Color Calibration EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: How much time do you spend post-processing (or printing) a single photo?Previous thread: >>4494610
lets get the thread of the ground
>>4497690 (Cross-thread)>Those edges are a disasterno doubt, this one is really bad. easy fix with simple edit tho. cant beat it for $30, the non-pano pics look much better
For the record, I spent about 3 minutes "editing" this one.
>>4497863Printing one image that I haven't printed before usually takes 20ish minutes, but sometimes it can take a lot longer if I didn't set myself up for success through exposure and development. Usually I'll print them straight or with some split contrast printing and then stare at them once dry to see if I want to do anymore to the print.
first time scanning
>>4497894Looks great anon
>>4497875
Finally finished the first pass through a roll I want to expose twice. This makes me so unreasonably nervous some how, because I really don't want to fuck it up.Last double exposure I did like this was very experimental so I was kinda chill about it. But this time I have a bunch of portraits of friends on it and would like to have at least some of them turn out good so I can give one to each of them.
>>4497875>>4497964Nice to live in an area with snow for b&w. Good pics.
Funny thread, just got back my first rolls of c41 in over a year and not looking forward to dealing with colour scanning/editing. Only shoot bw, takes me a couple min max to edit a photo.
>>4497970why didnt you walk forward slightly? now its just a snapshit
Fuji 200, aka Gold but in a green cassette
>>4497892>20ish minutesNice, I guess that comes with experience. I was able to do some printing the other night again, but somehow it took me almost 3 hours trying to get one print right, and I still didn't get it how I wanted. Including setting up the shit and then breaking it down and washing and all, over 4 hours for unsatisfactory results. But I take it as a learning experience. I only had a 20+ years headstart doing digital scanning that now feels natural like breathing, but I'll get there.I'm already considering buying roll paper next time and cutting to size myself, this shit runs out fast with all the trial and error, and suddenly, after adding up just the cost of film, paper and chems you could feed a small nation with each finished print.
My dad found his old film cameras the other day and I thought about getting them in working condition and use them, but there's something I find strange with film these days.Seeing contemporary life on photos shot on film and old cameras looks so weird to me. It's uncanny to me in a strange way. I'm seeing an image where I'm in a strange way expecting to see "past life", but it's a couple in a cafe sitting with an iphone and contemporary clothing.Two of the cameras he has I was most interest ind is a Pentax 67 with a 105mm lens and a Polaroid 600 se (that still has some film in the cartridge). But I think a new cartridge for the Polaroid is $100 for ten shots or something.I remember playing with his old cameras like they were toys as a kid....
>>4498115The Pentax 67 is really popular because it's just a gigantic SLR that shoots medium format. Almost certainly worth sending it in and getting serviced/fixed.
>>4497970yeah but i hate the cold and don't take pics unless they drag me out on a skiing trip or something
>>4497876Not as bad in that one, probably because the building is closer to the foreground.>MAGfestWish I got tickets in time. I wanted to go see the Protomen.>>4498112Gold/Fuji200 is such a weird stock. Every time I see other people's photos with it, I like them. But every time I try it, I can't stand it.>>4498127I like taking shots in the snow, but my camera's shutters tend to start locking up once it starts dropping below 20F, so I don't do it as much as I'd like to.
>>4494826>>4495999Canon AF35ML point and shoot in low light anon from last thread here, got the film back. Basically just how expected - missed focuses and soft exposures here and there, but still did surprisingly well in quite low light, and I'm excited to shoot my roll of Cinestill with some adjustments to help the hit rate. I'm seeing where the camera is struggling a bit. It definitely prefers to focus farther, and the autofocus generally needs to be coddled a bit. I'll definitely try focus locking on a large surface and recomposing for closer shots, and just giving it a bit longer to set. For most of them I did focus directly on a light just to get the camera shake to not go off, but the focus got confused. I'm going to shoot it at 1000; I'm happy with the exposure I'm getting and this was 400 film on the 400 setting, so 800 film at 1000 should just be less soft. Correct me if I'm wrong. Overall, fucking thrilled. We're at the image limit or I'd post some
>>4498179Breaking: not at image limit
>>4498180
>>4498181And not surprisingly it excels once I give in and pop the flash
>>4498182
>>4498184
>>4498179I don't have any personal experience with that specific camera, but for most point-n-shoots, they tend to blast the aperture wide open before dropping the shutter speed very much, so you're going to see a lot of soft shots because of that.It's got some pretty solid clarity when it's not wide open though. >>4498182 especially is a great shot.
