retard moment
previous thread: >>No.4471595

File: before the dive.jpg (964 KB, 1043x1648)

964 KB JPG

>>4475996
Thanks. Shooting a distinct silhouette against the sky is very much ez-mode but all the same I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.

My color roll was a moderately painful lesson - f/5.6 is way too slow for handheld low-light shooting even with 800. Almost all of the images are SHIT, whereas I got some decent ones at the same place and time last year with my 50mm 1.8.

File: 06 — 2025-10-14 1727 01.1(...).jpg (1.59 MB, 1799x2400)

1.59 MB JPG

>>4476005
man fuck you now I have to link back to an old thread

File: 07 — 2025-10-14 1741 01.1(...).jpg (1.32 MB, 2400x1799)

1.32 MB JPG

anyways finally posting photos for this faggot >>4475213

File: 03 — 2025-10-14 1705 01.1(...).jpg (1.41 MB, 1799x2400)

1.41 MB JPG

>>4476104
i have come to realize I don't particularly care for hp5+
thought it would be better if I developed it in dd-x like you're "supposed" to
but it's still low-contrast and fuzzy (don't know how else to explain it)
I've used a variety of different lenses, under-exposed, over-exposed, different developers and always get roughly the same results

File: 08 — 2025-10-16 0641 01.1(...).jpg (1.12 MB, 1799x2400)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4476105
gratuitous tilt shot as an experiment
this was taken after I spent ~6 hours unfucking the camera because I almost broke it less than 48h after getting it
fuck engineers who think requiring a separate jig to install a critical spring is a good idea

File: IMG23040 — Pentax K-1, HD(...).jpg (1.29 MB, 2400x1603)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4476106
pic related, the result of my struggles
for the other anon with a GX680, if you're troubleshooting the hot shoe or something, whatever you do
DO
NOT
REMOVE
the two large silver screws at the top of the front standard

>>4475335
>fungus is bad
>never put fungus lens near healthy lenses
>not even in the same room
fungus doesn't spread between lenses
the spores are already there in all lenses, just like you can't keep dust out either
fungus only grows in the lens when conditions are favorable
preventing fungus is just a matter of preventing favorable conditions
and there's not enough food in a lens for fungus to form fruiting bodies to produce more spores
so basically, if it seems fungus has spread between lenses, it's actually because they've all been stored in similar conditions and each grew their own fungus

anyways I don't plan to keep this lens but I also suspect I won't be able to get rid of it, even for like $50
like I said it was basically free so I don't care that much

File: 09 — 2025-10-16 1135 01.1(...).jpg (1.16 MB, 1799x2400)

1.16 MB JPG

>>4476104
sorry for the language

>>4476105
Have you tried pushing the film to 800 or even 1600? Hp5 is a pretty versatile film. You can shoot it anywhere from around 25 iso all the way up to 1600 or higher.

File: IMG_1975.jpg (1.46 MB, 1284x1456)

1.46 MB JPG

>>4476117
hey another gx680 chad, nice. i tore apart my mark 1 to diagnose an electrical gremlin and get a better understanding of how to power it since the batteries i got with it were dead. Fun stuff. rigged up an lp-e6 adapter that works pretty solid so the thing is firing away now. then i found out the chinks just have a purpose built solution for that on ebay and i could have saved myself the trouble lol, but it was fun to do. i have a mark 3 as well, and that one works without issues. it's a great fun system if a bit impractical. but like you i find the walking around with it (and a tripod lol) is fun.

File: raw0022.jpg (3.27 MB, 3000x2230)

3.27 MB JPG

>>4476153
and a handheld snapshit with it. honestly i love the stupid bulky thing. once you start building out the lens set you're gonna love it i'm sure.

File: 000488930029.jpg (3.31 MB, 3130x2075)

3.31 MB JPG

Phoenix I

>>4476007
>>4471595

>>4476105
>thought it would be better if I developed it in dd-x
I've only ever seen good looking HP5+ developed in Jobo Alpha (Wehner developer)

File: ITS HAPPENING.png (262 KB, 1042x786)

262 KB PNG

ITS HAPPENING

Is there any trick to shooting slide film beyond being mindful of the smaller exposure latitude? I've never shot it before but from what I've read it seems like that's 90% of the specific advice out there: that if you over-expose then your highlights will be BTFO and if you under-expose then your shadows will be SMASHED and SLAMMED so your best bet is to split the difference when metering and avoid high-contrast shots.

>>4476269
>nore expensive than gold for equal if not worse quality
Grim

>>4476276
Usually people expose for highlights and let the shadows fall wherever they may.

>>4476276
ask dude that was shooting playmates on Ektachrome sheets

>>4476280
In my country a roll of Gold 120 goes for about 15 dollars, so I am picking the chinkshit.

