>>4472964
It doesn’t take any intuition at all.
You just see, is it sunny? Ok, f/16
Partly Cloudy? f/11. Shady? f/8.
Pretty basic stuff that he can just google a little table for.
That is how I learned to shoot film. Sunny 16 since day one.

File: 0_g4aexsuzdJZ2Dekr.jpg (54 KB, 640x528)

54 KB JPG

>>4472964
Don't they print these on color film boxes anymore? I mean, its not rocket science and modern film has enough latitude that is almost impossible to fuck up

>>4472993
Have you made prints with your sunny 16 exposures or do you just scan everything?

>>4472999
Yeah I make 4x6 prints and I put them in my photo binders.
I basically started photography as a preparation in case I start getting Alzheimers when I'm old.
I want to remember how life was. I want to remember what I saw and things that interested me.
So I archive everything.

>>4473000
Analog prints?

>>4473001
I dont really know what you mean. I bring my rolls to a lab and they develop and scan for me.
I dont know if they're using a machine or scanning them with a DSLR. But the lab I go to gives me really good results.
I then put the pictures in my latest binder

>>4473017
Oh, so you print your scans. Yeah that works fine as long as you don't underexpose your negatives, and there is nothing wrong with that route, really.

You can do almost whatever you want exposure wise if you're just scanning than printing/viewing your scans. If you ever want to make analog prints in a darkroom you may run into major issues producing nice prints if your exposures are shitty.

>>4472894
you are cute, anon
gave me a chuckle

File: 100S8197.jpg (1.94 MB, 3000x2000)

1.94 MB JPG

>>4472819
>Valoi 360 starter kit with light table and film holder. Im planning to build a DIY Copy stand.
this is what i did. you can view my setup in the film scanning thread. it works pretty good so far, besides some issues keeping the film and the camera parallel. oh and also dust management is a lot more of a concern than i anticipated.
>d3400
you might want to look for something with a tilting screen so you can use it without standing directly above the rig. or if you shoot tethered, the screen doesn't matter.

File: 80s_64_-002.jpg (240 KB, 1020x717)

240 KB JPG

This is some Rollei Retro 80s I shot in 35mm yonks back, had a really cool look to it

Just saw some comparisons of the new Kodacolor film with other 100 speed film... Anon's have i missed out on the pro image 100 train? it looks like a punchy but still sharp film for pretty cheap. Anybody got any test shots?

File: california kaiser.jpg (4.63 MB, 5000x3313)

4.63 MB JPG

>>4473309
personally I am a big fan of pro image. its cheap, comes in a 5 pack, doesn't need to be refrigerated, and though it has less exposure latitude than gold or portra it can certainly capture a nice range with good color. less pastel-y than portra and maybe a bit less saturated than gold/um/portra/vision. imo it looks best 1/3-1/2 a stop overexposed, though box speed is perfectly acceptable.

File: scrub.jpg (4.83 MB, 5000x3331)

4.83 MB JPG

>>4473327
just gonna post a few more shots that I know are on pro image. these first three are home scans using my primefilm xa+ and then the next two will be lab scans.

File: protest scene.jpg (4.55 MB, 3355x5000)

4.55 MB JPG

>>4473328
the first one and this one are with a vivitar 28-210mm f./3.5-5.6, the 2nd one I'm pretty sure was a vivitar 28mm f./2.5.

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

516 KB JPG

>>4473329
whoops I picked a different pic than I meant to for that last one but everything I typed still applies so no harm no foul except that its a less good pic. these two are lab scans (they use a fuji machine of some stripe) and were shot with an olympus 50mm f./1.8 kit lens.

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

430 KB JPG

>>4473330
anyway I guess these aren't exactly "test shots" or comparative of anything

>>4473327
>>4473328
>>4473329
>>4473330
>>4473331
Thanks for this anon! I think when J&H opens back up i'll grab a pack while they have it for $45.

File: 000025.jpg (1.93 MB, 1818x1228)

1.93 MB JPG

>>4473309
Here is a picture I took with the new Kodacolor 200. I'm honestly not a fan of Kodak films.
I don't know if I'm just doing something wrong, but they always come out very grainy and blue.
Would anyone be able to give me advice on this? I never have this problem with Fuji or Cinestill.
I tried Kodak Gold 200 recently and got similar results.

File: 000008.jpg (1.91 MB, 1228x1818)

1.91 MB JPG

>>4473336
Here is a slightly better shot I got. Once again, Kodacolor 200.
I've heard that Kodak film is very warm and works best in Sunny or Golden settings.
Apparently the shadows leaning towards blue/cool tones is normal.

>>4473336
I think you're underexposing. Meter for shadows.

File: car_picture.jpg (512 KB, 1317x880)

512 KB JPG

>>4473338
You are possibly correct. I've thought about overexposing/pushing kodak film a bit to try and fix this.
Here is a picture I took with Cinestill 50D recently. I prefer this look, I also prefer Fuji's look generally.
I want to like Kodak because its popular but I've had an easier time with other films.

>>4473340
Your first example is definitely underexposed. Scanning film is really annoying because a lot of scanners don't have strong enough lights to resolve highlight detail without blowing it out or some stupid bullshit like that, idk. Highlights that will very happily print out in full and rich detail are lost to scanning BS.

Did you do c41 dev on the 50D? It looks like it has weirdly low dynamic range.

File: 23.jpg (915 KB, 3072x2048)

915 KB JPG

>>4473343
>Did you do c41 dev on the 50D? It looks like it has weirdly low dynamic range.
I don't scan my film at home, I give my rolls to a local lab and they give it back to me.
I do it that way because I am nervous about ruining a roll and the local lab still gets my pictures back to me in 24 hours.
Plus even if I was able to develop the negatives at home I don't have any way to scan them.

>pic unrelated. Took it with a disposable fuji camera.

>>4473346
And you're posting unedited scans you got from the lab?

File: 000029.jpg (1.7 MB, 1818x1228)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4473349
Yeah, the pictures I've posted so far are unedited.
I don't really edit my film photos since I get them back as jpg files, the only thing I'll do sometimes is crop/zoom.
But I haven't done that to any of the pictures I've posted so far. These have all been straight from the lab.

>pic related is Kodacolor 200 again.

>>4473352
Crazy. Does it cost more to get tiff files? You should edit them bro. Editing/color balancing your negs is something you would be doing if you were making RA4 prints in the darkroom. You could remove that blue cast by balancing your light channels while printing for example.

Unless you just dont want to, which is fine I guess.

>>4473354
They offer a "Higher Resolution" package but its only $15 to get the "Regular Resolution" or whatever package so I just do that.
I figure that if I'm exposing and shooting film correctly, I shouldn't need to color correct it. Doesn't each film kind of have its own flavor and color corrections baked in?