>>4498188Thanks. And that makes sense; would you say that applies to all lighting conditions, or that it's exacerbated in lower light? Seems like the latter. I did a few daytime shots of picrel. I was focusing on the background through the overpass and was hoping the overpass would be blurred but instead it just chose a higher aperture, maybe 12 or 13? I do like getting small aperture shots so I'm honestly glad it tends towards them, I just have to get better at coaxing the autofocus.
>>4498113You'll get there with more practice. Printing is naturally a time consuming process and progress can be slow because of it.My advice is to study the zone system or densitometry and how developing influences contrast/density. The idea is that you want a negative that gives you a good print with as little fuss as possible, and the zone system is a good way to get there. Scanning without ever printing can lead to some bad habits when setting exposure and/or developing that can lead to negatives that don't print well. 6 stops of contrast is what paper gives you before you need to either give up detail, use techniques like dodge and burn, flashing, split contrast printing, etc. or pulling your film to reduce contrast.Shoot large format and develop each sheet individually or in batches woth the same push/pull so you can put your theory into practice without making compromises on a 36 exposure roll if you have the enlarger to print them, or you could just contact print them. You can take notes on each exposure, decide if you need any pushing or pulling, and then see how much easier it is to print after you nail the first two steps in the process!
Same roll.>>4498147>Gold/Fuji200 is such a weird stock. Every time I see other people's photos with it, I like them. But every time I try it, I can't stand it.What's wrong with it? Or how can you go wrong with it? Whenever I go back to Gold after messing around with meme or niche stocks, I feel like the world would be all right if Gold was the only color stock that existed.>>4497690>I'm just an idiot and uploaded the uncropped WIP version, but thanks!Ah, thought it was intentional with how it was literally uncropped full frame. I think it could still work that way if only the frame was grey or even black. >>4497520>>4497523>>4497522Those are bangers, I'm disappointed nobody has said a word. What stock? Looks almost like it dips into IR a little.>>4497494Vuescan has nothing on SilverFast. Well except the UI not being a torture device. But in terms of scan quality, and scanner support and compatibility it really pales.>>4497477>UK weather>Back to Gold 200 for colourYeah, don't bother with Orwo then unless you save it for the rare sunny day.From my years living in Ireland, Gold is just the perfect good ol' reliable that magically turns dreary into cozy. Sometimes, anyway.
Don't ask what's going on on top of the frame because I don't know. It's actually visible on unexposed, undeveloped film on emulsion side. I suspect some chemical fogging or contamination from storage. Bottom right is just regular light leak from bad respooling (not done by me). Shame cos I'd have liked this shot without all the junk. >>4498218I never formally studied or used zone system, but I know the basics of it and probably have been unintentionally using some of its principles anyway. Like when I know a scene is tricky or I just want it in a specific way then I'll switch to spot meter for one subject and eyeball exposure compensation from there if needed, while keeping the dynamic range of the whole scene in mind.Either way, everything about my process (especially from developing) has been calibrated for digital scanning. (Calibrated in the loose sense of the word, just arriving at what works best through trial and error without turning it into scientific endeavor). So it might take a while to unlearn all that and find what works best for printing. And just having this extra set of variables - paper developer, dilution and development time - to interact with their equivalents used for film scares me a little right now. At least once the film is developed then I know my scanner will give me constant results, so if I fucked up then it will show in a predictable way and I'll know where the problem happened. But printing to paper is another layer of abstraction on top of that.LF sounds like fun but I think I'll save it for another decade lol. I already started shooting medium and printing in the last 3 years and those were two massive steps that I've been pushing away since forever.