>>4476269
finally
>$9.99 plus shipping
it's pointless. It's literally MORE expensive than a 3 pack of Gold

If you use a low contrast developer you can get 20 stops of DR from b&w film.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-20 at (...).png (490 KB, 2824x1164)

490 KB PNG

>>4476146
yeah I've tried 800 but not 1600
feel like I might get better results by pulling it though
I bought two rolls each of Ilford's other films a few months ago for comparing, so as I make my way through those maybe I'll find something I like better
started a roll of delta 100 on the bronica but had a malfunction and haven't gotten back out to finish the roll since I fixed it
>>4476153
>>4476156
the biggest draw of the III for me is metadata on the negatives so I don't have to keep jotting stuff down in a notebook
which works great, except it doesn't record any focal length info
which probably makes sense given its intended use of churning through rolls in a studio setting
but it's mildly annoying for walking around and potentially changing lenses between each shot
or idk maybe they were working from the perspective that focal length doesn't matter to pros, only autists?
>once you start building out the lens set
what lenses do you have for it?
fuji made a really bizarre selection of focal lengths for the system, there are so many that are closer together than you'll ever need
and why did they make two of the 3.2s so close (115-125-180) instead of splitting the difference (115-150-180)?
actually already bought a M80mm because a good one popped up on ebay (roberts camera)
also eyeing a 115/180 3.2 pair a jp seller has listed, which is a hefty chunk of change but I don't know if I should wait for a better deal
I recently learned my ebay saved searches weren't configured properly so I've missed out on keeping tabs on the lens market

>>4476392
i bought mine as a kit that came with the 50,65,80,100,150, and 180. i additionally went and bought a 210 because one of the jap sellers had it on for so cheap (something rattling around inside but perfectly functional and aligned). you'rre right, there's really weird overlap. but they're all fantastic. i love the 50mm on it but i'm a wide angle slop consoomer. i want the 500 and the 100-200 zoom just because lol. the lenses for the system crop up often enough but i'd say they're still uncommon. especially the really weirdo ones like the 500, zoom, and the 300.

>>4476392
Those are more like LF focal length lens divisions. 150, 180, 210, 240, 300, 360, 420ish, 600 are basically the standard for 4x5 and 8x10.

>>4476394
I'm restricting myself to M lenses for the metadata so the selection's even worse
the 50's a given for me for landscape stuff, I remember seeing several up on ebay months ago but there are none right now
there's three people selling the same 300 though lol, two are obviously relisters because they're charging 2x the third with the same photos
I don't expect to pick up a 500 for a very long time, that one I want for tele landscape and wildlife because I like doing stupid impractical things
the 100-200 I'm torn on because you're not supposed to be able to use movements due to the weight, but if I were to rig up something with a gun sandbag would the image circle even be big enough?
the only reason I'd get it is for the convenience of sometimes not carrying as many lenses, but I guess the sandbag would nullify that
okay I also want it because it's cool but that's a lot of money to spend on something so impractical
>>4476395
that would make more sense if any of these had been repurposed 4x5 designs, but I think they were all purpose-built for what was supposed to be a more or less closed system
I am toying with the idea of adapting a 500+mm LF lens instead of the GX 500 because it may end up cheaper/obtainable, but I have no idea what's available

>>4476397
They don't have a ton of bellows right? Youd need a telephoto design for 500mm probably.

>>4476401
oh true, the longer native lenses are both telephoto and basically mounted on extension tubes too
even then the GX 500 needs a support rail, so in theory you could rig up an extra bellows for an adapted lens and not be too far off the experience
but that's moving from impractical to just dumb

File: 05 — 2025-10-14 1717 01.1(...).jpg (1.43 MB, 1799x2400)

1.43 MB JPG

anyways have another photo to make up for the gear talk
this was a macro test and in retrospect it was possibly a dumb idea to take a low-contrast b&w photo of an animal camouflaged in its natural environment
it would have worked marginally better in color

File: IMGP4778_01.jpg (3.24 MB, 3524x5116)

3.24 MB JPG

>>4476412

File: IMGP4772.jpg (3.22 MB, 3273x4994)

3.22 MB JPG

>>4476414

You guys think it would be worthwhile to buy a mule as my next piece of photography kit? I could have it carry all my heavy large format gear deep into the back country. Looking at around 7k-10k for a good one that comes pre trained.

>>4476614
Sure. You could also... you know...
Paying over $1500 for a mule is retarded though.

>>4476624
Fully trained and great temperment seems worth it to me... That's how much a good one goes for ya know?

>>4476614
This is actually a good idea. You can hire an outfitter to haul that shit for you if owning a mule isn't feasible. Camp in comfort too so you can get both golden hours. Do it faggot.

>>4476631
>fully trained
Very well trained? Sure. Fully trained? Personal bond is an important part of that, choosing a younger one and being involved in the process really helps. Especially in emergencies or stressful situations. They are very intelligent and emotional animals well worth the little extra time investment, doubly if you're gonna strap thousands of dollars of delicate equipment to it while venturing into nature. I'm not saying raise it from birth yourself but being introduced during the process is only ever good and it's cheap. It's always the yuppies throwing money at situations getting burnt, be better than that. All the "fully trained" public mules that tourists can rent for a day in European shitholes are drugged and abused.