>>4473367
>I figure that if I'm exposing and shooting film correctly, I shouldn't need to color correct it.
HAHAHAHA

File: 000031.jpg (2.05 MB, 1818x1228)

2.05 MB JPG

>>4473368
Were people color correcting their color film in the 50s and 60s? If so how?
As far as I know film is completely analog and should just work out of the box.

File: should-i-buy-this-durst-m(...).jpg (82 KB, 473x960)

82 KB JPG

>>4473367
Picture is the head of an enlarger used to make color prints. You control the Magenta yellow and cyan to create a pleasing color balance on your print. Editing film has always been an integral part of the photographic process.

When a lab scans your images they usually give you a flat image that makes it easy for you to add however much contrast or whatever you want after the fact.
I scan all my negatives very flat to retain as much detail as possible then use capture one to add back the contrast I want. More often than not my edits actually look very similar to how they end up looking when printed, but with less highlight detail.

>>4473370
Only slide film, but also it depends on what you're doing with it.

>>4473371
>>4473373
Ahh I see, I'll keep that in mind. I only got into photography a year ago and mostly have been shooting digital.
Though I did get an SLR (Spotmatic 2) around a year ago too and have dabbled with it every few months.
I really like film but I'm still not great with it.

>>4473395
Well now you have a years worth of pics you could edit! :D Remember for film you always expose for the shadows. If you have a spot meter you point it at the darkest part of your frame you want to retain detail in and then decrease the metered exposure by 2 stops. If meter reads 1/15 you would set your camera to 1/60. It's a good place to start if you're primarily shooting color negative film or b&w.

How do I get into film photography? And realistically, how much money do you guys spend on it (after purchasing the gear)?

>>4473455
Get a 35mm film camera wifh lens included for like 50-100 bucks, 2 or 3 rolls of hp5 and 2 or 3 rolls of kodak gold.

>>4472435

yeah it's really sad how people try to fake it. it really isn't that hard to rip a vhs tape or dv tape properly. or to learn to shoot and develop film. people just don't want to take the time to learn anymore. upper right corner "demo" posers

it is good to do things with real gear, so you have an appreciation of how things used to be done and the how zorked out of their minds the engineers that made this cool ass shit were

File: 000011110029.jpg (3.86 MB, 6107x3771)

3.86 MB JPG

>>4473455
I bought a £15 Canon EOS 100 and a £50 f1.8 50mm Canon lens. Its like £10 for a roll of film. I tend to use it for trips.

Started developing my own film so cost is hard to say, but for a good lab near me its like £10 a roll.

Obligatory corner of building photo.

Anyone ever use IR goggles to develop by inspection?

>>4473481
I've been someone who has horded technology most of my life so far. Started in middle school.
So I've acquired tons of computers, cameras/camcorders, CRT Televisions, all sorts of things.
It used to be easier to find these things at Goodwill before maybe 2020-21.
But I'm happy I have all these things because if I ever want a certain "look" I can just get that look authentically.
One of my friends took some film classes in High School for fun and we were able to record a short film using a Canon ES2000 from 1995.
Its super easy to rip the video and its authentic, unlike "demo" posers.

>>4473512
> in High School for fun
I meant to say College, senior year of College he had some free space in his schedule so he filled it with film classes. We were able to make our short film then.

>>4473496
just shoot orthochromatic film bro

>>4473519
What if I want an excuse to get IR goggles?

fun fact: You can use this stuff called pinacryptol yellow and it desensitizes panchro film to red light. :D 2 minute soak, constant agitation. Photographers formulary sells it. :o

File: payphone_downscaled.jpg (2.92 MB, 1565x1038)

2.92 MB JPG

I have a question about film photography. Attached is one of my photos. I assume the answer is 'all of the above', but if I want a sharper image with less grain, do I need A) a better lens, B) a better camera (minolta x700) C) better film, D) a better scanner?

>>4473528
>but if I want a sharper image with less grain
For starters, I like how this picture looks. What film is it?
But to answer your questions

>A) a better lens
Possibly. Most of the sharpness in an imagine comes from the lens, not really the camera body itself.
Especially when we're talking about something analog like film photography.
Sure, digital cameras might have their own "flavors" in their sensors, but a film camera just flips up a mirror and hits the film stock.
So yes, if you want a sharp image, you need sharp glass. Good glass.

>B) a better camera (minolta x700)
As far as I know this is a good camera, and I already answered this in my first response basically.

>C) better film
Possibly, higher ISO = less grain. So if you want less grain, you should be using a film like Portra 400 or an 800 speed film
Portra is known for being Kodak's "Professional" quality film and for having very nice fine grain for its speed. Very nice film.

>D) a better scanner
Once again, possibly. The scanning process can be important for film photography, getting the balance right and all.
But your sharpness and grain issues should be fixed by getting a better lens and better film.

Honestly though, like I said, I think this picture you've posted is quite nice.

>>4473528
What f stop, what lens, what film, and what scanner?

>>4473535
Thanks, I like it too. This was Fujifilm 400. Sometimes I use Portra 400, but I switch back and forth hoping one day I will get a feel for what is what haha. The reason for my initial question was I came across a photo contest, but the criteria wants 'high quality images' haha, as its for a computer wallpaper.

>>4473536
Dunno, dunno, Fuji 400, dunno :) Let me turn on a light and see what the camera says.... Minolta MD 50mm lens, likely the one that came with the camera. As for F stop, not sure, that is something that I am working on getting better at. Mostly I just adjust until the light meter is close to the top (~1000) because historically everything has been underexposed, so I just blast it. The scanner is whatever my local photo place uses, maybe I'll ask next time. The scans come back at around 4k at least.

>>4473542
I really like Fuji 400. Generally I prefer the colors Fuji gives me over Kodak.
I think what would help is getting better glass, that is what most photographers say desu.
Though, I'm not the right person to ask about what a good lense for your camera is, I've never owned one.

Its also pretty impressive that you dont even know the f-stop you were using.
Though, I guess you have a working light meter. You're doing the right thing overexposing.
Color Negative film prefers to be a bit overexposed, its better than if you underexposed it.

Keep up the good work.

>>4473545
>I really like Fuji 400. Generally I prefer the colors Fuji gives me over Kodak.
haha blind retard, its the same emulsion

>>4473535
>Possibly, higher ISO = less grain.
wrong, higher ISO = more grain. you want a nice low iso film for smoothness

File: 68e0a0cc2afbf.jpg (784 KB, 1920x1280)

784 KB JPG

in case anyone's interested, picrel just popped up on ebay
as soon as I saw it I figured I'd have to buy it, but then I priced it out
not really a deal, basically current going rate for everything in the kit, but does save you the hassle/time of tracking it all down
then again the OEM hard case is a bit of a white elephant as far as I'm concerned, cool for collectors but practically speaking you'd be better off with a pelican with custom inserts (be able to carry more than one lens for one)

File: swingset.jpg (266 KB, 1253x843)

266 KB JPG

>>4473570
Its definitely not. My Fujifilm 400 pictures come out COMPELTELY differently than my Kodak pictures.
>>4473574
oh yeah, got it flipped in my head. Still, Portra is known for having a nice fine grain.

