>>4482671
>another thread full of shitty photos of eggs
hard pass

I found a point-n-shoot film camera in storage from when I was a kid, some old Minolta from the mid 90s. It's pretty neat since it has auto rewind for the when the roll is done and automatically winds, so I'm considering using it as a whatever camera if I'm just out for the day.

Any reccs for some pretty cheap but alright film I can use? Film prices are still pretty crazy currently.

>>4482679
Thank you. This isn't a nophoto thread, so it is very good thing that you are passing.

>>4482687
Kentmere 400, but shoot at 200 probably.

>>4482687
Seconding>>4482690. Kentmere isn't anything special, but it's cheap and forgiving. Works great at both box speed and at 200, and can make some great images

>>4482690
>>4482713
Any reccs for color film? I've still got a lot of black and white leftover (which also happens to be Ilford film)

>>4482715
Kodak Colorplus/Kodacolor 200, whichever is cheaper (they're the same film). Fuji's stuff is pretty cheap, but I don't like the look of Ultramax/Gold, which is what they are.

>>4482716
I might go with the Fuji, I think it's about $15 on Amazon. I can never find any Fuji in stores lately.

>>4482717
For a roll or a threepack? If the former, then that's insane. For the latter, it's a great price, even if the film itself kinda sucks.

>>4482718
Single roll, so it's a shitload. A three pack of Kodak 400 is about $25.

>>4482719
If you're in the US, then that's way too much for a mediocre rebrand. I'd look around or go online for much better pricing

>>4482671
damn this board is dead. we used to fill these threads every few days : (

>>4482690
Why buy 400 to shoot at 200 when they sell a proper 200?

>it's an anon goes to the camera store and forgets to pick up his negatives episode

>>4482746
Lot of major contributers fucked off earlier this year. Lost a couple of tripfags as well. The constant negative shittalking and gearshilling is killing us. We get what we deserve.

>>4482756
Nta. ISO 400 film is cheaper than 200 and in fact I cant even find Kentmere 200 that's in stock. I'd rather pull some HP5 to 200 honestly but I still see the logic.

File: PB090065.jpg (3.07 MB, 2638x3656)

3.07 MB JPG

Zombeee pics, but now on color (tm)!

File: PB090058.jpg (2.22 MB, 2736x2477)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4482779
I honestly should have used my 50mm for these, I am not used to 28mm at all

File: PB090059.jpg (3.79 MB, 2621x3878)

3.79 MB JPG

>>4482780
also flash dying on the middle of it lel

>>4482715
they're all fine, just get whatever you find at the lowest price or on sale

>>4482717
don't buy film on amazon retard

>>4482719
just get that then. sometimes 3 packs are on sale for less than that too

/fgt/sisters is the cheap but good point and shoot extinct? I’m going on a trip to California from mid Canadia and I don’t want to pack an slr, even the Leica CL feels like it would be too big for carry on only traveling. So I thought a point and shoot might be good, but like it seems it’s either hundreds of dollars for something just decent or ewaste. 200bucks for a stylus or r1s. Am I missing some cheap hidden gem or is this how it is?

>>4482778
>The constant negative shittalking and gearshilling is killing us.
Imo, even if a picture is shit, find something nice to say about it. We need to nurture what little spark of talent or creativity we have in all of us.

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

755 KB JPG

>>4482870
>traveling
Kodak Ektar H35 Half-Frame Camera, so you'll get about 75 to 80 photos per roll. Small enough to fit in your palm and it's $50 brand new. For someone like yourself who's going on vacation and may need to pack lightly I think it's a good decision.

Any shortcomings you'll find are satisfied by cameras that are significantly bulkier and much more expensive. Just remember that it's a point and shoot, so you need to be close and use a 400 iso with the flash if it's indoors or nighttime and you got to be real close to your subject or else it'll be too dark.
>pic related

File: fuE6SLls.jpg (391 KB, 1565x1037)

391 KB JPG

>>4482671
Any tips or trick on how do I start up'ing my 35mm game? I'm relatively new to it. Shot this on Kodak Gold 200 on my Nikkonmat FT

>>4482778
>>4482872
The garbage photo posters are not without guilt in this, the egg thing was funny for about two weeks but that autist has been beating the horse for months

Another factor is just changing demographics, the quality posters more likely to get a life and leave here, and if anyone replaces them at all it's likely some third worlder (thanks to Elon)
Meanwhile the garbage posters are more likely to stick around.

>>4482909
Imagine being so stupid and autistic you think some guy that posted 11 technically well executed shots of eggs stopped people from posting their own pictures. Roughly 1 egg post a week on average since I started late June, btw.

The nophoto trolls have been crab bucketing constantly for years and you blame someone putting effort into making photos and actually contributing. Grow up and post some photos of your own egglet.

File: 000081520017(1).jpg (1.5 MB, 2470x1638)

1.5 MB JPG

I'll post photos once I get my scans back. Have a mediocre snapshot in the meantime. I want to try taking this again with better framing and time of day. Toronto can have a nice skyline.

>>4483024
>>4482909
>The chad eggposting contribooter vs the virgin le art photo critic

Would a different subject somehow elevate the board? Would a tennis ball instead redeem his soul? Saint Eggs von Benedictius here has a theme, a plan, a vision, and a purpose. Effort and intent all for naught because this nophoto anon doesn't like the subject matter? Huehuehuehue, this board I swear to god.

File: 000081520007(1).jpg (1.7 MB, 2470x1638)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4483031
Also, fall colours.

>>4482901
Huh looks like it’s fixed focus? Never used a fixed focus camera before, do you just get used to the range/distance you have to be with it or just send it and shoot from the hip all the time or what? I guess part of that cameras ethos seems to be vibe and in focus is a bonus and I’m not against that as such , just new to me.

>>4483024
>Imagine being so stupid and autistic you think some guy that posted 11 technically well executed shots of eggs
you are the one on the spectrum here buddy, no one cares about boring photos of eggs. They are not special because you took it on 8x10 or whatever the fuck
>>4483032
cringe go back to plebbit

File: wheel.jpg (1.44 MB, 1545x1024)

1.44 MB JPG

>>4482671
wildwood, nj

File: Image 1 (2).jpg (4.07 MB, 7515x9500)

4.07 MB JPG

The artistic power of the humble egg photograph angers the nophoto.

>>4483032
Eggstremely based.

