Rate my snapshits
Learning the hard way that e100 has 0 exposure latitude.
Boy did I ever overexpose the shit out of these
Last one from the first roll
>>4493929Spot meter is a really nice tool when shooting slide or you could get a nikon f5/f6 if you're lazy.
>>4493941Yeah good call. These were on a Canonet QL17, and I bet the battery voltage isn't fixed like the seller had claimed.Found a couple more from the roll.
Next up is an expired roll of Velvia 50
More tomorrow. Maybe.
Weird double exposure at the end
This ones from an expired Kodak disposable from possibly the late 90's or early 00's.
The next few are from an expired roll of Kodak Gold 100, likely from early 2000.
Contrast with new Kodak Gold 100 (EK direct)
Across II is up next
>>4493935I'm just a beginner when it comes to photography, so I don't have much technically sound advice to offer or anything, but I wanted to share my opinion on this photo; though it may not have been intentional or desired, I think the overexposure works in its favor!It highlights the contrast between the two distinct areas of light (or the lack of it) in the photo, and it seems eerily perfect and artificial. The moment I looked at it, it reminded me of a set for a 1960s stop-motion film. Every small detail looks so perfect...It really moved me, I hope you're fond of it yourself.
>>4494008Thank you anon, this means a lot to me. I am fond of most of the pictures here and I think I'm falling in love with film in general. To give you some more context, the building in the background is the mine superintendent's house, located in the once bustling but now deserted "Granite Ghost Town", a silver mine community. Eerie is definitely the right word here, but you'll just have to roll the clock back another 100 years.https://fwp.mt.gov/stateparks/granite-ghost-town
Next up is some trees and building corners on TMax-400 (or this may be the Across II and the former set may be the TMax, I'm not sure as I lost my notes on these). Shot on a Konica C35/AF2
>>4493929For this pic step back more and level the camera out. The angle upwards looks a bit whack.>>4493943You can get light meter apps for your phone which give you a sort of preview of the scene/metering. Try using those as a cheap fix.>>4493982Part of shooting film to some extent is knowing what you can/can't get away with. With this picture I would personally have shot it more as a silhouette like >>4493987>>4493989Do a google on reciprocity and night photography on film. It might help you in situations like this to get more detail.
>>4494040Also beware the high contast lighting. I think you know this one already but as you can see it caused some problems with your photos with super washed out skies.
>>4493985>>4493986>>4493987>>4493988>>4493989theyre all vibey and work good as a pack. for the last one should have gone crazy, 30 sec exposure f5.6 idgaf
>>4494040>>4494041Thanks for the feedback anons. >>4493982 Picrel is the scene from the other side.reciprocity is new to me, I'll check it out, thanks anon. And yeah "protect the shadows for film" is still something I'm trying to internalize.>>4494047Yeah I plan on trying that on an upcoming roll, will post what I get.
This one's from the active line in the same vicinity. Also underexposed as shit.
Shot some portra 800 next. Really impressed with this film.
And finally some Ektar 100. This is my second favourite film (Ektachrome being the first, and Portra the third). I'd love to try some of the Fujichromes but the prices are simply ridiculous.
>>4494058Maybe just me but I wouldn't call this particularly under-exposed. It could do with maybe a pinch more exposure just to bring out a fraction more detail in some of the darker spots. But definitely not bad, if it were exposed any more I think you would lose all detail in the sky.Beware the white and black subjects as well, it's tricky to get blacks to be detailed without blowing highlights and tricky to get detail in white areas without heavy under-exposure. In situations like that I tend to just meter the blue of the sky (altho this can still cause whites to be overcooked if the source of light is reflecting off them too much).I would say picrel (it's a bad photo but a good demo) is probably the "ideal" of what an exposure should be (for colour), to some extent I think you might be too often shooting into the shadows or the light in a scene. Which would work great for B&W but is a bit of a pain for colour. >>4494057What on earth is going on with the scanning of those leaves on the trees. How have you scanned these? There's almost a grey fringing or haze around a lot of the shapes in this picture.
>>4494063>>4494057Haha sorry, this looks to be the version where i was attempting to lift the shadows a bit on my phone and fucked it up. Here's the original. All rolls were developed and scanned by a lab on Noritsus.>>4494058> it's tricky to get blacks to be detailed without blowing highlights and tricky to get detail in white areas without heavy under-exposure. Yeah that's a tough lesson to learn for sure. Thanks for this pic, it illustrates your point very well. I wouldn't call it a bad photo though, I think all it needs is some tighter framing and perhaps a little straightening.
More from the roll of Ektar
Last one
>>4493929a bit Washed Out. turn the lighting down and view make slight adjustments until you know what looks closest to the real image
Gonna steal some of these photos
>>4494330Awesome, but let me know what you liked so I know what to shoot more of.
>>4493988i keep coming back to this one, composition is unsettling in a good way, like you're looking through the eyes of something in the woods stalking the townsfolk
>>4494359Thanks anon, appreciate it.