>>4476632
Yes I've been wanting my own equine after spending lots of time with the gf's horse. I think it will be an epic larp if I actually get one, and pack out an LF kit. Theoretically I could even bring a small mobile darkroom outfitted for wetplate colloidion like the old timers did if I was feeling crazy.

>>4476636
yes bro, duh. Of course I will spend time riding it and building a relationship for a good long while before strapping anything important on it. I know a couple good connections for mules, and can go see them. I'm not just buying one randomly online.

>>4476643
he called you a yuppie and your response was to sound even more like a yuppie

>>4476653
I live on a farm taking care of pigs chickens and cows all day. Definitely not a young urban professional...
Mules can live to be over 40 years old, so 10k isnt really that bad if you think about it right.
Paying more doesn't necessarily get you a better one(as with all animals), but if you pay good money from a trusted source it can absolutely get you a lot. Solid training, desensitization, good pedigree, etc.

https://petapixel.com/2025/10/22/lomographys-stylish-new-metal-35mm-film-camera-has-a-32mm-f-2-8-lens-and-costs-549/
another film p&s. this one looks kinda cool tbdesu for a memeography product

>>4476658
Find better connections. You're well on your way to getting fleeced, you don't pay sticker price for a pack mule.

File: 000082610019.jpg (4.72 MB, 3130x2075)

4.72 MB JPG

>>4476416
Sóller? Nice place to visit, did you get it developed on the island?

>>4476689
The prices are absolute insanity. This would have been a 50 dollar camera brand new a decade ago. Who is buying these things? It honestly doesn’t even look bad but Jesus

File: COPY (2).jpg (4.59 MB, 6774x4492)

4.59 MB JPG

>>4476106
Glad that I'm not the only guy taking gun photos.

>>4476689
Why do they always have to make a fucking point and shoot. Would it really be too much to ask for an SLR without lens? vintage lenses are plentiful and would save on cost so that they could focus on just using all that modern tech to make a good camera body.

Nobody makes new 35mm SLR bodies, people do make new lenses. I want to like new film cameras but I always feel they're aimed more at people looking for "le film aesthetic" than people into film photography.

>>4476756
kino
>>4476757
Its lomography, their market its retarded zoomers

>>4476757
is there licensing for mounts? i assume there is but if there isn't it would be cool if some chinese brand start to make real film cameras. i would definitely buy a cheap m mount body personally

>>4476759
Most its expired. Or they can go and just make M42/M39 mount cameras. Everyone and their mom made these back on the day

What developer should I try after rodinal?

>>4476761
For 35mm and 120 try 510 pyro, and sheet film try pyrocat HD.

File: Copy.jpg (4.47 MB, 5000x3316)

4.47 MB JPG

>>4476758
I'm a retarded zoomer, I still can't grasp who is buying this shit. For the price they'd just jump on digicam hype or use post processing to mimic film, I would have thought anyway.
>>4476759
I wouldn't think so, M42 is just a thread size so I doubt anybody could claim it by patent. Part of why I specify M42 is because it's not even $200 for an M42 tap. No special jigs or set ups required. Not sure how you'd protect something that simple.

File: file.png (127 KB, 591x282)

127 KB PNG

>>4476757
>Why do they always have to make a fucking point and shoot.
maybe because that's what people will buy. you guys keep acting like obtuse boomers about this stuff. You can still get a really advanced SLR for like $30, and those cost thousands of dollars when they were new. And since now a sandwich costs $30 it would probably cost like $5000 now even before considering all the hurdles with having to make something that hasn't been made for decades and having less than 1% of the market size for it.

A random POS late 90s Rebel would cost like $10k to make today and then everyone would complain about it and a dozen people would buy it.

At least with a P&S normies, who we already know are retarded, might waste their money on it, and that's fine with me because it keeps their hands off old cameras and it means more people are shooting film which to me is always a good thing.

>>4476759
>if some chinese brand start to make real film cameras
I think Seagull or Cosina still does or at least has old stock. If you look on aliexpress you can find their Minolta clones for sale.

File: file.png (2.68 MB, 1304x965)

2.68 MB PNG

>>4476755
>This would have been a 50 dollar camera brand new a decade ago.
I don't think so. 10 years ago was 2015. 10 years before THAT was 2005 which was already when manufacturers were halting production of film cameras. Maybe 30 years ago.

The camera has an f2.8 glass lens, autofocus and autoexposure, and speeds up to 1/500. PLUS it has manual controls.

I'm not saying it's probably great, I'm sure its overall quality isn't as good as something made in the 90s, but it seems to stack up pretty well. The cheapest P&S on this list here is still over $150. I don't think anything like this has ever sold for $50. And something that sold for $169 in 1995 would be easily 3 or 4 hundred today plus there's a market of a few thousand people instead of millions.

I don't think I'd buy it but honestly $500 seems like a reasonable price to expect.

File: grainy.jpg (1.48 MB, 3089x2048)

1.48 MB JPG

Why does my Kodak Gold look grainier than everyone else's? Am I over analyzing?