>>4483054
>I am very upset because you're doing something I don't understand or appreciate
>Of course I speak for everyone when I say pictures of eggs are ruining /p/

Autism.

>>4483024
>>4483032
It's not so much the subject matter per se as it is you being a huge faggot about it
Decent people see this and just stay away

>technically well executed
not really

File: DSC08542editSMBDR.jpg (1.09 MB, 1600x1600)

1.09 MB JPG

>>4482870
No anon, they aren't extinct. Look for zoom models, especially once with apertures 3.5 or larger. People still think zoom = bad. Yeah, the apertures get tiny on the long end but who cares? You're mostly going to be shooting them on the widest setting and anything else is bonus. Something like a Konica z-up 120.

This thread already contains why I stopped posting here. The same arguments over certain posters is so annoying to have to skim thru.

File: long distance.jpg (1.95 MB, 2948x4181)

1.95 MB JPG

>>4483045
Yes. Literally point and shoot. Nothing to play with except for flash on/off. Keep your subject between 1-3 meters for portraits and be mindful of the lighting/shadows. Use at least an ISO 200 but I think ISO 400 is better. It's a new half frame film camera for $50 so consider that you get what you pay for.
I think if you're going on vacation it's decent because you can just pass it to someone cocked and they'll intuitively know what to do. There's not much to fuck up, just hold steady and take the shot.

File: 80660017.jpg (2.18 MB, 3088x2048)

2.18 MB JPG

I shoot on a Nikon FM3a and a Yashica T5 most of the time. A Ektar H35n in my bag if i'm just out and about. (trusty nikon EM on standby)

I would just like to say that I love Portra 800. I love high ISO film. I love being able to shoot almost anywhere at almost any time. I know its grainy at 35mm. I know its expensive. I know I can just use Ektar or Fuji 200, and a tripod. I still love its pastel colors.

Photography gets me out of the house, and helps me record things in a way thats fun. Film photography keeps me off my phone and the computer. and I get to chit chat with the nice people at the lab in town.

I've developed my own with a darkbag, and all that jazz. Its not hard, but its kindof a pain to do without a real darkroom. I'll get back into it when i get an old Coolscan.

right now, getting my film developed, scanned, and printed in a nice bundle is good enough. The scans could be a bit better, but i can always scan again later since i have the negatives.

I've also shot Super8 a bit, I still have a few cartridges waiting development, but haven't done it yet. Wanted to do 16mm with a Krasnagorsk 16, but decided i was starting to gearfag too much.


>>4482901
I second anon on the H35. Half frame shooting saves a lot of cash. and if they're just snapshots of good times or pretty scenery, they'll come out fine. Pop in some ultramax 400 or something and wrap the lanyard loop on you. Its great. Its like a better disposable that you can reload. Note: The H35n is a slight upgrade, with things like a shutter cable release, a glass lens, and a built in lens filter + flash. Consider it if you care about things like that. I toss mine in my satchel daily, and use it for months before I actually use up all 72 frames. It takes a good amount of abuse, and is very cheap, easy to power (1 AAA battery for flash), and ok to look at.
Why do you guys use film?

>>4483219
>>4483210
Ok you guys are selling me in the ektar for just a fun don’t think about it snapshitter. I’ll see what the Canadian exchange rate does to the prices here
> Why do you guys use film?
I like the whole process and I like using film cameras. I took a photo class back in high school around 2004 and I’ve loved developing and darkroom work since. Don’t have a darkroom yet though just do my own development. I’m not one of these film is better or whatever else you see types though, I have an eos r and a griii and all that, but if I want to use a Pentax 6x7 or my gx680, I have to shoot film. No other way around it. It’s sorta like “why drive X car? A modern digital will get you there faster and cheaper” and it’s like, getting there is the goal partly sure, but I want to drive the old car too. I find some people on this webzone have a real hard time understanding that sometimes it’s not so much about the images (gearfag! They shout).

>>4483226
Buy one to try out if you want, but I think the ektar is a terrible camera choice as a travel camera. It's fixed focus, fixed exposure and film is too expensive for that. Literally any p&s with a meter that you can find for the same price will give you as many more usable images (unless underexposed, out of focus is legitimately what you're going for).

>>4483142
Very nice

File: bike wtc.jpg (4.46 MB, 6000x3943)

4.46 MB JPG

>>4483324
>(unless underexposed, out of focus is legitimately what you're going for).
The virgin gear queer v.s. the chad point and shoot. Get a simple h35 and have fun shooting your 75+ shots on a single roll of film. Just enjoy being in the moment and not thinking about gear and settings. If you see something worth shooting, take the shot.

File: 8935-0044.jpg (516 KB, 1274x1904)

516 KB JPG

1. Take trendy fixed focus reusable film camera.
2. cast shell out of metal
3. ???? (add extra zero to price)
4. profit!

>>4483462
i am hypercompetent so i can be in the moment with more complicated devices

but i cant impress hipsters because i believe street photography is unethical and inherently unartistic, privacy rights are more important than freedom of expression, and journalists are parasitic and ultimately bad for society so i just take pictures of rocks and leaves as god intended.

>>4483490
>privacy rights in public

Lol. Using your eyes to look at something/someone in public is no different than taking a picture or video.

>>4483492
It is different.

Your brain is less valuable than a convincing picture.

>>4483493
If someone had a photographic memory they could just draw whatever they saw and create a photographic copy indistinguishable from an actual photo and If it is private information you could simply write down a copy quickly or memorize whatever info you saw. No different to a photograph for all intents and purposes.

Anything your eyes can see in public you can video or photograph. Maybe you live in a cucked country, but that's how it works in freedom land. It's a god given right and an essential part of the 1st amendment. Sorry if someone took your picture withlut consent. You are video taped by tens to hundreds of video cameras everytime you walk down a city block.

If I buy some Ilford XP2 and develop it in regular BW chem process will it work or is it just retarded?
It's currently cheaper to buy XP2 than HP5 and I hear a lot of good things about the grain in XP2

>>4483514
It will it’s called cross processing, I’ve done it before and it turns out fine..

>>4483524
Oh sick. Just stick to the normal 400/27* dev or is there anything to change up? I'm reading it'll reduce contrast so I might cook it for an extra minute or less

>>4483527
Yea I’d look around before you do it, I don’t remember exact times just that it took a much longer time than any typical black and white and yeah it was washed out. Also it’s got a strong colour cast due to the film base but that’s a simple correction.