>pic related, Fuji 400.
Way different than how my Kodak pictures turn out.

>>4473549
did you edit your reflection out of this, why does the window look like that
>>4473574
at first I thought what he meant was you'd get less prominent grain shooting 400/800 vs under-exposing 100/200
but yeah for a daylight shot like that, that doesn't make sense

>>4473579
fuji literally respools kodak film for its stock in the west, and only makes limited runs of its own film in japan. you can look at the datasheets and see they have exactly the same response curves.

>>4473582
I mean, I've heard that before, but that doesn't change the fact that when its developed Fujifilm looks different than Kodak.
Either that, or I'm just better at exposing Fujifilm than Kodak film every time.

>>4473552
>wow poorly exposed branches. but get this: there is a 35mm frame around them! oh boy its art!!
what a waste. stick to digital retard

>>4471595
Why is London so yellow? Brits turned Mexico Filter on?

>>4472180
What scanner?

>>4473615
look even I can see it's a photo of a spiderweb
>mobile posters

Fuck, I feel like I need a second camera just to stay on top of all the projects I'm doing in parallel.
Like I love using my analog camera just to document my life, taking it on trips and taking some snapshits and such. But currently I'm also working on a more focused double exposure project, that I don't want to fill up with random pics from the hike I'm planning on the weekend

>>4473636
Epson v750. It kinda freaking sucks, but I think I've gotten around 500MP+ scans from some of my 8x10s with it by placing sheet directly on the scanning bed. No 8x10 holder exists for the epson flatbed scanners, so it's the only way. At least it is more convenient than stitching 60 FF macro shots together...

>>4473682
just buy another body with the same mount

>>4473636
Epson v850 pro sorry.

>>4473721
>placing sheet directly on the scanning bed
In that case v750 will use low res lens

File: Untitled (35).jpg (931 KB, 1554x1300)

931 KB JPG

>>4473733
In silverfast you select wide transparency and it still does the full res scan. I dont know how it would know you have a film holder in the machine or not...

This is a tiny crop off an 8x10. Roughly 1/180th of the full negative, or 1/3rd of a 35mm frame. Shot at optimal aperture(f16 or f22) with foma100. Its pretty close to a 35mm neg shot with a 35mm camera.

>>4473740
Super res lens is only activated for film holders
and it can only focus above scanner glass bed
(2-3mm)

>>4473742
but there is another problem
super res lens can go only 6" in width
some people scan 8x10 sandwitched with AN glass in two parts and stitch in software

>>4473742
Oh. Not too big of a deal really, but good to know. I mainly scan 8x10 to share on 4shitter and to give 5mb jpgs to friends. I noticed that I was getting similar to better resolution between 4x5 and 8x10 even when I was shooting at the same aperture. Guess that's why.

>>4473744
Too much work. I only scan my 8x10 to see them before I have enough to make prints and sharing jpgs. Amidol is a really expensive developer, so Ill get 6-8 negatives ready and spend 5 or 6 hours straight contact printing them all. Amidol has a very short working life and will not last more than 6-8 hours.

If I needed good scans I would send them out to get drum scanned. I'm already paying 25 dollars per 8x10 color positive, why not pay another 50 for a good scan I can make a 40 foot print out of?

>>4473722
Nah, IF I end up doing it, I'd rather use it as an excuse to get something different. I've been thinking of getting some old rangefinder camera and most of those seem to not be compatible with my Minolta lenses

>>4473764
>old rangefinder camera and most of those seem to not be compatible with my Minolta lenses
of course not, fucking idiot.

>>4473765
Kek, the fuck is your problem?

File: KARSFNX22506.jpg (3.02 MB, 2000x1296)

3.02 MB JPG

First time trying out Phoenix 2.

File: KARSFNX225021.jpg (3.44 MB, 1319x2000)

3.44 MB JPG

Was a nice foray shooting color for the first time since January. Seems like I picked the optimal setting for this film too, the normal daylight shots look wash out grainy ass but these evening tones are really comfy.

>>4473327
cinestill is kodak, anon
give opticolour 200 a try, I really like it

>>4473810
I've got a roll in my fridge but i never know when i'm going to have the right lighting or subject matter for it

File: KARSFNX225010.jpg (2.91 MB, 1302x2000)

2.91 MB JPG

>>4473868
Yeah this thing is a gimmick film for sure. But man these purple tones just hit the spot somehow.

>>4473810
>>4473811
>>4473812
>>4473813
>>4473814
>>4473815
>>4473913
idc if people think this film is lo-fi or whatever, those colors hit just the right spot for me

>>4473810
twin peaks ass looking film

neat

>>4473810
>>4473811
>>4473812
>>4473813
>>4473814
>>4473815
>>4473913
Really fucking cool, last one's probably my favorite. Really makes me want to go hiking in Norway again

Looked at things - Nikon Zf+basic zoom+40mm prime is 2.4k used. X-t3+two comparable lenses is 1.5k for worse performance.

A film body from the 70s and a couple of lenses is like $300. Even at modern development rates, that’s a lot of upfront savings before I’m losing money shooting film.

All I really care about is portraits, travel photography, etc, and I’m increasingly sick of the digital world, social media, etc.

There’s a chance that I could take a shot at being a photographer on some actual income-generating level, but idk how realistic that actually is. It’d be fun to go do concert shooting for my cousins band, or do pics+video for some of the wannabe influencers at my gym, but it feels like that’s more just one more childish daydream.

Managing rolls would be a pain in the ass on the road, but for daytime hiking photography, tourist shit, pics of friends, I can really see the appeal of just a manual 35mm camera and some Kodak Gold or similar.