>>4476782
>That's what people will buy
The people are retarded
>For like $30
Yes but nobody is making new ones and there is a finite supply, plus some people really just don't trust used (by your own logic here, a used point and shoot is pennies, so why not buy that if you want P&S)
>Cost like $5000
I doubt it, but I get the hyperbole. It would cost a lot, but then so do new P&S cameras.
>less than 1% market
Well yeah that's fair, appealing to trend hoppers probably does work better at least in the short term but that wouldn't be what I'd think lomo would go for (pentax etc I understand). I would think they'd want longer term users to keep buying their film.
>it means more people are shooting film which to me is always a good thing
Agreed, I'm not convinced how many stick at it though.

>>4476761
The other anon mentioned pyro but that’s more of an “I’ve tried everything else” kinda route. Not bad but I’d say try some other simpler stuff first. If rodinal was your first one then a classic like d76 or its clones could be good next. Personally I’d love to just use rodinal for everything but the Acutance of the grain it gives sometimes is just too much for certain images

>>4476783
I was basing on what I saw secondhand not retail which I suppose does change things. Like I bought three stylus epics for 6.99 each since even thrift stores couldn’t get rid of film “junk” back in like 2012. Shoulda kept them and cashed in on the current inflation lol.

>>4476790
Wrong. Pyro developers are simply the end game of developers for anyone who has tried many developers. Making a developer out of your own piss is what you try when you've tried everything else.

>>4476787
>The people are retarded
yes
>(by your own logic here, a used point and shoot is pennies, so why not buy that if you want P&S)
P&S cameras aren't pennies anymore, that's the thing. Well, a lot are, but the retards don't know that, they can only go by what's popular. For example, the Olympus infinity zoom I have that I got for $5 used now sells for potentially over $100 and that's just on ebay. I'm sure on whatever instagram scam shop a lot of people buy their shit from, it's way more.

Also, I think SLRs tend to be more durable than P&S cameras. compact cameras seem to be really easy to break and end up not worth repairing.

>>4476787
>I doubt it, but I get the hyperbole. It would cost a lot, but then so do new P&S cameras.
yeah, maybe not exactly that much but it would certainly be many thousands. The difference is normies will buy compact cameras, not SLRs, so mfgs can afford to invest in making compacts because they'll actually sell.

>wouldn't be what I'd think lomo would go for
I always figured this is exactly what lomo would go for, the hipster gimmick market who likes film because they think it sucks or it's supposed to look bad. I'm honestly surprised because reading about it, the camera seems pretty solid and the meme shit seems to be fairly limited

File: chinatown_09.jpg (947 KB, 1545x1044)

947 KB JPG

Here is a snapshit I took in Chinatown, Chicago last weekend.
I feel like on a technical level its not a good image, however, for some reason I am drawn to it.
I think it has a good sense of motion and life to it. Reminds me of something I'd see in someone elses portfolio.
This was taken with 400-Tmax.

File: PA220008.jpg (1.02 MB, 2039x2800)

1.02 MB JPG

>>4474558
Answering my own questions, it works nicely.
It was a really overcast day to I had to open the lens wide open with the filter and missed some focus, but got the look that i was expecting (kind of)

>>4476844
What speed were you shootinf at?

File: PA220006.jpg (1 MB, 2048x2643)

1 MB JPG

>>4476845
Technically @ ISO 250, but at some point was just like fuck it at shoot just wide open without metering.

File: PA220029.jpg (1.39 MB, 2532x2637)

1.39 MB JPG

>>4476846
I was also carrying a 6x6 TLR loaded with Fomapan and those of course, came out much nicely.

>>4476846
If you don't mind a higher contrast look and a bit more grain 800 is a pretty good speed for xx.

File: Untitled120leo11 (27).jpg (3.52 MB, 2764x2259)

3.52 MB JPG

Bones and egg. Fp4 @ 80, pyrocat MC, f64.

Lighting lacks the strongly luminous effect I have been trying to achieve with my still lifes lately. There is some there, but not as much as I want. I think I would have liked more shadow on the left side of the egg as well. The seperation between the background and floor is annoyingly distracting, and I will need to fix that. May look for wood with simpler grain that is slightly darker than the pieces I am using right now.

I suspect that a contact print will improve the overall "look" of this image compared to a scan.

Thoughts?

>>4476856
Zach shoots film now?

File: 22 — 2025-07-23 2005 01.1(...).jpg (3.03 MB, 3100x2117)

3.03 MB JPG

>>4476784
doesn't look particularly grainy to me
what format is that?
>>4476843
why did it take you so long to repost that?
anyways not particularly the type of photo I'd take, but I do see the appeal
it has a sense of liveliness to it, reminds me of urban nat geo photography I used to see as a kid
>>4476856
>strongly luminous effect
explain further

>>4476875
Kinda comfy.