File: you looking for rocks.png (504 KB, 912x632)

504 KB PNG

>>4483490
>i just take pictures of rocks
What kinds of rocks?

File: distant.jpg (2.01 MB, 1530x1033)

2.01 MB JPG

What do you guys think of this picture? Chicago, Illinois. Heald Square Monument.
I've only been doing street photography for a few months, but I enjoyed taking this one.

File: DSCF1172web.jpg (204 KB, 2000x1333)

204 KB JPG

Straight up, what's the point of getting a vintage SLR over one from the 90s/2000s that can use the same lenses?

If you take away the whole aesthetic, what's the point? Later cameras are more advanced in every way. And with them being far less desirable by most people they're so much cheaper.

What am I missing?

>>4483648
"Reliability" and vibes.

>>4483652
>>4483648
The reliability is the only thing I can get behind. That's why I want an FM2 in my kit someday, but I'm broke as hell right now

Otherwise the convenience of everything else pic related has to offer is just too much to pass up in favor of "vibes"

Plus I'm a 90s kid so it makes me warm inside to see so much rounded plastic.

>>4483648
you don't get the "silver box retro aesthetic" vibe that way, ick.
but really though i'm a proponent of canon EF film cameras, i've recommended here many times over the years. it just works. i've seen gigalarpers here say things like "but if it autofocuses for you what is even the point why not shoot digital" which just tells me that it's all about looking the part for these people more than what they're actually doing. "reliability" is a spook, if it's lasted 30 years its gonna last long enough for you to get bored of it.

>>4483648
If you're a masochist like me, it's to force yourself to learn photography with as few aids as possible. Sure, some 90s Plastic Fantastic will give me perfect focus and exposure 99/100 times, but I want to be able to do it all myself without the temptation of turning it on.

>>4483665
Yes but at some point you're going to graduate yes? I see no reason to shoot manual every time. You're going to miss moments and miss shots like that. In a studio? Yes. Doing Astral? Sure. But street and nature or anywhere in the real world autofocus is beneficial and you can't tell me it isn't. Autoexposure is great if you know your camera.

Yes, learn the triangle. But don't handicap yourself because of some youtuber with a puberty stache and a beanie.

>>4483672
Oh, don't get me wrong, modern autofocus is awesome, but it's not vital. I have my digital if I want all the ease-of-use features. Besides, most of my photography is of architecture and other static scenes, though I'm learning how to focus more quickly (still slower than a good AF, of course).

>>4483679
The real kicker with AF is that it is often more accurate than manual, so even if you learn how to quickly focus or whatever the AF just produces a sharper image because it can focus more precisely than your eyes and hand can.

>>4483648
Bought a EOS Elan II not long ago and it lierally has every creature comfort a modern DSLR/MILC has except live view, video modes, and a high fps. I even get infinite battery life in exchange so in some ways it's more convenient that swapping the battery out of my R8 every 36 shots like it's film anyway.
>>4483654
>but really though i'm a proponent of canon EF film cameras, i've recommended here many times over the years. it just works.
Same. Love it. Slap some modern EF lens with much better glass and stabilisation than they ever had the 90s and you're basically cheating.
>>4483665
Going from a DSLR to a MILC, to then an SLR I've come to appreciate the modern aids much more, but also wring myself free of their reliance. Even with an EOS camera that has a lot of aids going for it, you still need to take your time and dial things in properly compared to a DSLR/MILC where you just use the histogram to prevent clipping and ETTR paired with exposure preview.

>>4483643
I like it.

File: Still life.jpg (236 KB, 1280x1044)

236 KB JPG

my attempt at still life, any thoughts?

File: 1000003948.jpg (74 KB, 750x876)

74 KB JPG

>>4483778
The tone is very cold, the dark blue, gray and red contrast gives USSR vibes the composition would be much better if the language was some russian and you committed more to the doomer aesthetic. For now I don't particularly like it, it's just sad / give a bad vibe.
Reddit spacibg
What I would do for a better composition:
Print some cool USSR food can graphics that you like and glue it around the can, Italian is ruining the vibe. The cigar should be replaced by a cigarette and you can put the pack in frame that you also can fake by gluing some commie language on top. The lighting is ok, it looks like there's an open window where the camera stands, it's soft and cold. You could try to do something with the cigarette smoke tho, using a second light source that crosses the smoke path you know, so there's more life to your still. You could also play with the reflection in the glass but I don't have inspiration.

Hi

>>4483781
good shit, thanks for the effort posting, love the advice about lighting

File: 000095630029.jpg (1.66 MB, 1565x1037)

1.66 MB JPG

Why the fuck does this look like shit? I think the lab I use can't develop colour film.

File: 000095660009.jpg (1 MB, 1565x1037)

1 MB JPG

>>4483788
Whereas b&w, on the same camera and light conditions looks way better.

>>4483788
is this 20 year expired gold?

>>4483059
Nice

>>4482687
If you develop/scan yourself, you can get it down to $0.25 per photo or less

>>4483790
No, I bought it the day of or the day before shooting.

File: assblasted-award.png (55 KB, 300x300)

55 KB PNG

>>4483788
>>4483789
>Fell for the slidefilm meme again award
Black and white is the only reason to shoot 35mm film unless you go all the way and shoot velvia for a small fortune per roll.
>>4483819
Even at my most aggressive calculations, I can't get anywhere close to that. Maybe I need to go down the 1+50 rodinal hole.

File: 1759241591930573.gif (291 KB, 220x196)

291 KB GIF

>>4483833
lol wrong pic

>>4483833
PYROCAT HD. You need to make it yourself tho.

>>4483833
its obviously gold retard
>>4483836
no one cares about your special snowflake developer eggtard

>>4483833
Do the math on pyrocat hd mixed yourself and you'll see it will be like 5 cents or less per roll. If you mix your solution A with propylene glycol it will last for over a year. It absolutely mogs rodinal performance wise, especially if you plan to print your film. You can even do stand dev and a special two bath development with it.
The only real downside is that pyrocatechin is a little toxic.