Sometimes 16:9 just works better.
>>4498225
>>4498223>scan qualityhow are they any different?unless you’re doing negative inversion and/or lossy scans
fuji 200>>4498226cool textures
>>4497894>>4497874i like it
horse apple
sunset with bonus birb
street, night edition
>>4498303>>4498304>>4498305fuji400 on an old ass pentax spotmatic f with 55mm f1.8 smc takumar (the lens they shipped with these things)just getting into this as a hobbywhats a good way to lower the file size that doesnt make the photos look different?
>>4498307ohh and one last onecar
Foma ortho 400 curled on me pretty bad after drying
>>4498314Damn I wish my gf knew how to use a camera so we could take cute beach pics together. :(
Was a nice walk at least
Yeah so I kinda used my ilfosol 3 dilution five times before reading online that its a 1 use solutionNegs came out on the soft side, and the contrast in the midtones wasn't great, but overall not that badWhat are your opinions on BW developers anons, any you prefer?Also is developing and scanning C41 much harder than bw?
>>4498484Powder dev is where its at if you have the storage containers available to make 5L batches (or 3L or whatever).You'll save more money IF you're developing rolls fast enough to not have the solution lose effectiveness due to age / poor storage conditions.>Also is developing and scanning C41 much harder than bw?Developing is more involved. Harsher temp controls are needed (versus B&W not giving a fuck until you're like 10*c out of range) and you can't push/pull without introducing colour casts. Scanning is basically the same.
figured out how to store my 6x8 negscut them up individually and put them in a PrintFile 120-9HBtheir website says the 9HB only fits 6x7 but I'm pretty sure that's a typo, and they meant 6x9individual negatives also makes scanning a lot easierscans incoming
>>4498542I think ULT 120-3HB should work too if you don't want to cut individual frames. I've been using 120-4B because they are perfect fit for 6x6 and 6x9 which are the two formats that I use. What camera even does 6x8, other than GX680?
>>4498489Thanks anon, I'll look into the powdered stuff.Heres some pan f+ expired in 2007, pushed it 1 stop. Dont like how this film looks pushed at all, or maybe its the old film. Either way, do any anons have recommendations on how to process BW scans in lightroom? I just move the tone curve until the highlights and shadows are where I want them, don't know if theres some better way of doing it
>>4498545I considered that one, but I think then the negative strips would be too long for my CS9000's tray>What camera even does 6x8, other than GX680?no idea
>>4498551the lenses for this thing are fucking fantastic, no surpriseI have that 100mm cranked all the way to the right and you can just barely make out some swirly bokeh in the OOF areathis was (and is) one of the system's "cheap" lensesactually all of these were taken with the 100/4 now that I think about it, didn't get my other two lenses until a bit later
>>4498552
>>4498553I enjoy larping as an early-2000s studio photographer
>>4498554another church
>>4498555doll
>>4498484>>4498546Avoid the powdered stuff, it sucks. It sucks to mix to begin with, it sucks to warm up/cool down the solution to the right temperature in a water bath (depending on season and where you live), it sucks having to remember to keep count of rolls developed and recalculate the times each time with the reusable ones like ID-11.Get Rodinal or HC-110 (or both), get your tap water to the right temperature (much easier than heating/cooling a room temperature solution), mix, develop, dump because it's a one-shot solution.The other anon >>4498489 is delusional talking about +/- 10 degrees making no difference. In the 10 to 20 minutes range, 2°C is a difference of about 2 minutes in development time. And for many stocks 2 minutes more or less is ablout 1 stop push/pull. More if your times are shorter than 10 minutes.That said, yes, C-41 is even more sensitive to temperature control. But it's not much more difficult. Get a stick type sous vide heater, a big enough plastic tub, set the temperature, put your bottles in and wait for the solutions to reach the temperature. It's only more involved in the sense that it has one or two extra solutions to use (depending if you get bleach and fixer separately, or combined as blix). And yes, you also need to keep adjusting the times with each new batch of film. It's best to accumulate enough rolls that you work through the whole capacity in one go. Working solutions don't store for very long anyway.Plus you can make some fucking good sous vide food with it when not developing.