File: screen-shot-2022-09-12-at(...).png (489 KB, 823x1023)

489 KB PNG

>>4476875
Look at pepper 20 for a good example. The pepper has a shiny surface, so it's a little different than aiming for it with non-reflective subjects. Here is another example closer to my image that I think demonstrates it well. It's the way light and shadow sort of envelopes an object giving it a strong presence or glow. Kind of hard to describe precisely, but if you look at westons still lifes you can see the quality in a lot of his images.
Very tricky or maybe impossible to achieve with artificial light, and like I said I don't think that scanning+editing does pyro developed negatives justice. Especially in the more subtle highlights.

File: karaoke_king.jpg (1.11 MB, 1506x1017)

1.11 MB JPG

>>4476875
I didn't like the text I'd originally wrote in my post so I deleted it and then I kinda forgot about this thread for a couple days cause I got busy at work. I feel I explained myself better in my second version.

File: DSC_9188 (2048).jpg (394 KB, 1365x2048)

394 KB JPG

some ren-faire kino from august that finally got developed

>>4476920
They're all blurry. What is your excuse?

Shooting a local event (it's all free and community organized, I'm volunteering in other ways too but just figured I'd offer to do it) on film, I'm relatively confident in my abilities in terms of getting the actual exposures correct, but I feel like my pics of people are often lacking... something. I'm really bad about directing people to pose even though I know that's the kind of thing many photographers do. Any advice? Anyone shot events on film?

>>4476856
>I would have liked more shadow on the left side of the egg
It looks like you are using only some kind of diffused light or softbox for lightning.
to get better defined subject and shadow you need to use spotlight and softbox just to fill the shadows

>>4476843
it looks like your camera was shaking
everything is blurry

File: DSC02906.jpg (3.51 MB, 4537x4537)

3.51 MB JPG

Got back my first 120 shots.
Hasselblad 500c/m
These were camera scanned.

File: DSC02888.jpg (3.63 MB, 4481x4481)

3.63 MB JPG

>>4476937
Think the light leaks are from my dumbass not properly sealing the roll after shooting it.

File: DSC02887.jpg (3.39 MB, 4509x4509)

3.39 MB JPG

>>4476938
This location is where the trams sleep for the night

File: DSC02882.jpg (3.51 MB, 4593x4593)

3.51 MB JPG

>>4476939

File: DSC02876.jpg (4.08 MB, 4492x4492)

4.08 MB JPG

>>4476940
Some Ilford HP5 at 1600.

File: DSC02877.jpg (3.92 MB, 4487x4487)

3.92 MB JPG

>>4476941
Nothing really special in any of these shots.
But still pretty happy with them.

File: DSC02923.jpg (4.07 MB, 4493x4493)

4.07 MB JPG

>>4476943
This is around the port of Rotterdam. I would like to actually shoot in the industrial zone across the river at some point.

File: DSC02925.jpg (3.47 MB, 4499x4499)

3.47 MB JPG

>>4476944
Ektachrome E100

>>4476945
lol why did u bother pulling the trigger on this banal nothing shot?

>>4476932
I am using a bounce card on one side to lift the shadows, and a weird soft light setup. I have been messing with on the other side. Bounce card gave 1 stop of extra light on the dark side. I don't hate the uneven lighting, but it wasn't technically what I was going for. It may even work better for the scene, honestly...

I have some ideas for different and more even lighting that may work nicely with only one light source. I need to experiment more with it.

File: PA220040.jpg (1.02 MB, 2574x2676)

1.02 MB JPG

>>4476920
I really like this one, a bit blurry for sure but it shows the movement of the scene
>>4476930
Depends, what kind of event? Its possible to take candid photos or you need them to be staged? Of course talking with the person that you are going to photograph helps a lot, and if you want them to do a specific pose its easier if you show them with your own body
>>4476848
Honestly I was considering shooting it at 400 at least, but I was worrying about the contrast getting too crazy with the filter and since I was going to develop it on Rodinal. Might try next time!

>>4476993
Give higher iso a shot with 1+50 rodinal for lower contrast. XX is really well suited at higher iso for stills if you don't mind the larger grain. It's rated low to intentionally produce lower contrast negatives for the whole movie making process.

File: lomo-mca__black-qrt-right(...).jpg (63 KB, 1080x720)

63 KB JPG

Is this the Pentax 17 killer?

https://www.theverge.com/news/804782/lomography-lomo-mca-metal-35mm-film-camera-usbc-charging-price-specs

>>4477005
doesn't even have bokeh mode kek

File: chinatown_06.jpg (1.14 MB, 990x1466)

1.14 MB JPG

>>4476934
Its because I was walking while taking the picture and I was using a lower shutter speed because it was cloudy.
Gave that motion blur effect. I think it works to the pictures benefit. As I said, to me it makes the picture seem more lively.

>>4477010
>back of the head photo
its just so tiresome

>>4477010
the shy street photographer

File: motorcycle.jpg (1.85 MB, 1818x1228)

1.85 MB JPG

>>4477013
>>4477017
There is this one I guess. But I don't count it as street photography because its a posed shot where I asked to take his picture.
I intentionaly took a picture of the father and daughter from behind, makes it more timeless.
Peoples faces give individuality, it dates the image to that persons lifespan.
>back of head photo
as you say, is more symbolic.