Only problem - I 100% know that I will not be doing by own dev/printing. I did in photography class in high school, and it’s just a pain in the ass, no disrespect to anyone who likes it. Feels like sending everything through a lab could cause some headaches down the road, idk if I necessarily want some random guy seeing my photos

>>4473962
>zf $2.4k
jesus fucking christ
>$1.5k for an ancient fuji
what the fuck is wrong with you people

get your head out of the gearfag gutter idiot. if youve been reading brand war shit on /p/, these people literally lie and spout nonsense that doesnt matter in real life because they have buyers remorse after spending $2.4k on a 24mp full frame camera, a kit zoom and a plastic prime. none of what they discuss has SHIT to do with real life camera use. you notice fuji hate exploded when the xm5 plus kit lens was just $800? lotta people with two fucking grand of 24 megapixel nikon got a bit upset at that and layed it on. never ask a gearfag about the last time he needed his weather sealing. either they're super gearfaggy and always use the big fucking zoom, or they could have just covered their camera.

digital camera setups should not be that much over $1.5k... for NEWER FULL FRAME SHIT, not a fucking x-t3. dont get scammed by these gearfag idiots. digital photographers are OBJECTIVELY THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON EARTH right now. don't end up like them.

sony aps-c like a6000, $250-500, maybe up to $1k for the newest one (aka pointless gearfaggotry)
sony ff like a7iii, a7c, $800-$1000 (dont go newer its pointless gearfaggotry, dont go older they kinda suck)
nikon z6 mk1 or z6 mk2 are basically the same camera, so buy the mk1 for <$750, its just a sony a7iii with slightly worse AF-C
canon r50, r10 kits, $500-$750
canon r7 $1000ish i think? it varies
canon rp not even $1k
ff dslrs like d750, 5dii, 5dii, 6d, $350-500
aps-c dslrs, open facebook market they're borderline free

how the fuck do people spend $2k+ on ff or $1500 on apsc? by being stupid gearfags who watch too much youtube

and only buy local, online sellers are scamming youtube idiots and /p/ tier subhuman gearfaggots to make up for ebays 15% fees

>>4473963
To be clear, I think those prices are ridiculous too, that’s why I’m here lmao
I don’t browse the gear thread on here, but everybody I see on social media, yt, or IRL using mirrorless is playing in that price ballpark.
The only tech advance I strictly care about is good autofocus, since on digital I’d want to take the opportunity to shoot action, pets, friends sports events, etc.
I have these occasional thoughts of doing video, but it doesn’t emotionally move me.

My problem is that I really prefer the “retro” ergonomics, and that locks me into Fuji, the Zf, Leica (lmao), or film.
But yeah, if I suck up how much I hate the blobs, a d750 and some motor-drive lenses is cheap as dirt and probably still more performance than I realistically need.
A7c is a very tempting option for size+weight, although I’m not seeing any that cheap, and the guys I know shooting Sony who don’t do hybrid video+photo are switching to other brands because it’s easier to get good colors and looks
Hadn’t really looked into Canon at all, ngl

Strong agree that the conspicuous consumption aspect is a dipshit part of the hobby

>>4473965
>shooting Sony who don’t do hybrid video+photo are switching to other brands because it’s easier to get good colors and looks
The entire associated press shoots sony. Anyone who can't get good colors out of a sony is either very new or just clueless. They're the "raws are meant to be flat right?" lightroom renter crowd that thinks camera body = color science, since thats what the forums/youtubers told them, when the truth professionals know for a fact is
ICC/ICM profile = color science
lens = color casts
body = illuminant dependent metameric failure (AKA camera colorblindness) - which is, ironically uniformly poor for mirrorless cameras and superior on vintage DSLRs

The reason you see video people sticking with sony (believe it or not, sony isn't the best for video, nikon and panasonic have the specs) is because video people are more likely to be serious professionals who know how color works in photography - and they're more likely to run a business and factor in how cheap and easily replaceable their gear is, and know how little the specs actually matter

Even if you're a total retard and dont know any color theory or how to set camera jpegs to your liking, you can just pay $200 for capture one when it goes on sale in a month, switch the default color profile to one for a canon, use sigma lenses (they have a canon-like color cast), and call it a day. Shooting raw is more convenient anyways, as long as the workflow is integrated like it is in C1 or well configured darktable instead of the unholy laggy LR+PS combo. If by some miracle that does not satisfy you, cobalt image makes fine tuned color profiles that actually match different camera bodies exactly, but it will probably satisfy you because it's so close to swap c1 profiles that maybe just one blue hue or saturated red would be slightly different.

>>4473996
>believe it or not, sony isn't the best for video, nikon and panasonic have the specs
Feels good to be validated as a Nikon Loyalist yet again.

>>4473913
This one is sick and I appreciate that you absolutely nailed the exposure because this scene really does suit the film, but if you went over or under even just a bit it wouldn't have worked

File: Untitled120leo11 (21).jpg (413 KB, 1555x1913)

413 KB JPG

Catlabs film X first test, shameless weston dupe. Got the film cheap on ebay.

Contrast too high on negative, lighting FUCKED. Going to drop down to 40 iso, reduce dev time by a minute, and test again. No reciprocity data or dev times to go off of except for start with fp4+ chart. Looking at a 7 minute exposure at f64.

Not sure if I like this film. At least there is no fog. After my next test I will try something more original along these same lines.

>>4474340
Replicating westons work is deceptively challenging. Very good exercise in lighting. Would recommend.

>>4473811
>>4473815
Those purples are pure sex. You've convinced me to finally try out Phoenix at some point.

File: Untitled120leo11 (22).jpg (1.47 MB, 2097x2547)

1.47 MB JPG

>>4474340
Version no.2. This one came out a bit better. I need to refine my lighting more. I used constant light aimed at a bounce card. Haven't taken pics in like two or three weeks, so I'm happy to get back to it.

Not really sure how I feel about this film. Needs more testing. Looking at the actual negative it may be more like a 20 speed film if I want normal contrast. The shadow was only like 2 or 3 stops darker than the bone and egg, and I metered the exposure to place the shadow in zone 3...

File: 2022_228_cropped.jpg (102 KB, 662x843)

102 KB JPG

>>4474405
Here is the reference image I was replicating for anyone interested. You probably wouldn't be able to get tonality like this unless you actually made a print, especially if you're developing negatives for printing and then scanning them.

>>4472180
Wow dude, I hope this was worth it on some kind of emotional level or something?
Just think, this one "photo" eliminated a whole 36 exposure 135 roll's worth of vintage slide film from the gene pool.
I just hope the shepherd getting 100% of it ensures your own genetic material suffers the same fate.
Giant fucking doghair on the bottom left btw.

God this thread died. Along with the board I guess. It was the last decent regular thread here and now it is totally worthless. It's been a long time coming I suppose. Death of the medium itself too.

>>4474469
>poor baby doesnt know you need to crack eggs to make an omelette.
It's a well executed shot that demonstrates the "vivid saturation" of e100vs. It also made you feel something, so I'm calling it art. Thanks.
My first batch of 8x10 slide was all basically test shots to get my feet wet and understand what an 8x10 slide physically produces. I still have 93 sheets left, so it is no big deal. :D

>>4474518
Your complaining is what killed it lol. Go put some effort into making a photo and post it.

>>4474519
yea me complaining once killed it.