Phoenix II colours suck and I cant fix them with my horrible editting "skills"
>>4498581>And yes, you also need to keep adjusting the times with each new batch of film. It's best to accumulate enough rolls that you work through the whole capacity in one go. Working solutions don't store for very long anyway.completely forgot to mention, the storage+replenishment technique I got off reddit is working wellthese were all developed with C-41 chems I mixed back in August>>4498542I’ll re-summarize later for anyone who doesn’t remember what I’m talking about
hey /fgt/. Gonna develop a roll of film in Rodinal. Dilution is 1:50. The film i shot on was Agfa APX400. Come join me ! ^_^
i don't know if you can see anything, but I loaded the film onto the reels. Here is me loading them in my bathroom which i converted into a darkroom.
Gonna do 4 times of these and mix it into my beaker.
Done and Sitrred.
Time to pour !
And now for the waiting game.
Time to pour out the developer !
Dev out. Stop bath in.
Stop bath out. Fixer in. Although i forgot to take a picture of it. tehe~. Gonna use a 2 bath fixer for this.
Fixer 1 in!
Fixer 2 in ! After this, gonna have to rinse and dry the roll out. Will post the results tomorrow.
Quite regrettably, thete may be something wrong with my camera.
>>4498603Lmao
>>4498603lmaowhat cam? and have you used it before?
>>4498585here's my phoenix 2 shot. honestly i prefer the pinkish hue of yours. the first phoenix was very pnk/red like that
Im taking an introductory B/W dev class and I am required to bring my camera (leica m3) and a roll of b/w film with me. What is the most unhinged roll that I could pack for my first day?
>>4498648From currently available? Ferrania Orto, Ilford SFX, or XP2 Super because fuck you (if they didn't say it couldn't be C-41). Or one of the Orwo piece of shit low ISO ones like DN21.
>>4498182Nice one>>4498603rip
continued >>4498542this time Gold, with mixed resultssummarizing >>4498586I buy the Kodak-branded 2.5L C41 kit (made by Cinestill parent company under license)https://kodak.photosys.com/products/kodak-color-negative-c-41-kit-2-5l500mL each goes into working storage (bottles small enough to warm up with sous vide), topped with argonother 2L of each gets split into fill-it-yourself wine bags off amazon, topped with argonthen I replenish the working storage from the wine bags at the officially recommended rate of 40mL/roll, topping with argon each timethis gives me practically indefinite shelf life, has worked so far (6 months, don't remember roll count)if it's been a while between batches I run a small test strip of 35mm through the chems as a sanity check
>>4498658tilt test, unfortunately not an inspiring choice of foreground or background
>>4498659using swing "wrong" for funmeant to move the costco rag someone left there but forgot
>>4498660possibly a bit under-exposed, but I've found I prefer results from under-exposed Gold compared to over-exposed
>>4498661
>>4498662and speaking of over-exposed, I really need to figure out a filter solution for the 680it only has a max shutter speed of 1/400s so I really needed an ND filter for this shotscrewed around with levels a bunch in post to even get it to this point
>>4498648Bring one of the washi films, preferably the one that has emulsion on washi paper.
Shot a roll of Portra and virtually every photo has the same identically placed orange light leak streak down middle, with a lot shifted blue outside that streak like pic related which a quick search suggests a rear leak for the former and frontal leak for the latter. Anyone can diagnose from photos alone? I shot two rolls back to back and the other was 100% fine
>>4498671I almost said a failing horizontal shutter, but then it would be just blown out without orange tint. So yeah light leak somewhere probably. What camera?