File: filmRetouch.jpg (4.28 MB, 3776x2548)

4.28 MB JPG

>>4476773
please can you people at least post the actual photo you took and not the fucky scans of your films ? all you have to do is "dust off" the pictures by playing with levels and color balance.
these are two really nice colorful pictures, give them the final touches they deserve

>>4477036
>removing the SOUL
fuck off fag

>>4476787
Point and shoots have lower expectations and you can turn a profit easily on them. The distrust of used is quickly offset by the pricing on more advanced cameras. A lot of the people shooting film do it for the poorly exposed and developed look aka what inspired Instagram filters. It scratches some nostalgic itch.

>>4477038
you sound like niggers that refuse to remove stickers off their caps

File: DSC_9233 (2048).jpg (484 KB, 1365x2048)

484 KB JPG

>>4476927
My excuse is that camera scanning is gay but I'm too cheap to get a dedicated scanner

File: apo2.jpg (314 KB, 1995x1007)

314 KB JPG

>>4477038
there, i put the soul back in apocalypse now ! sooo much better now

>>4476993
I'll definitely have a chance to get candid shots as well (both audience and performers) but I'd like to take my shots to the next level I guess.

>>4476920
>>4476921
>>4476922
>>4476923
Woah I didn't know they had cameras back in the 1200s... Is this the Medieval Found Footage I've heard rumors about?

>>4477022
> Peoples faces give individuality, it dates the image to that persons lifespan.
>back of head photo
as you say, is more symbolic.
Holy nuclear weapons grade cope

>>4477005
Feel like they’re aimed at different market somewhat, this lomo seems for straight up vsco girl instagram filter hype types, the p17 somewhat also for the half frame thing, but Pentax also seemed to try and be capturing some of the enthusiast/gearfag market with some of the design choices they made for it like the wind lever. Honestly as far as capability goes the lomo one doesn’t sound bad necessarily but the pricing is insane, as bad as the p17. Full disclosure I bought a Pentax 17 because I’m a Pentax Stockholm syndrome victim and I believed their story that this was their “practice” camera to make a proper film camera after. Not sure that lomography would have the same goal at any point, this if anything seems like probably the best camera technically they’ve ever “made”.

File: DSC02920.jpg (3.81 MB, 4540x4540)

3.81 MB JPG

>>4477068

File: DSC03011.jpg (3.99 MB, 5496x4122)

3.99 MB JPG

>>4477069

File: protest.jpg (839 KB, 1247x842)

839 KB JPG

>>4477063
>Holy nuclear weapons grade cope
If you didn't understand my point you can just say that lol

>>4477075
Get closer broski.

File: DSC02971.jpg (3.71 MB, 6203x4135)

3.71 MB JPG

>>4477072

File: DSC02969.jpg (3.37 MB, 6072x4048)

3.37 MB JPG

>>4477079

>>4477049
unironically, yes

File: chinatown_10.jpg (1.62 MB, 1818x1228)

1.62 MB JPG

>>4477076
The problem with my Chinatown pictures last weekend is that I was stupid and using a 28mm lens.
So I was actually reasonably close to them but its hard to tell.
I'm going again on Saturday, I'm going to use my 50mm lens instead next time.

>>4477064
>>4477005
I kinda want one. all the sample images i've seen indicate the lens is pretty solid, and as far as actual functionality goes its basically got everything you'd expect for a rangefinder except for maybe a 1/1000 speed. a lot of the bells and whistles are whatever but I do think having exposure comp wheel is nice. the price is really my only sticking point, but I think you're getting more for your dollar with this than the 17

>>4477084
Zone focusing is a lot harder with 50mm. 800 speed film will help you a lot. I believe in you.

>>4477075
i understood the point you were trying to make fine, i just think it's a load of horseshit.

>>4477086
the stupid thing about the 17 is that it has some kind of servo control for the lens in it already (in auto it does move it ever so slightly because apertures seem to be coupled to focus zones or something), they were just too cheap to put in a simple autofocus module like something like this would have. Yet the thing costs pretty well the same. honestly if these were the only two cameras that existed, the lomo does seem to win out. the p17 (and i do like mine, mind you) is 100% meme.

File: chinatown_07.jpg (1.5 MB, 1690x1142)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4477087
Thanks for the encouragement friend.
Zone Focusing is definitely a skill I want to develop. It would make my life much much easier if I could just lift the camera and shoot without worrying about refocusing everytime.
It seems like most professional street photographers just use a fixed focus.

File: ayy.jpg (1.5 MB, 1702x1150)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4477090
errrrrm... art is subjective hehe.
If I took a picture of their faces, it would be one Father and Daughter.
Because you cannot see their faces, it is symbolically ANY Father and Daughter.
That is my thought process at least. Dont see how its horseshit

>>4477094
If you use a rangefinder and a 35mm lens you just remember 3 positions on the focusing ring and shoot everything at like f11-f16. Predict if you'll need close, med, or far and just move it there before shooting.