File: G6DbJvcWUAEmMsf.jpg (270 KB, 731x1037)

270 KB JPG

>>4483226
The Ektar is fun as a silly little snapshitter, but honestly if you want a dedicated camera for traveling I'd shell out a little bit more in the initial purchase to get something more technically competent

On a bright, sunny day, outside with perfect conditions the Ektar can take decently competent photos that I think anyone could be happy with. The problem to me however is the fixed exposure. It's completely incompetent when it comes to taking photos in suboptimal lighting or indoors. If you're traveling you dont want to get stuck being unable to use your camera because it happened to be a rainy day or you're indoors.

I mean i'd still say it's worth buying and trying out cause it's only like 50 bucks and 72 frames really does go a long way, but just be aware that you're gonna end up with mostly shit photos if you use it in anything but perfect lighting conditions.

File: file.jpg (658 KB, 2592x1952)

658 KB JPG

>>4483648
literally nothing
"reliability" only if you shoot in extreme conditions, and still a lot of 70's cameras are in a shit shape and CLA
I recently got Nikon F801s as a spare body and I just completely switched from my FE. This thing has so much bigger and brighter viewfinder. It is slightly heavier but has good grip and is sturdy, has matrix metering, 1/8000s and other bells and whistles and you can get it for half the price of FE or FM and quarter price of FE2/FM2.

>>4483788
underexposed (this is your fault)

>>4483840
do you know any guides on that stuff? I checked once and it was very confusing

>>4483848
https://www.pyrocathd.5x4.co.uk/

You can read all about it. There is a stock A and stock B solution you use. Usually you do a 1+1+100 dilution. Using 10ML syringes makes it quick to measure and mix. Add A first to some water, add B, top up to final volume and use immediately. It's a 1 shot developer.

If you don't like the idea of a two solution developer you can make 510-pyro, which may be better for smaller formats than pyrocat HD in some ways.

Mixing yourself is trivial if you aren't using propylene glycol. A little trickier with, but not difficult by any means.

>>4483844
So I've been thinking about getting a Minokta Repo for an everyday camera. My GF's Demi is a blast but I'm not sure i should expect the same from the Minolta.

t; trying not to be a Minoltafag but I have a few SRTs and a HiMatic F which I don't like

File: Nikon+F100.jpg (250 KB, 1500x1263)

250 KB JPG

>>4483846
Nice. Not familiar with that model. I'm between getting an N90s or splurging a but more for a F100. Only reason I don't get an N80 is because I have vintage lenses I want to use.

I have some old cameras I will hawk on FB and see where that takes me. Plastic fantastics here I come

File: 3824673150_305fd82481.jpg (36 KB, 500x343)

36 KB JPG

for me it's the pentax p50

File: 16-04-09_Nikon_F5_RalfR_W(...).jpg (3.77 MB, 2711x2711)

3.77 MB JPG

>>4483871
I've been shooting film for about a year now. I started with a Pentax Spotmatic II, taught me a lot about manual. Then a few months ago I upgraded to a Minolta X-700, its nice to have a functioning light meter and Aperture Priority.
Thing is, I've always been a Nikon Guy. I own many Nikon DSLRs, but I still never bought a Nikon SLR.
I want a film camera with autofocus and some other nice features, I'm trying to decide between an F5 or an F100. I've heard the F100 actually has some advantages and I've heard the autofocus is good.
Though, I am also weighing the F4 since I like having manual dials and switches and it has autofocus too.

>>4483873
I'd go for the F100. It's almost as good as the F6, but much cheaper. The F5's great, but it's heavy even by Nikon standards. The F4 is good if you want cheap autofocus, but it takes a lot of getting used to. Nikon hadn't really mastered autofocus for the F4.

>>4483778
I like what you're going for. The shadow on the cig/food side and the light on a vase that once had flowers in it is pretty nice symbolism.

I think giving your subject a little more breathing room by increasing the negative space and spacing your objects apart a little more would make it even better. You need more DoF imo. The blurry bit on the cig and vase is distracting.
I'm 50/50 on the lighter. It kind of breaks the flow and takes away from what could be a really nice triangular composition. Consider a taller vase if you decide on more negative space.

Overall good job and I hope you post more.

File: kodakretina.jpg (220 KB, 1897x1067)

220 KB JPG

any other retinachads out here?

File: 20251020-kodakret_umax (29).jpg (3.79 MB, 2048x1365)

3.79 MB JPG

>>4483886

File: 20251020-kodakret_umax (20).jpg (2.74 MB, 2048x1365)

2.74 MB JPG

>>4483887

File: 20251020-kodakret_umax (15).jpg (3.19 MB, 2048x1365)

3.19 MB JPG

>>4483888

>>4483785
you made the effort to prepare and post something artistic so no problems my negroïd

File: H Street-009.jpg (1.41 MB, 2400x3000)

1.41 MB JPG

Can anyone suggest a printing service? Looking for 18x24 for now - but may branch out to other sizes soon.

File: low light fisherman.jpg (2.13 MB, 2948x4181)

2.13 MB JPG

>>4483844
>>4483226
Just because I want to be fair, here's some negative aspects of the H35 because I've put about 10 rolls through it so far.
You really should have an iso 400, as I've experienced iso 200 is really too low light sensitive to use it indoors or near sunset, due to this limitation you need to be cognizant of lighting and shadows, etc. In my experience iso 400 allows you to take more light in and actually take some night shots with the flash at close distance. See: >>4482901
You need to have a steady hand, especially in low light conditions; I'd chalk this up to the shutter speed being fixed and slow. If it's near sunset, point into the light source and hold firm. See: >>4483210 and pic related. Admittedly, I have a fair amount of blurry street photos but that's also because I literally shoot from the hip a lot of the time.

I could give a lot of positives but I decided this post should all be negatives just to be fair to the naysayers who say it's not worth it.

>>4483905
mpix, they have a 25% sale right now. They have 25-30% sales pretty often so if you're not in a hurry you can just wait for one.
I like the metal prints, they're expensive but they look amazing and you don't have to frame them

>>4483857
ok but where the dickens do I get Pyrocatechin in Europe

File: 000095630021.jpg (1.58 MB, 1565x1037)

1.58 MB JPG

>>4483847
I don't get why this keeps happening. THis was took on a sunny day. The camera I wear was set up properly. A lot of the pics have the weird artefacting/fuzziness in the black areas which I don't understand. I just want to take nice photos, why's it so hard?