>>4498674The good old ae-1. I guess I damaged a foam seal between rolls somehow, but the camera also at times shoots with so much slack on the roll that advancing the film won't rotate the spool for 2 or 3 exposures, is this normal or could it be a factor? I picture the film as not sitting flat and flush with that much slack
>>4498671how are you scanning & inverting thesethe blue shift may not be a leak if there's any white balance involved
>>4498685They're done by a lab. I thought about white balance but there's also blueish streaks in a few and blooming at the edges so I think it's from leaks. Could be worse tho, every photo is at least readable and it's quite a vibe
>>4498700Orange leak = coming through the back of the film so it's likely a seal around the rear door somewhere.
>>4498710yeah, i'm thinking kino
>>4498585here ya go matey
>>4498877tf
got my first camera, now received my first lab scans. 2400x3500 just isn't enough.
>>4498880Time to get an enlarger
>>4498881THIS
>>4498880Yeah its crazy that labs charge more for larfer resolution scans. AFAIK it literally costs them more time to compress the jpgs down to lower sizes.That's why I invested in the stuff I needed to scan at gome. Granted I alr had a 26mp full frame camera and a 1:1 macro lens, which is the expensive part
oh fug I thought we had this one
>>4498880for real? how big are you printing??
>>4498880If your lab can't offer decent resolution scans for a reasonable price it's either:1. Time to find a new lab2. Time to start scanning yourself with a digital camera (assuming you have one)
Playing around with expired Fuji NPS160, anyone else have experience with this stuff? I shoot it at 50 iso, so 1.5 stops overexposed, but I have no idea how old the film is.
>>4498925Also from this batch I got some NPH400, the greens look really good from this stock.
Egg in burned cable.
>>4498975I came upon my idea independently of Coppola's famous and often displayed in museums egg and twine image, but I think they're kinda similar. I only remembered this picture existed after having set up my scene.Do you like one over the other or do you just hate them both equally?
>>4498975this is cool, anon
>>4498993Thank you. At the end of may I will have been taking 8x10 egg pictures for one year.
huh, wonder what caused thathad a lot of sun flares affect neighboring frames in this roll, but neither of these shots were pointed anywhere towards the sunAE-1, 50&85 1.8
>>4498975Yo eggy, have you ever considered photographing a cooked egg?
>>4499067I have taken one cooked egg picture. Maybe more in the future, but the whole egg is a major component of the series I'm working on right now.It's also easier to spend a while working on whole egg pictures because they take a long time to go bad.
>>4499057>>4498663anyways finished scanning another roll, dumping some
>>4499092
>>4499093
>>4499094apologies for the daytime gas station photo
>>4499095
>>4499096
>>4499097
>>4499098flare test for the FD85/1.8
>>4499099
>>4499101
>>4499102
>>4499103
>>4499104done, thanks for scrolling
>>4497863Shooting -2exp 0 exp box speed and +2exp and developing at box speed gives you three different looks.Underexposure makes your shots super saturated with super high contrast and less dynamic range.Overexposure makers your shots super unsaturated with much lower contrast and higher dynamic range.
Guys I need some advice with semistand development. Some shots on the roll come out creamy as fuck, which makes me want to try to solve the bromide drag bullshit that ruins one third of the roll. HP5+ souped in 8ml rodinal at 1:75 1 hour total, inversions the first minute and four more inversions at 30 min. Should I agitate every 20 min instead?
>>4499120Here is one of the unlucky ones (luckily it was a bad shot this time)
>>4499120Dont use rodinal for stand or semi stand. It's not a very good developer.
This one kinda funny with the light leak looking like alien weaponry hitting the building
>>4499122I like the shelf life. I could consider trying hc-110 or what its called since it has similar properties. Will it serve me better with fp4 and hp5?