File: 100S8315web.jpg (3.99 MB, 3200x2400)

3.99 MB JPG

phoenix ii on 645
i kind of like the huge halation but i am not too fond of the yellow-blue palette. i preferred the red tint of the original

>>4477005
looks neat. i did not consider buying a pentax 17 but i am honestly considering this. 32mm is an odd fl . i wish they'd just go with 28. and missing a hot shoe is a bit sad. but as a compact camera, it looks promising. a current alternative to something like a stylus or sureshot. i like how there's a focus scale in meters instead of symbols like the 17

>>4477097
AYY LMAO

File: highway.jpg (759 KB, 1360x919)

759 KB JPG

>>4477098
I've been wanting to get my hands on a 35mm lens for my Minolta.
I went to my local camera store in the search for one a little over a week ago, all they had was the 28mm lens.
I figured, sure I'll buy it, why not. The more lenses the better.
But still, I want a 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm lens for my Minolta X-700.

>>4477104
I always enjoyed 35mm most for street shitting. I just used the tiny summaron 35mm f3.5 on my crusty M4. Was pretty nice. SF was a fun place to wander and photograph like a decade ago...

File: DSCF0094-positive.jpg (3.6 MB, 3361x2241)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4477005
I'm kind of interested. I keep hearing people mentioning heavy vignetting, and others disagreeing, so I'll wait to see what the final consensus is.

File: average_leica_snapshit.jpg (47 KB, 674x738)

47 KB JPG

Saw this on a Facebook group. Are Leica users ever able to take pictures that aren't total snapshits?
My favorite part is how he tries to be artsy about it too. "Untitled" yeah buddy, its just a snapshit, no need to title it.
I swear, Leica users are so braindead.

>>4477107
They’re a known quantity, if anything, you’re braindead for going where they congregate. It’s like complaining about bees stinging you when you keep poking a beehive

>>4477107
Aside from the angle and weird pseudo black and white border I like it.

>>4477110
>Aside from the angle
So you dont like the photograph, got it. Its a 2d image, the angle is everything.

File: 100S8316web.jpg (4.64 MB, 3000x4000)

4.64 MB JPG

>>4477107
looks like a good pic and amusing post overall to me. thanks for showing me that i guess
>>4477106
some of the sample photos have vignetting. i don't mind. it is a lomo after all
>>4477097
i'll give you a little shortcut. if you frequent /p for a year, you'll notice that the back-of-head complainers are almost always nophotos. you may also learn the hard way that almost never is a nophoto post worth reading, let alone replying to. do with this information what you will

>>4477110
>>4477112
>t. leica owners

>>4477111
The content makes up for it. It's comfy and cute with a fun composition. On second thought the kid on the side wouldn't be straight if the fence was, so I think he made the right decision in his situation. Still dislike the borders. Those borders are typically from printed film.

>>4477113
Yes, but the camera makes no difference to my opinion of the image, gearfag.

>>4477115
me again, i'm trans btw

The gearfag has lost what little sanity he had left because multiple people enjoyed a photograph taken with the dreaded leica film camera.

It appears that leica film cameras and pro-natalism has won again. Ha

>>4477112
>>4477115
>>4477118
It has nothing to do with gear. Its the people using the gear. Leica users in Photography are the Apple users in Computers.
Mediocre Morons who pay a premium for a Mediocre Product because it has a logo on it.
If you buy a Leica in 2025, I just immediately assume you dont actually care about photography.
Its not like these people are 100 years old and bought a Leica M3 when it was new.
They're modern day posers just buying something because of the brand. They dont care about the craft or even buying a good camera.

>>4477119
Not the hecking M2!

>>4477118
>respect consumerism, gearfags. love and tolerate the people spending $10k on 61mp ff meme cameras.
nah.

Why is a gearfag having a leaky meltdown about digital cameras in fgt?

>>4477036
Sure I can Anon, I don't know how to use/have editing software though. As far as I go is removing saturation to make shit pictures B&W to try save them.

Have you got any suggestions for software/retouch guides I could start out with? I'm very cautious of the habit people have of over-editing photos (particularly people who just pump contrast/saturation).

File: DarkTable.jpg (1.03 MB, 2568x2824)

1.03 MB JPG

>>4477127
I found you a free software: darktable
i never used it because i use photoshop but it looks like it can do a lot. I looked for the only 2 options you'll need to do what i did to your pics, which are making your shadows as dark as they should be, and making your white balance correct, zoom into the pictures if you need

>>4477131
https://www.darktable.org/install
install here

>>4477131
>i never used it because i use photoshop
Oh it shows, Darktable doesn't give you a good starting point so being new at this he could be trying hours to get something resembling the normal picture. Also top one looks better.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-24 at (...).png (71 KB, 774x168)

71 KB PNG

>>4477131
>red text in a jpeg
also this is not how you want to be using darktable to edit film scans
>>4477139
>>4477146
kek

I've been shooting film for a few months now and i'm tired of paying for dev and scan. I'm not able to set up a darkroom in my house, so i'm looking to save money on the scan side. Flat bed or camera scans? what's better for a beginner?