>>4483948
pay no mind to the scan, what's the negative look like? It does look underexposed but could also be a bad scan or bad dev or exhausted chemicals

File: ilford.png (187 KB, 479x323)

187 KB PNG

I wanna know what film stocks or ISO anons tend to favor the most.
Please just tell me what you like using and maybe why if you can be bothered.

>>4483969
Fomapan 100
simple as

>>4483969
HP5 which is an easy pick honestly. But Kentmere 200 is intriguing.

>>4483969
Velvia if I can find it at a reasonable price, Ektachrome if I can't.

>>4483969
Found myself mostly shooting a collection of slow-medium speed B&W these days. Shit's cozy. My favorite whenever the lighting allows is Pan F.

File: Image_0028_edit1.jpg (4.93 MB, 2789x2225)

4.93 MB JPG

>>4483969
TMX and Portra

>>4483969
The only 2 film stocks I need:
- APX / Kentmere 400 pushed 1 stop
- Kodak ColorPlus

>>4483969
i still haven't decided honestly
I like foma 100 or 400 in medium format but foma 200 or 100 in 35mm
I haven't really liked any of the illford films as much but I use rodinal mostly so that might be part of it

>>4483969
Pay no mind to these other basedboys going on about different films, just use whatever is the cheapest, any significant “character” differences are a coping spook

File: 20251119_135114.jpg (2.67 MB, 2984x3574)

2.67 MB JPG

Had to wait on some stuff to get back to wetplates, but I am so back.
Test shot to see if my silver bath was going to produce acceptable images. Underexposed, but I think it is kinda cool.

File: 20251119_135259.jpg (1.87 MB, 3704x2752)

1.87 MB JPG

>>4484022
Then I spent the rest of my time figuring out cloud shots. Extremely addictive and tricky to do. Needs very fast exposures.

If you do it right you get this amazing contrast that blackens the gray clouds. The sky was completely cloudy with sun peaking through the brightest areas.

File: 20251119_135439.jpg (1.51 MB, 2718x3176)

1.51 MB JPG

>>4484023
For reference this was shot at f9 and 1/30th of a second. My first shot was 2 seconds at f5.6.
I think this one is going to look really cool framed. I want to do a series of these for my wall.
The ephemeral nature of cloud formations mixed with a "one of a kind" wetplate like this gets me going.

Pouring a plate to taking the picture is around 5-6 minutes time and you only have 3 or 4 minutes to actually expose the plate before it dries out. It's really fun to step outside and see what the clouds give you and hoping to god your exposure was correct.

Thank you for reading my blog.

File: 20251119_141907.jpg (2.07 MB, 2930x3296)

2.07 MB JPG

>>4484024
Last one.

File: scans_019.jpg (1.3 MB, 2072x3108)

1.3 MB JPG

Here's an old scan I only recently got around to editing. I've recently decided to get into more street photography and I want to know if people prefer aperture or shutter priority when doing this on film. I've got an AE-1 and I'm wondering if people have had good luck with this camera in the streets.

>>4484038
>santa Ana
Post hand lol all my Beaner family lives in Santa Ana

File: signal-2025-11-19-164511_002.jpg (280 KB, 1538x2048)

280 KB JPG

>>4484041
i am a colonizer

>>4484044
Haha nice one surprised any gringos still live in that are it’s all beaners and gooks. How old is you photo? Google shows that sign having a north gate market now. Makes me feel less bad about having photos from last year still to edit

>>4484044
>>4484045
thats clearly a beaner that doesn't get enough sunlight
t. beaner

>>4484000
From what I hear (havent used it yet) HP5 and rodinal are a beeg grain combo, but I've not heard the same for any other film they make except maybe Delta 3200 which is a bit obvious when thought on.
>>4484001
Nah I just wanted to hear what people prefered. I've only recently gone down this rabbit hole and wanted personal insights. Funny I kinda want to try SFX 200 or Ortho 80 after reading about them.
Besides, I'm happy to motivate any engagement that isn't shitfllinging brandwars otb.

>>4484062
Well, SFX and ortho 80 are exceptions to my buy whatever’s cheapest point because they are actually physically different in how they react to light. Otherwise people saying FoMA looks different from Kentmere looks different from this looks different from that looks different from my granny’s cooch, it’s all the same bullshit that people do when they’re pixel peeping my Sony sensor better than your Nikon sensor better than your canon sensor blah blah blah. It’s all bullshit.

>>4484067
All emulsions physically react differently to light. Compare spectral curves for various films and you'll see that. Compare charecteristic curves and you'll also find that the way the build density/contrast is also physically different. Cheaper films have thinner emulsions also.

Not saying you can't get similar results, but there is noticeable difference between something like foma100 and fp4 aside from the fact that foma is actually a 50 speed film.

>>4484069
Sure if you’re a loupe viewing pixel peeping chuddie maybe there’s a difference. For normal people aside from film speed the differences are irrelevant. And I’ve got a fridge full of all kinds of film before someone cries poorfag. It’s like when people ask what the best mirrorless and the true answer is they’re all fine and they have been for a decade so it doesn’t actually matter.

>>4484074
Please forgive me anons, I posted that in horny anger that made me feel truculent, and now that I busted a nut, I take it back. We shoot film for fun after all, might as well play around with stuff. I do believe that for just casual every day use a roll of foma is good enough for almost everything, but you know I was over the line saying That no one should care about other films. Experiment away. I stand by my point about digital though fuck sensor wars. It’s all the same shift.

>>4484074
The real truth is that if you only scan your film or are just taking snapshots it doesn't really matter for the most part. Cheaper films kinda suck for snapshots because you need to pay attention to exposure and scene contrast to not get garbage in some situations.

>>4484074
Many mirrorless are worse than DSLRs and the people who defend shit mirrorless typically either dont use them or only take photos of building corners on sunny days

File: IMGP4659.jpg (2.97 MB, 3569x5330)

2.97 MB JPG

>>4484089

THERE'S A GOWLANDFLEX 4X5 TLR ON EBAY RIGHT NOW.

File: 000244510020~2.jpg (2.79 MB, 2873x4332)

2.79 MB JPG

>>4482671
My F-1 is out for CLA after discovering a possible shutter capping issue.

I miss it bros I want it back.