>>4499122dunno, works for me
>>4499120>HP5+ souped in 8ml rodinal at 1:75 1 hour total, inversions the first minute and four more inversions at 30 min.That's literally my stand dev routine, only that I use 1+100 instead. Never had any problems with bromide drag. No clue why you do. Maybe it's the water (I just use tap, and it's pretty hard here). Maybe ambient temperature - is yours much higher or lower than 20°C? Try putting tank in water bath next time to keep it more stable and see if it makes a difference. Try using 1 liter of solution instead of 600 ml if you have a three reel tank. Afraid you're gonna have to do trial and error troubleshooting until you find and eliminate the cause.And no, don't agitate more, it would defy the purpose of standing development. And yes, keep using Rodinal, it's the best developer for stand dev (and one of best overall). HC-110 is not similar to Rodinal at all other than being Highly Concentrated and having almost forever shelf life (but not as good as Rodinal). It's great in its own right though so give it a try (just not for stand dev).
>>4499167Thanks for the pointers. One thing I read is that I should keep the reel elevated from the bottom of the tank, so Ill try that next time
>>4499137>the sprocket holes dont leave any marks on my 120 filmOk buddy
>>4499168I never do that, but probably can't hurt.
>>4499173so tendency for bromide drag is the only qualifier that makes a developer good or bad huh?
Sup guys, I need some advice. I want to get my first film camera and I found a working Pentax K1000 for $80USD. Would this be a pretty good choice?
I have this beast of a lens thats been lying around for a while and for whatever reason yesterday I got around to designing and printing a flange for it and mounting it to a board. Any cool ideas on how to use this behemoth? I dont have any large format camera, maybe I can build a box camera for it? Kinda feel like it deserves a proper camera though. Its 2.2kg btw
>>4499427More or less every manual film SLR without AF functions almost the same. Older cheaper models are easy to avoid because they actually miss some nice features but they're still 70% the same thing as the premium model. This K1000 is fine. Nothing special. Will shoot 35mm film like the other 276 models of 35mm SLR. The lenses are more what set these kinds of cameras apart but the 50mm will do you fine.Anyway, $4 a pound.
>>4499427It's a 70's fully manual budget camera. It had a hipster tax in past but I think $80 is reasonable if it is fully tested: light seals, shutter times, self timer and light meter all work properly. Light meter uses common LR44 battery but camera should not need a battery for shooting. SMC Pentax K primes tend to be good for common vintage lenses and most are (or used to be) relatively cheap.
>>4498468well composed
>>4499435Buy lith film or some photo paper and shoot 8x10 very inexpensively. 600mm is a great FL for 8x10. That lens also probably covers 11x14.I saw this guy make a really long exposure on photo paper and solarization actually makes the print go positive. That could be fun to mess around with.
>>4499427$80 for a k1000 w/ lens is a good buy for a beginner. They used to be hipster taxed to $200+ which was crazy
>>4498975Really great work on this one. You keep getting better.
>>4499484Id need to build a box camera. I dont know if maybe it would be worth the hassle to build a bellows and make a focusing camera instead then
Got myself some bulk cine film /fgts
>>4499559You likely can rig "bellows" from a chinkexpress film changing bag and some piano wire or something. (Myself gave up before I got actually trying that. Maybe some decade...)
>>4499580I think ill pick up an 8x10 film holder and start planning this, could be fun
>>4499595You can also buy fairly inexpensive chinese bellows off ebay for cameras like a deardorff or whatever. If you want parts for cheap you can buy broken vintage wooden 8x10 cameras off ebay for very little money. Just be careful because 8x10 is addicting.
First time I've actually used expired Svema for something creative instead of endless testing wahoo!
>>4499713forgot the pic
Just hot a roll of Portra 400 back, I hope you enjoy how I got autistically fixated on the fog.
>>4499730
>>4499732
>>4499733
>>4499736
>>4499714Wow, I really love that tone of blue. Very beautiful colours.I just watched a music video the other day that has similar tones/hues that I'm trying to use as a reference for my video colour grading.