File: Image 89 (1) (1).jpg (4.87 MB, 2932x4360)

4.87 MB JPG

Your bad attitude, yeah. You should post one of your film shots you've taken and you'll be the first person who whines and complains that has actually contributed anything. Break the mold bro.

>>4474518
it's over...

>>4474532
for many here, your enormous ego, extreme gearfaggotry, and total lack of talent were the last straw and made them dump an already declining thread that was slowly filling with no-talent gear autists that are neurologically incapable of producing art.

if you are engineer-brained/technical you literally can not be artistic. you will never be a decent artist by modern standards. ever.

dont call it an insult, its human nature

technical aptitude comes from attention to detail, astute observation, and grounding in objective facts. there is nothing in a technical minded persons brain that can not be communicated in full.

artistic competence comes from a tenuous grasp on reality forcing individuals to resort to vague and abstract attempts to communicate, which ultimately produces novel works for more normal people to muse about. artistic people are often effectively quite stupid/failures at life and the things they communicate are banal (ie: "i'm depressed" "i think other people are stupid") but its all about the novelty of how they do it.

for this reason no great scientist or philosopher would ever be a good artist in the 20th/21st century. just a great craftsman. by modern standards, craftsmen aren't worthwhile artists anymore. the novelty of doing things extremely well (ie: painting an entire gospel's narrative in lifelike detail) has worn off and now it's all about feeling smug while pretending you care about figuring out what a schizophrenic black man meant when he smeared paint on a toilet seat so your friends acknowledge that you're cultured and with it and you all thought about something new for that day.

unfortunately for you in particular, you're technical, but not particularly smart, and therefore, not particularly good at being a craftsman either.

File: Image 24 (2).jpg (1.51 MB, 1766x2692)

1.51 MB JPG

>>4474541
>schizo cope instead of photo.

LMFAO! It has been a while my little troll. Hope you've been well.

>>4474541
doggy btfo

>>4474543
provin ur critics right

File: Untitled120leo11 (5).jpg (3.48 MB, 2870x2276)

3.48 MB JPG

Samefag nophoto lol. It just keeps getting funnier.

Not gonna stop posting photos. Ha ha.

File: _DSC4484.jpg (4.26 MB, 7952x5304)

4.26 MB JPG

>>4474518
I've started my darkroom recently and I stopped scanning my film because of that. I don't have a setup for scanning my prints, but when I will have one I'll share some of my work.
I've tried lith prints recently on expired paper picrel. Very fun technique with a special developer, based on dilution paper type and exposure it can give you different colors and tones.
>>4474541
mental illness

>>4474554
>samefag
no schizo

nice test shot. you hit focus. your gear works. very good. when you move on from practice photos? did you think there was artistic value in a horse partially intersecting a wall? this is large format film. its for more important things than snapshitting pets. you could have framed this better and gone from snapshit to photo with a few meters of movement and flipping the film around ffs.

gear melted ur brain

File: 2023-10-22-0005.jpg (1.92 MB, 3849x2579)

1.92 MB JPG

Has anyone here tried shooting Double XX with a blue filter?

There's a zombie walk in my city this weekend, and I'm hoping to get a kind of old-school horror movie look, and I read that they used a blue filter when they filmed The Lighthouse and want something a bit similar (Seems like the filter was custom made and I am going to use a generic one lel, so I am not expecting a 1:1 look)

I also plan to shoot some 250D with a flash at night. I'm even considering bringing my 6x6 camera loaded with Fomapan, but I don't want to carry too much gear.

File: Babypig1.jpg (2.45 MB, 2695x2181)

2.45 MB JPG

>>4474555
Is lith paper the high contrast stuff like lith film? I got some 11x14 lith film I've been wanting to use for pinhole and enlarging 35mm film for contact printing, but I realized I don't have the space in my tiny darkroom lol. One day I will build my proper darkroom...

Cool shots btw.

>>4474556
>still nophoto
You have got one hell of an ego if you think you can tell another photographer what is and isn't a worthwhile subject for them to photograph, especially based on the gear they're using. You sound like a gearfag lol.
Get your own 8x10 camera and take pictures of "important" things if you care so much lil bro. No one's stopping you.

>>4474561
thanks
it's kinda confusing but lith film is a different thing
lith process (also called infectious development) is made on normal silver gelatin paper, usually fiber based, with a special lith developer. You have to overexpose the paper 1-3 stops and it can take long as fuck to develop a picture. The one on the right took me around 30 mins standing and agitating the tray lol. You can speed it up or change picture properties by warming up dev, smaller/bigger dilution, more overexposure or throwing some chemical thingamajigs. Lot of experimenting and patience, I am still learning.

>>4474564
Huh, interesting. It definitely produces some cool looking prints. Not sure if I would have the patience for it lol.

>>4474561
Litorally can not tell what this photo is meant to be

Can you imagine someone painting this exact photo? An indistinct pigs ass?

File: file.jpg (19 KB, 500x354)

19 KB JPG

>>4474567
picrel is not mine of course, but it's an example what you can achieve with this. Works very well for some subjects.
It was 30mins because of my fuckup. With optimal conditions it's at max 10min for print, at 2-3 minutes image starts appearing.

File: Babypig2.jpg (3.06 MB, 2707x2205)

3.06 MB JPG

>>4474571
It's a bunch of piglets breastfeeding. How disconnected from reality and blind are you that you can't see that? The beauty and ugly of life.

>>4474573
Woah. That's extremely cool.

File: IMG_5773.jpg (3.22 MB, 5712x4284)

3.22 MB JPG

I didn’t have time to develop the rolls before I flew back home. I double bagged them in heavy lined lead bags, hopefully nothing got cooked.

I couldn’t see the roll of film in the canisters and I couldn’t see the sheets of film on the screen this time like the time I only had one lead lined bag so hopefully I protected them enough.

>>4474580
Why no handcheck?

File: IMG_5664.jpg (2.02 MB, 4032x3024)

2.02 MB JPG

>>4474581

They absolutely refused even when I explained to them I had flown through Istanbul and Madrid without issues just a couple weeks ago.

They gave me some bullshit reasoning about following new protocols and that the x-ray machine was perfectly safe up to 3200 ISO. They showed me the specifications and testing which I know is just some pamphlet they flash in front of travelers as some sort of reassurance. They just wouldn’t listen when I explained to them some film is more sensitive to x-rays regardless of ISO.

I pleaded and pointed to the swab machines that were already on they refused to budge so in the end either I kept my film and didn’t fly or had it go through the x-ray and go to my gate. Even after it went through they were a little disappointed they couldn’t see more detail of what was in the cylinders and I told them usually people swab them because the film is light tight and you can’t open it without destroying it. The supervisor rolled his eyes and said well the swabs are for explosives not drugs. I doubt that but he eventually just let me go with my film without pressing any further.