File: 100S8651.jpg (1.85 MB, 3000x2000)

1.85 MB JPG

kodacolor 100

>>4484024
sweet

File: 20251121_163640.jpg (2.06 MB, 2810x3446)

2.06 MB JPG

Ambrotype. I found out that if you want to make a glass negative you need 3x exposure and roughly 2 minute development. If you're making ambrotype positives the exposure is the same as with tintypes. You mount with felt to give the image its blacks.

The colloidion has held onto the glass perfectly. I am happy. I may switch to ambrotype only because the image quality is even better. Washing glass is kind of painful, but we do anything and everything for image quality over here.

>>4484186
Ty! I've got the pic lacquered and will frame soon. Your pic is very comfy with kind of spooky darkness on the right. Nice.

File: WETPLATE2.jpg (1.44 MB, 1868x2297)

1.44 MB JPG

>>4484261
Here is the scanned image. To scan these you place the emulsion facing up and then place a piece of black flocking on top of the glass plate then scan as a positive image. Not ideal but I think it's cool to share. I gave the plate a wash in distilled water, but next time I'll give it a short photo-flo + distilled water bath to avoid water marks. Tricky to keep these totally clean through the whole process.
Lighting wasn't ideal for this shot, but my f8 and 8s exposure was actually pretty close for what I was working with.

File: nervous-pepe.jpg (8 KB, 218x218)

8 KB JPG

Just realized my film isn't winding in my camera. The winding thing on the opposite end isn't moving. What do I do?

>>4484284
if it was never winding then you can just open it up and re-seat the film
then you can fall into a state of self-hate because you didn't actually take the best shots of your career because you were too stupid to check if it's properly winding after you fired off the first frame (this still happens to me)

>>4484285
I just opened the back in complete darkness and it feels like the film is loose on the spool.

>>4484287
lol

>>4484288
Advice needed.

>>4484289
I am assuming it wasn't properly seated and you didn't make any actual exposures
The film should never become lose and stop winding in the middle of a roll
Seat it properly, fire 2 exposures and there you go, happy shooting

File: IMG_3477.jpg (1.81 MB, 4032x3024)

1.81 MB JPG

>>4484291
You can tell it was wound through the advancing spool several times over.

>>4484293
never had that, weird!

>>4484293
Ripperoni. Looks like it lost tension mid-roll and just fell free of the catching notches on the spool.
Even if you started rewinding the film, or knocked it or anything really, it isn't user-error unless you've bulk rolled the film and done a poor job or something.

Why are old p&s cams so fucking expensive? I found a cheap but solid p&s that I like but a lot of them are more expensive than my SLR.

>>4484302
Zoomer tax and Boomer retardation.

Old farts don't understand that their old shitty gear isn't worth most of what they paid for it, combined with young youtube-addled morons sucking up anything in search of le filmic and """nostalgia""".

File: file.png (98 KB, 1300x146)

98 KB PNG

Does the RTS II use half-mirror exposure metering? And if so, does it need a circular rather than linear polarizer, or is Contax just being safe (read: upselling) here?

>>4484289
just bee urself

>>4484284
>>4484287
>>4484289
>>4484293
If anything good came from this, it's that I now have a ruined and exposed roll of film to play with, to load and rewind, which will help me better understand how my camera works and how to properly load film, and prevent future mistakes.

File: 1000004037.jpg (2.16 MB, 2212x1372)

2.16 MB JPG

I'll post some random pics here so they get archived and I don't lose them forever. Quality may vary, it's mostly RB67, Rollei 35 and Minolta A7. I might already have posted some of them but whatever at least I'm posting pics

File: 1000004024.jpg (497 KB, 1228x1818)

497 KB JPG

>>4484378

File: 1000004038.jpg (2.12 MB, 3091x2048)

2.12 MB JPG

>>4484379

File: 1000004034.jpg (2.7 MB, 2432x1640)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4484382

File: 1000004040.jpg (1.2 MB, 2961x1962)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4484384

File: 1000004022.jpg (702 KB, 1818x1228)

702 KB JPG

>>4484385

File: 1000004020.jpg (820 KB, 1228x1818)

820 KB JPG

>>4484386
Oops it's reversed

File: 1000004033.jpg (2.34 MB, 2048x1974)

2.34 MB JPG

>>4484387

File: 1000004035.jpg (2.54 MB, 1935x1476)

2.54 MB JPG

>>4484388

File: 1000004044.jpg (1.8 MB, 3437x4694)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4484390

File: 1000004043.jpg (713 KB, 1228x1818)

713 KB JPG

>>4484391

File: 1000004049.jpg (3.77 MB, 5902x4815)

3.77 MB JPG

>>4484392

File: 1000004051.jpg (3.77 MB, 5471x4111)

3.77 MB JPG

>>4484393
It's the last one

File: WETPLATE2 (2).jpg (4.17 MB, 2057x2564)

4.17 MB JPG

Ambrotype. I call it sticks and leaves.

Whoops thought I was posting these here. What do you guys use for scans? My lab's Fuji machine just makes better scans than the primefilm I use at home, the grain becomes weird rgb noise even if I don't use the scanner's inversion. and I hate that.
>>4484529
>>4484530
>>4484531
>>4484532
>>4484533

File: 11 — 2025-04-04 1835 01.1(...).jpg (2.85 MB, 2400x2400)

2.85 MB JPG

neat video
even if you disagree with his color balancing method, at least he went about it scientifically/consistently
the spectrum charts are also a cool visualization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVFTtE-8C94

>>4483887
>>4483888
>>4483889
where'd you take these?
I have a similar canal near me
>>4484378
>posting pics on 4chan so they get archived
how things have changed over the years
cool photos, obligatory >place: japan though
>>4484541
>the grain becomes weird rgb noise
what do you expect color film grain to look like?

File: PXL_20251120_222410203.PO(...).jpg (1.42 MB, 3072x4080)

1.42 MB JPG

New lens hype. Well, I had one a few years ago but sold it. Glad to have another one for dark winter days.

>>4484572
>what do you expect color film grain to look like?
more like grain and less like small rgb pixels. I just want the beautiful blue skies I see to not have so many obvious green and red pixels when I zoom in. maybe i'm just pixel peeping too much but the frontier at the lab just generally looks smoother and less pixel-y

File: soooo am i the problem or.jpg (921 KB, 3089x2048)

921 KB JPG

Been shooting for a while and can't seem to get anything sharp whatsoever. Yes, film isn't as sharp as digital, especially in 35mm i get that. BUT is this not insanely smeary? shot on very sunny day at f8 1/250 focus was at infinity and subject was about 40ft away. obviously this is downscaled from the lab scan to post.