>>4476944
The mixture of landscape nature stuff and industry is an underrated genre. Good pic.

>>4477153
>I'm not able to set up a darkroom in my house
do you do large format film (larger than 4x5)?
if not then you don't need a darkroom, you use a film changing bag (or tent if you're feeling frisky)

>>4477118
>>4477115
Melty

>>4477153
>not able to set up a darkroom
just use bathroom

>>4477107
>I go to reddit to get mad

>>4477131
the white balance module isn't the one you should use, use color calibration instead

File: DSCF0001-positive.jpg (4.95 MB, 3363x2242)

4.95 MB JPG

>>4477112
>some of the sample photos have vignetting. i don't mind. it is a lomo after all
I actually wouldn't mind a setup with slight vignetting - I just don't want it to be too heavy.

File: Untitled120leo11 (28).jpg (3.56 MB, 2748x2254)

3.56 MB JPG

Same settings, film, and dev. Tried a diffuse light from above this time. I like this one better than my first attempt.
Not in love with the background, but it's kinda fun I guess. I think I want to try painted gradients or darker paper on my next background to create greater subject seperation without needing to light everything so extremely carefully.

I've been learning about still life concepts and one of the big ones is called tension. Tension is when elements in a photograph unsettle, create visual contrast, allow imagination or contemplation to find something greater than what is simply presented. This is one of the major components behind a great still life and it is quite difficult to achieve.

Do you like this one better than the first one?

>>4477192
>crinkled shopping bag
>egg
>driftwood
is this outsider art

>>4477198
It's a still life. Carefully created by me. What's even the point of being so reductive? Weston shoved a goofy looking pepper in a cone and took a 6 hour exposure of it at f240. He made created something greater out of the mundane. He made art.

Also I really appreciate your interpretation. Those are bones, but I also thought they sort of looked like driftwood as well. I think the decay they've experienced is really pretty and contrasts the smoothness of the egg really nicely.

>>4477192
Background should be further away
Don’t use diffuse light as a main light
Diffuse light should be only used as a fill light

>>4477204
Why shouldn't diffuse light be used as a main light? Flattens textures too much?

Many many famous still lifes were taken in front of large a window using only diffuse light.

>>4477198
terminal autism
and not even the good kind

>>4477205
If you only use diffuse light everything looks flat

>>4477205
Or try to put light source further away
Window light is several meters away

>>4477211
I think it will look better when printed. I know it's a sort of a weird cop out in a way, but my prints always look so much better than my scans.

It's hard to get good highlight seperation/gradation when scanning and editing my stained negatives, but when you print with amidol+azo paper it just sorta werks. It's almost like you need a third and fourth slider for zones 5 and 7 instead of just highlights and shadows...

I'm planning on using harder light for my next still life. It is going to be difficult to not lean my subject against the background, but I'll try with some sticky putty... I think that's a valid point.

Any thoughts on the composition aside from it being too close to the background? I'm pretty happy with it.

>set up for shot of building facade with 4x5
>meter, adjust framing, close shutter preview and adjust aperture/speed and cock shutter
>as I'm putting in film holder, a car parks right in front and some goblina gets out and talks with a woman that comes out of the building
>looks like they're just dropping something off I'll wait it out
>30 minutes later, I've been staring at them the whole time and the lighting has passed
>pack up and leave
Thanks for reading my blog about how I wasted 45 minutes today to become a nophoto

>>4477217
at least they didn't called the police on you

>>4477217
Such is the life of a large format building corner photographer.

>>4477218
If the cops come and arrest you unlawfully it could be a big lawsuit. Big enough to pay for your film for for a while and maybe a nice new camera as well.

File: img_1_1760547276019.jpg (201 KB, 1070x594)

201 KB JPG

Haven't shot with my bronica in over a year, gunna run some film thru it this weekend anons. Pics are bronica photos of my childhood dog from 2006

>>4477234
Cute dog. It is always a fun time bringing out an old favorite camera.

File: Untitled120leo11 (29).jpg (2.44 MB, 2849x2312)

2.44 MB JPG

Bone and egg no.3

Hard light and moved subject away from background as suggested. Composition feels a bit tight, but maybe in a good way. I need to refine my lighting setup. Hard lights like this are something I haven't spent much time with.

I like the concept, and composition of this image a lot, but the execution could use some work. Some refinement to the shadows and more even lighting would be beneficial.
Editing these on the computer is such a freaking pain.

Also just a fun aside have you noticed that the egg I am using is a miniature egg? It's only about 2 inches tall and 1 inch wide. The proportions work really nicely with these smaller bones.

>>4477264
zach shoots film now?

this is some actual aspergers

>>4477267
Thanks. Ive seen some of zach's more recent photos in rpt and he has been really improving.