>>4474591
Damn not the xrayed aerocolor. If only there was a drug dog there to sniff your film.

Any worth in getting into film if I know I’m realistically not going to do my own dev/printing? I did it in a photography class in HS and just didn’t click with the darkroom
I enjoyed the actual shooting process of analog though, been trying to spend more time away from screens and the internet

>>4474605
if you have the money/patience to just send it to the lab, give it a spin.

>>4474605
There are films that are designed for scanning like portra. Whether it is worth the extra steps to shoot film is really up to you, and if you're just trying to get away from screens while doing photography then a cheap slr or p&s may be worthwhile.

You could also shoot slide film and project the images if you wanted a non-darkroom, non digital screen viewing experience. Slide film can be tricky tho.

>>4474605
Yeah most people use labs especially for color film. Just make sure to get your negatives back and get prints made of the photos you like.

>>4472236
As far as I know, 100 is VR Plus or VR-G (or at least a very similar formula) and is probably the same used for Lomography 100.

Kodacolor 200 is Color Plus

>>4472397
>Is Eastman moving to break free of their shackles?
Maybe. I think they paid off a whole bunch of debt to alaris so they might have refinanced their situation

>>4474573
>picrel is not mine of course
Yea, "of course". No one here is even capable of taking a photo of a tree decently. lmao.. How sad. Dead board. Even Reddit gets great shots posted every day.

>>4474734
>still seething, still whining, still nophoto

I've been reading about and looking at the output of medium format film cameras and sometimes I am literally left stunned.

Obviously great photographers will get the most out of them, but in general, they seem appealing just from the quality that they are capable of alone.

Is the main downside of medium format cameras the cost? red pill me on medium format.

I shoot mostly digital and when I've tried 35mm film, it was mostly for still life work.

>>4474750
MF requires more light/shutter speed for equivalent DoF to 35mm. It's very noticeable. The cameras and lenses are way bigger as well.

>>4474751
>MF requires more light/shutter speed for equivalent DoF to 35mm
lmao retard

>>4474752
If you want the same fov it is absolutely true. Or what? Is MF only for taking really wide angle pictures and no headshots allowed?

>>4474754
>shutter speed affects FOV
Nigga what

>>4474756
Nooooooooo. 90mm on 6x6 is the same fov as 50mm on 35mm for example. Longer focal lengths need more f stop to reach the same DoF as shorter focal lengths. If you want the same DoF you need to increase your fstop, which means you need to either add more light, reduce your shutter speed, or use higher ISO film.

>>4474734
Yea, and on the flick too
you can find hundreds of very similar photos that looks almost the same.

>>4474751
I have noticed that the ones I was reading about that were supposed to be quite portable back in the day, such as the hasselblads, are still pretty big.

I can imagine these MF cameras being taken out only on well preplanned occasions.

>>4474767
I find lightweight tlr and MF rangefinders like the mamiya 6/7 to be the best for more casual stuff. MF slrs like a hassie or rb67 are best when used on a tripod IMO. They can have pretty intense mirror slap.

File: 2014-365-233_The_Basic_Br(...).jpg (4.07 MB, 4980x3320)

4.07 MB JPG

>>4474767
>>4474769
let me guess, you "need" more.

>>4474770
>no mirror slap
>takes a sharper picture than 60% of all MF slrs handheld.

Heh nothing personnel, kid.

>>4473336
>I never have this problem with Fuji-branded Kodak Gold or Ultramax, or Cinestill-branded Kodak Vision3
>I'm not a fan of kodak films

>>4473398
>Remember for film you always expose for the shadows.
That's not true

>>4473370
>were people correcting color negative film in the 50s?
yes, the color printing process pretty much has color correcting built in
>were people correcting slide film in the 50s?
in-camera for the most part using filters

>>4473528
>a better camera (minolta x700)
no. please think about it and you'll realize the box holding the film won't have any effect on the grain. it's probably the scanner, maybe the film, and unlikely down to the lens.

>>4473810
>>4473811
>>4473815
pretty nice

>>4474779
What do you expose for anon?

>>4474781
Theoretically you expose so that your 17% grey card is "properly" exposed but for c-41 you'd generally rather over than under expose since it tends to have wider latitude upward and less pronounced color shifts/grain

>>4474781
You expose so that your subject falls into the right brightness range for your film, and if your film doesn't have the range for it, you use a different film or accept what will happen.

Rules of thumb for noobs are fine but exposing for the shadows mostly only applies to color negative films and to a certain extent, B&W negative films, and even then, with new films from smaller players coming out that have decreased range than you might expect, exposing for the shadows can still blow your highlights.

Not to mention slide film, where again, you should just expose your subject properly, but if you had to dumb it down, then exposing for the highlights would be more correct.

>>4474752
>>4474756
reading comprehension

>>4474793
>>4474790
That isn't what expose for shadows means. When you expose for shadows you meter your shadows(darkest area you want to retain information on your negative) and place them in zone 3 or 4(1 or 2 stops darker than spot meter reading), zone 3/4 is the lowest density that still produces information on film. You are not metering your shadows and placing them in zone 5 or middle gray, duh.
Exposing for shadows and developing for highlights is the correct way to expose film because when you do that you are able to control the amount of global contrast/density on your film to then be able to properly print your negative. The exposure produces enough density in the shadows to still have information and the development "holds back" the highlight density enough to be able to actually print the negative.
For low DR film the same still applies because when you expose for the shadows you are choosing how much shadow information you want to retain/lose vs. How much highlight you want to keep/lose.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but the general idea still holds. For example when shooting portraits of a white person you may choose to place their skin in zone 6 rather than ensuring you have good shadow detail.

>>4474793
>>4474799
>>4474790
>>4474779
just use sunny 16, who needs this gay nerd shit

>>4474817
If you ever want to make prints you need to make proper exposures or you'll be in a world of hurt. Scanning is film on training wheels. Technical knowledge of film exposure and development allows for greater control over the entire process as well.

>>4474817
I don't think you could get away with sunny16 and slide film either...

I feel like a cuck doing postproduction digitally in Lightroom. Is developing and editing 35mm much better as an experience?

>>4474876
How will you be editing your 35mm film? In lightroom?

>>4474878
Can't you just superimpose with a knife?

>>4474894
I think an interpositive technique with masking may produce more "realistic" results, but I've got no clue. You would basically make your edits on a print(interpositive) and turn that print into a negative that you would use to produce more prints from.
It is definitely possible. If you like handwork and darkroom fuckery more than computer work it could be a fun time learning the ways of old.

>>4474894
Im pretty sure that cutting up a negative would leave a hard edge on it when you try to make prints. Unsightly if you're going for a convincing edit, but it could also be a cool look if you used it properly.