>>4484587
Looks like your lens may be damaged. The focal plane looks bad.

>>4484587
Was this AF or MF? Is your viewfinder image sharp? Did you install a focusing screen upside down? Do you have other lenses you can test with?

File: 30 — 2025-07-25 1558 01.1(...).jpg (2.24 MB, 1913x1282)

2.24 MB JPG

>>4484578
that's probably the lab doing noise reduction in post for you
the actual (exposed) silver gets replaced by dye in the bleach step, so each layer in the film ends up with a random pattern of speckles of that color
even in solid colors the speckles won't line up exactly
or hey maybe my scanner is ass as well, but I highly doubt it

File: 1763381469488463.gif (1.61 MB, 315x177)

1.61 MB GIF

>>4484595
>Shoot film to avoid disgusting Bayer Bullshit chroma noise pattern
>Has own version of chroma noise pattern

>>4483490
utterly based

File: PrettySky.jpg (4.82 MB, 5000x3316)

4.82 MB JPG

Posting here because I have nowhere else and I'm a Zenit shitter.
If you do buy a Zenit B/E camera, ignore the retarded boomers online telling you the mechanism will jam if you adjust the shutter BEFORE winding. They're wrong, just repeating fuddlore from other cameras (Kiev 88 series I suspect). I just tried it out on a Prinzflex 500 and Zenit B body (both are Zenit B). The mechanism jams if you adjust AFTER winding on. Can be fixed with a bit of fiddling though and a cable release.
Also don't use Takumar lenses with stop down pins on Zenit bodies without this feature, they'll jam and get stuck on the body in a way which is fiddly to remove.

Anyway here is a pretty cloud picture as compensation for that.

File: i-img1200x1200-1751508454(...).jpg (164 KB, 1200x1200)

164 KB JPG

>>4483648
I don't know why other anons are saying "reliability" in quotes reliability is really a big factor. Electronic SLRs have a habit of randomly killing themselves and can't reallybe fixed where as fully mechanical SLRs can survive almost anything and can be fixed with some lighter fluid. Also you don't need batteries, and a lot of newer SLRs take stupid hard to find lithium batteries. And if you are gonna shoot manual usuallyit's just a little easier on an older one, and the AF on the newer ones isn't that good anyone so I don't really use it. And alot of the older ones are lighter and smaller too.

I personally use both and see the value of both, but usually when I'm going somewhere I'm gonna take a fully mechanical one because I know it's gonna work. I've had spontaneous total failure on the majority of electronic cameras I've owned, but never on mechanical.

>>4483788
>why my underexposed photos look like crap, it must be the lab

>>4484626
Nobody sane is buying cameras for end-of-the-world type shit.
If there was any threat to electronic SLRs it's not going to be batteries. Yes they can break and you'll be hard up finding repairs, but that goes for digital stuff as well.
> I've had spontaneous total failure on the majority of electronic cameras I've owned
That's astoundingly bad luck. Please tell me you take a thousand photos a week minimum

>>4484591
Lens is sharp on my digital body

>>4484594
MF, viewfinder image is sharp, haven't messed with screen since i got the camera, tried with several lenses and have similar occasionally better results.

>>4483887
I love this, looks like a fairy tale :)

>>4484606
noise from a bayer filter sensor tends magenta but is usually almost undetectable at base sensitivity
on the other hand color film noise is more evenly spread across red/green/blue but is present regardless of sensitivity
pick your poison

dead thread

File: 123.png (682 KB, 1087x952)

682 KB PNG

any final thots on seth rogans favorite cameras?

>>4484651
You need to do some testing. Notice how the top of the chimney is more out of focus than the base of the house? It looks like something is out of alignment. If it isn't the lens it is either the lens mount or the film plane.

Do you have pictures of flat surfaces from the same camera, but with different lenses?

>>4484587
Is there a chance your lab is scanning with a flatbed?

>>4484587
>focus was at infinity
why didn’t you focused on subject ?

>>4484712
Final thots on his fave cams? Probably Emma Stone

>>4484712
let's see the photos he takes first

File: IMGP4810.jpg (2.51 MB, 3480x5451)

2.51 MB JPG

>>4484892

File: IMGP4794.jpg (3.87 MB, 3844x5767)

3.87 MB JPG

>>4484893

File: 000024480018.jpg (3.31 MB, 3089x2048)

3.31 MB JPG

Spending some time in the darkroom this evening. Can't decide how to crop/frame this shot. Any suggestions? Is it just shit?

>>4484572
The c&o canal in Maryland, love walking and biking here

>>4485154
well one thing I would do different is not having it sideways
hope this helps

>>4485154
Tight crop of baby up to the sign shes holding.

File: wide crop.png (2.8 MB, 1873x1226)

2.8 MB PNG

I personally would have done something like this.

File: square crop.png (1.76 MB, 1142x1260)

1.76 MB PNG

but tight square crop might work better

File: 20251128_150545.jpg (515 KB, 1184x1579)

515 KB JPG

>>4485264
Hate that my phone does that
>>4485265
>>4485267
>>4485268
Love and appreciate the input. Wish I saw it sooner. This is what I ended up going with. I liked the other sign holder other than the fact that they were walking off frame. I decided to use the trees as natural frames. Went with a portrait crop because I liked the verticality of everything (signs, trees, mother, cone). Put the kiddo center frame to draw the eye in. I'm all new at this so I am probably talking out of my ass but this is my third print (not counting test prints and contact sheet) and I'm quite pleased. Thoughts?

>>4485254
ok yeah that's the same one then
>>4485268
was going to suggest the same crop

File: bench.jpg (838 KB, 2048x1640)

838 KB JPG

Darkroom print of this came out better than the digitally processed negative scan

>>4485294
Very nice anon

File: DSC_9660 (2048).jpg (368 KB, 1638x2048)

368 KB JPG

Gratuitous movement use

File: DSC08817editSMBDR.jpg (1.25 MB, 1600x1600)

1.25 MB JPG

>>4485154
You got a nice moment but nothing else is going on and there's not a composition that could be strengthened with a crop. Good timing but nothing else to help carry the photo, imo.

File: WETPLATE4.jpg (4.91 MB, 2722x2120)

4.91 MB JPG

Ambrotype. Estimated a 45 second exposure for this and got it pretty close. Yay

picked up a bunch of olympus lenses today, going to shoot a fuckton with my OM-2n in the coming weeks
>80mm f/4 macro with extension tubes
>35-70mm f/3.6
>24mm f/2.8
>50mm f/1.4
really excited as the 50mm will be my first ever f/1.4 lens and I already really enjoy night shooting so having another 2/3 a stop over my f/1.8 will be nice for dark scenes.

>>4485397
Thanks for the critique anon. I really appreciate the feedback. Love your photo btw.

>>4484640
I reallydon't think it's bad luck. Old electronics just crap out. Cameras I've had break include a Nikon f100, a Yashica 270 AF, and a Canon Rebel, and also several point and shoots. None of these cameras were abused or used in harsh conditions. I've had better luck with older MF electronic SLRs, like myCanon T70, but I still don't trust it quite as much.
>but that goes for digital stuff as awell
What does this have to do with digital.

Any petzval fags on fgt? Im getting one soon.

File: WETPLATE (4).jpg (3.23 MB, 2024x2567)

3.23 MB JPG

This plate came out super flat, but you can save them with technology. Gotta wait for better lighting next time.

File: 1.jpg (2.11 MB, 1987x3000)

2.11 MB JPG

Just got developed and self scanned my first roll of Aerocolor IV.

Sharing some shots.

Leica M3 + Nokton 50mm f.1.5 II.

File: 2.jpg (2.22 MB, 1993x3000)

2.22 MB JPG

>>4485593
Although I still prefer 50D and 250D, this stock really surprised me. Kind of a vintage look and more grain than you'd expect out of a 100 ISO film, but I dig it.

File: 3.jpg (2.26 MB, 3000x2004)

2.26 MB JPG

>>4485595

File: 4.jpg (2.39 MB, 3000x1995)

2.39 MB JPG

>>4485596
Last one.

File: 1 - Copy.jpg (3.46 MB, 3316x5000)

3.46 MB JPG

I like my photos but I'm not sure if they're actually any good. Please critique with explanations about what I can do better.

File: 2 - Copy.jpg (3.34 MB, 3764x5000)

3.34 MB JPG

>>4485667
Also I was thinking about adding my photos to pinterest or making a Tumblr account to share them. Is it worth bothering? I just want a place I can link and maybe get a couple useful, meaningful interactions.

File: 3 - Copy.jpg (2.92 MB, 3315x5000)

2.92 MB JPG

>>4485668

File: Image 43 (2).jpg (2.29 MB, 1984x2745)

2.29 MB JPG

Got my petzval today. The listing came with a broken old camera and a bunch of 5x7/4x5 film holders and other old shit.

There was one developed 5x7 picture in the box as well. Here it is. No clue what kind of film it is or when it was taken, but the dog is really cute.

File: WETPLATE5.jpg (1.64 MB, 1906x2355)

1.64 MB JPG

First plate with 1850s voigtlander petzval. The lens is a 300mm f4. Shot this wide open about 2 feet away from subject and the DoF is obscenely tiny. Wanted to see what portrait distances would get me. Some swirl bokeh is happening, but it is subtle. I think this lens fully covers 8x10, so that is expected.

I used my deardorff because I had a spare lens plate I was able to use to mount the lens. I just used a lens cover as a shutter. Very fun larp and I got the exposure pretty close without too much motion blur.

Dead thread. Thanks for killing it Large Format weirdo. KYS.

>>4485951
but you don't get it, they are impressive because no one has taken photos of trash on large format!

>>4485951
>whaaa a niche thread on a niche board on a niche website is slow
I know it's hard being 17 but just think for a bit.

File: WETPLATE7.jpg (1.88 MB, 1919x2386)

1.88 MB JPG

I call this one pepper plant.
It was a bit windy for the 6 second exposure, but I kinda like the tiny bit of motion blur. Too bad development got screwed up. Pouring developer is one of the tricky parts.
Using the deardorff makes macro shots like this much more difficult. Sinar geared movements have truly spoiled me.

>>4485801
>having a pic of someone else's kid
yikes dude

>>4486415
Hey retard, that picture was most likely taken pre WW2.

File: DSCF8125-Pano-positive.jpg (2.74 MB, 5239x2257)

2.74 MB JPG

>>4485667
>>4485668
>>4485669
I love low contrast/faded B&W, so I dig it. Comps look good in one and two. I think the building in the third one needs more room to breath, but I get wanting to have the top of the mountain in frame/a straight angle, so I can't complain if you didn't have a wider lens.
>>4485828
>>4486025
Great stuff.

>>4486426
That's why he's shit posting about it

>>4486426
>>4486511
disgusting pedos

>>4486510
Thank you. My next week of ambrotype is going to be all portraits hopefully. We will all get to see if my one image a day contribution is what is killing /p/ lol.
The petzval is a beautiful lens for wetplate portraiture. The shallow DoF, speed and rendering is just amazing. I took one of my best portraits ever with it yesterday.

On an aside I feel like spending lots of time doing still life work has improved my portraiture significantly. Kind of nice because you don't need a model.

File: 20251205_140619.jpg (2.68 MB, 2960x3336)

2.68 MB JPG

>>4486519
I guess I'll post this lens cause it's kinda cool and big.
Even though this lens is massive it doesn't even have the projection to fully cover 8x10 at infinity. It's a 5x7 lens lol. 280mm f3.5

>>4486521
Wait, I think I’ve been here. Or, on the road near it.

>>4486526
Nice. You wanna buy some organic pasture eggs or pork? Stop by some time.

>>4486533
Werent you selling a few cows?

>>4486543
No lol. I am getting one slaughtered soon, so if you want to buy some quality beef stop by in a few weeks.

>>4486551
Oh thank god I was worried you were my wife’s autistic varg vikernes wannabe cousin

>>4486582
Oh wait no that's me. Ill bring my 8x10 camera to the next family gathering for the group photo and portraits if anyone wants a 100000MP headshot.

>>4486584
Make sure no cut subject

>>4486595
Shouldn't be a problem with humans. Just don't get blackout drunk like last time.

File: old chestnut in the fog.jpg (1.88 MB, 1480x1809)

1.88 MB JPG

foma 100 in the fog

File: Image_31 (2).jpg (2.05 MB, 1824x1473)

2.05 MB JPG

>>4486991