>>4474876
>>4474894
You'd have better luck with mf or lf if you want to use the exacto

File: Arriflex235MPsmall.jpg.95(...).jpg (122 KB, 1200x643)

122 KB JPG

thoughts on the arriflex 235? i've been curious about what the most compact 35mm film camera is and i think this is it, but i haven't found a strong source of info on it. is it usable for doing walkabout shots?

>>4474907
Who cares. Get it. You'll make people so jealous angry if you start posting webms that cost you like 1000 dollars to make.

picking up an enlarger tomorrow with 7 boxes of darkroom supplies.
I can finally stop editing my scans and just print my shit instead.

>>4474919
Happy for you anon

>>4474919
details plz

>>4471829
>london
>beautiful
Beautiful if you like seeing the homeless under every bridge with your nostrils full of the stench of rotten piss.
>>4472448
What the fuck did you do to this photo Anon?

>>4473810
>>4473811
>>4473812
>>4473813
Hot damn, beautiful photos.
Nice work

>>4474999
looks like it's blurry shot on high iso film during cloudy day developed not exactly perfectly to the recipe or expired

>>4475102
I should have written "long exposure in low light" instead of just blurry. Maybe some alteration of bleaching pass was done too.

>>4474907
Nope, that's far from the most compact 35 film cameras. But only sane option if you want Hollywood grade quality and synch of sound

I was doing some research about weston's still lifes and he often used diffused northern light either in a studio with large windows or a muslin tent.
He used apertures as small as f240 and exposure times of many hours. By doing this he created an even tone over the entire subject because the diffuse indirect sunlight would wash over the entire subject as the hours passed and the sun moved giving his images their signature look. VERY COOL.

File: 000005570023.jpg (2.12 MB, 2048x3091)

2.12 MB JPG

the day i woke up and realized i'm just a loser that can't take good photos was the best day of my life

>>4475145
Doesn't need to stay that way. Read about how much "practice" some of the masters did before ever getting "good". Weston was basically practicing for like two decades straight before he became the weston we all know and appreciate. 20 years...

File: IMG23034 — Pentax K-1, HD(...).jpg (1.43 MB, 2400x2400)

1.43 MB JPG

I finally did it

File: GX680 pics 2025-10-15_Page 2.jpg (776 KB, 1800x1200)

776 KB JPG

>>4475174
I did not expect it to actually be easier to carry around than the bronica
suppose that will change once I'm packing more than a single lens and film back though
before anyone comments about the tripod head, that's a kessler crane ball head which is plenty strong for the 680, it just looks ridiculous
some things I've noted so far:
the paint fuji used on this thing is weird, it's like sandpaper
those marks on the side of the film back are from brushing my fingernails against it taking the dark slide out
also the angle viewfinder is next to useless, it's like looking at the focus screen through a straw
there's two versions, the 90° (this one) and a ~75° which seems more common but also newer, so maybe it has improved optics
either way much lighter than the bronica's angle finder, since it's made with a mirror instead of a huge fucking prism

>>4475179
>>4475174
But where are the pics gearfaganon?

File: GX680 pics 2025-10-15_Page 1.jpg (279 KB, 1599x1200)

279 KB JPG

>>4475179
also guess who can't fucking read lmfao (me)
>-Lens: There is a few fungus.
honestly not too upset, with the price I got the camera for in its condition (plus a last-minute seller discount) I basically got this lens for free to "test functionality"
I didn't really have any plans on getting this lens for the 680 anyways
fuji really offered a bizarre selection of focal lengths for this system
>>4475180
hey did you know, film takes time to develop and can't posted online instantly after you take it?
won't have any pics until this weekend because I had to replace my phone screen today instead of developing, that sure was fun

>>4475182
I thought it was common etiquette on fgt to wait until you had pictures to announce your latest gear acquisition, but maybe that's just me. I'm just giving you shit. I hope you use some camera movements for creative focus in the pics you are going to share.

>>4475185
I don't understand this angle, it's not like most of the posts here are film photos or discussions of film photos
heaven forbid I talk about film gear in the film thread
I should take it over to the latest of five live gear threads full of snoyposting instead I guess

>>4475210
Im not saying you shouldn't post the cool gear you get. Im saying you should balance the cool gear posts with some cool picture posts. Imagine you made your two posts about the camera, but then you also had like 6 pics to share as well.

It doesn't actually matter. Like I said I'm just giving you shit.

>>4475102
I meant how the grain is literally crystalline.

>>4475182
fungus is bad
never put fungus lens near healthy lenses
not even in the same room

>>4475335
Doesn't sunlight kill fungus?

>>4475336
No
Lens coating will filter UV
You will need very strong UV-C light

File: 000023.jpg (1.22 MB, 1818x1228)

1.22 MB JPG

I have a question about film cameras that will be stupid but I'm curious to hear what you guys think.
I put a roll of Fuji 400 inside my X-700. I also bought a roll of B/W film recently that I want to use in the city on Saturday.
Now, I could just finish the remaining 26 pictures I have on the Fuji roll, I'm sure I will. But I really want to shoot B/W on Saturday.

I am on frame 10. Would it be possible to rewind the film back inside the camera, stop with the leader still exposed like a new roll
Put my B/W roll in, shoot it normally, rewind.
Put he Fuji 400 roll back in like its a new roll, and then just take 10 pictures with the lens cap on so that I'm back on frame 10.
(Maybe shoot an extra frame or 2 to make sure).
Then just use the rest of the Fuji 400 roll normally?

I'm sure this sounds stupid and amateur, which is why I'm interested to hear what you folks have to say.

>>4475352
its doable as long as your camera is consistent with the film spacing.
Otherwise you probably would get double exposures, but you never know maybe you would like them

File: 000033.jpg (1.73 MB, 1818x1228)

1.73 MB JPG

>>4475355
That is why I mentioned shooting a frame or two past frame 10. I might lose a frame but it would be better than ruining an exposure.
Not that I'm against double exposure, I actually want to try it sometime.
I might try it out just to try it.

I have the motor drive attachment for the X-700, do you think that would help with consistent film spacing?

File: Untitled120leo11 (23).jpg (2.92 MB, 1891x2332)

2.92 MB JPG

I wanted long exposures without resorting to f240, so I asked chatgpt to make me a developer that reduced the speed of film a lot. Came up with a phenidone based developer. It said it would make fp4+ drop down to about 12 iso. Metered @ 12 iso I got a 17.5 min exposure @ f64, and I got a negative so thin you can only see it in the right lighting. Scanned "fine", but contact printing times would likely be far too short to make a print from it.
Doing my next test exposure for 3.5 hours. Same scene, but the light will gradually fade from the window I'm using to photograph the image, so part of that time is to compensate for that. It metered at like 16 minutes, but I gave it an extra stop just for fun. 30 mins = 3.5 hour exposure with reciprocity.
Should be interesting to see if I can get the extra density I want from the negative.

Sorry about the dust and shit. This is strictly a test shot. I think I figured out where it's coming.

>>4475372
>so I asked chatgpt to make me a developer that reduced the speed of film a lot
Anon, I've tested AI with engineering questions and it misses the mark by 1000x sometimes. It's a language model, you can't trust most things coming out of it. Read books if you need to, or reputable resources online but don't fall for the AI meme. Also if you want to get a feel of how comped it is, grill it on 9/11 inconsistencies. Ask it about the passports and watch it attempt types of manipulation you didn't know that existed.

>>4475375
Yes I am well aware of the ai meme, and I have caught it lying to my face about stuff before. OTOH It has worked suprisingly well for film chemistry related stuff actually, as a starting point and convenient google search more than a final answer/solution, of course.
I am getting the books soon(the same ones ai uses to answer my questions).
If I'm developing a single sheet of 8x10 film at a time I may as well have maximum control over the entire process, and it sounds fun to whip up developers based on my needs at the time. I have already made my own pyrocatMC that costs about 5 cents per liter of working solution, and amidol paper dev for my azo paper.

>>4475375
Also the ai developer only cost me about 5-8 dollars for enough to develop like 20 sheets of 8x10. Not a big deal if it completely fails.

>>4475372
Beginners mistake. I killed my phenidone by mixing it in before the sodium sulfite. Sad!

>>4475372
So apparently with the active reducer dead I got an image because simply having an alkaline solution reduces silver halide a teeny tiny bit. Kind of interesting... The 3.5 hour and 17.5 minute exposures look nearly indentical with the longer exposure having slightly lower contrast...

I remade my developer and will be doing another exposure tonight. Going back to 12 iso for this one.

>>4475407
Ask it to give you b&w film dev recipes that the nazis used to develop their aerial film.

>>4475409
they probably just used rodinal tbhqh

>>4475439
According to shatgpt Agfa made different developers for specific use cases/films. One was basically a d76 clone. All with names like agfa 8, agfa 14, etc.

Thanks chat!

File: 20251015_090236.jpg (713 KB, 3000x4000)

713 KB JPG

>>4474921
>>4474972
Big big score I think. $100 for 9 total boxes and a mystery enlarger covered with a sack.
When I got it home, I found it to be in beautiful condition, Omega Chromega B Dichrotic with all the extras. All this gear seems super taken care of and was used by this ladies mom who is still alive at 105 years old.
Finally can join the darkroom club and start honing my craft in this dead art

>>4475484
awesome! we need a dedicated print thread here on /p/

File: fujicolor_superia_400.jpg (584 KB, 2029x2028)

584 KB JPG

Hey filmbros,

I just bought a Mamiya/Sekor 500 TL off eBay for $30.
It did not work, the shutter is stuck or something. But I don't really care,
I only bought it because I wanted the 50mm Mamiya/Sekor Silver Kit Lens that it came with. I like that lens.
Anyway, it also came with 2 rolls of Fujicolor Superia X-TRA 400.

He said he bought the camera 2 years ago to "play with" but never did, he was probably lying and knew it didn't work.
How old do you think this film is? I know that Fuji announced they were discontinuing this film in April 2024
But for some reason these rolls strike me as older.

I'm going to keep one and shoot the other, but I was wondering if anyone here could help me guess how old they are so I can adjust my settings properly. Assuming its only 2 years old, it shouldn't be THAT expired....

How many exposures have you made so far this year? Where were you and where are you know with your pics?

File: Untitled120leo11 (26).jpg (2.67 MB, 1934x2366)

2.67 MB JPG

Still life. Egg and dried watermelon skin. Fp4+ @ 80 iso, pyrocat MC.

This was more a lighting and tone practice than anything. Missed focus a bit, but I really like the soft lighting I got. Would have liked to get a bit more glow on the tip of the egg, and a little better gradation/contrast on the background.
I like the image rotated sideways more than how I photographed it horizontally. It makes it more abstract looking and the triangular shape of the watermelon is more pronounced in a good way. It also kinda looks like a coochie lol.

Thoughts?

BTW Look how little dust is on the negative! Zero touch ups. I started using distilled water in my final photo flo wash and I got a mistral 3 drying cabinet. :) The thing was incredibly overpriced, but it dries thick emulsion negatives in like 35-45 minutes, and it has a built in air filter, so I am very happy.

>>4475634
superia hasn't really been available outside of japan for like 10 years maybe more
>adjust my settings properly
just shoot it at 200 or 400 it'll be fine either way (or it'll be irredeemably fucked)

>>4475660
Sir, this is a photo of garbage

>homie spent $800 to keep dirt off a photo of dirt
lol

>>4475661
>superia hasn't really been available outside of japan for like 10 years maybe more
See, that is why I asked, I could tell just from looking at the roll that this was probably 10+ years old.
Its design reminds me of the 2000s.
>just shoot it at 200 or 400 it'll be fine either way (or it'll be irredeemably fucked)
I tend to lean towards over exposure anyway. When I use it I'll post how it turns out.

>>4475669
Eggs are not garbage, egglet dummy. It's a still life study and eggcellent practice. Please elevate your appreciation of photography past the absolute most superficial of the superficial. I won't say it's art, yet, and I am not comparing myself to weston by any means, but if you said that weston's peppers or shells are simply peppers and shells it would prove to everyone just how lacking you truly are. Embarassing. Truly.

I got a mistral 3 to keep dirt off all my film for years to come, and to dry them quickly. :D Can't really think to the future very well, eh?

File: shamefur dispray.jpg (2.19 MB, 2218x1349)

2.19 MB JPG

>Got back my rolls
>Blew the focus on like 2/3 of my shots

It might just be cope but I honestly think that the lens for some of these might have played a role here. It's the FD 100-200 f/5.6 and there's no way to set the zoom or focus independently. Some of them came out okay, some came out shit.

First up is a shit photo.

File: diver.jpg (1.04 MB, 1043x1659)

1.04 MB JPG

And now a good one, also taken with the 100-200 f/5.6 but with the zoom and focus pinned at the max.

>>4475279
Shot high iso in low light and modify developing process, also maybe it's half-frame 35mm which means that whole image fits on 2x smaller area than regular 35.

>>4475971
But on 2nd thought to be honest it could be a regular 35mm frame. I remember taking low light long exposure photos from hand and after developing I get similar results when I get photos out of the lab. But it was decades ago and on Fujifilm.

>>4475865
Great pic anon

new bread
>>4476005