>>4499737
>>4499738Thanks! Tbh it's just a happy little accident, in reality everything was just slightly bluish. I tried do grade a pic from the "backup" Fuji ХTЗ to look as close as I can, but it looks off. Could be due to the sensor being -25C - the backup camera almost died from cold, while my Kiev 19 worked just as good as warm
>>4499904Absolutely love the colours anon. But what the fuck was that shoot about lol. Dead maid on the north pole?
>>4499923I just kinda saw a reel with Laura palmer cosplay, randomly decided to make my friend to wear a maid dress, and it clicked. I envisioned this differently-more of a wide shot, just after the sunset, to get this cold, calm vibe. This was shot on a completely frozen 10km wide river. Snow desert as far as eye can see. But I decided to take a few photos on the way there, backup camera died, second roll of film accidentally winded back into canister in my pocket, so this is what I'm left with. Bleh.
But I mean how tf could I resist taking a pic of something like this
>>4500000Those digits deserve another photo. Expired velvia
Hey pimps, does anyone have any film suggestions for shooting wildfire up close at night? Stoked for the upcoming fire season, want to take some nice photos.
my disappointment is immeasurable. shattered. idk if my chemicals are old or the light crack under the door fucked me over but this sucks. live in a small town so shipping off film for them to do it for me is like $80 minimum or a 2 hour drive
>>4500050It looks like light never hit the film as opposed to a light leak.Either you underexposed by a million or the camera wasn't opening the shutter at all
>>4500053quite possibly the shutter, i've had problems with this camera performing in the cold so maybe that
>>4500053also bit of a better look at the film. whats the diagnosis doc
>>4499578>vision2everything looks really muted unless you have a ton of light
>>4500055no photons hit the silver, no developer hit film, or both
>>4500055Fuck and all. Same thing you'd see if you unwound a fresh roll right out the canister. Except it looks like the fixer? might have kind of touched it but not entirely like it's supposed to.What kind of tank are you using?
>>4500055>No edge markingsThe film wasn't developed correctly, end of story.
>>4499736>>4499737>>4499740These are all amazing anon! Where is this place?
>>4500071shit couldnt tell you the name of the tank, it was like some $30 or something tank off amazon i got a while back. thinking i oughta reup on my chems probably went cucka poopoo on me cuz i've had em for a while like over a year probably but only did about 7 rolls with them so i assumed all is well
>>4500076>like over a year probablyThat's way beyond mixed c41 chem shelf life. That's why your roll didn't turn out.
went to disney world a couple weeks ago, but most of my pics have friends/family in them so I can't post them here. I did bring a roll of cinestill 800t for some night shooting, but I'm not really happy with most of the results.
>>4500082the animal kingdom safari got me some neat shots, even though the driver would never fully stop the damn truck. I'd also brought a roll of lomo turquoise but the camera decided to rewind after the first frame which made me super mad.
>>4499964It's such a simple photo, but I really like the colours a lot.
>>4500072oh wow yeah I totally missed that>>4500071it's probably just not dried entirely yet in that pic>>4500076bruhif you want to keep C41 chems viable for more than a MONTH you need to do all this shit >>4498658
A couple fun horse pics for the thread. These are both fomashart 100 devved in pyrocat MC. 35mm film.
>>4500126This one may make a cool print if I can balance the highlights on his face properly. Kinda spooky vibes.
Ah shit here we go again
>4500143Buy an ad, preferrably on reddit
provia 100 on makina 67, norway
>>4500148more provia
>>4500148
>>4500148portra 400, gran canaria
>>4500148portra 800, gran canaria
Has anybody ever shot this roll (and has results they wanna share)? I found some rolls on eBay and from what I've seen, it's pretty damn close to Cinestill (makes sense since they're both tungsten based), and like 6-7$ cheaper too.
>>4500148hnnng, sick purple cast. pure kino>>4500149almost thought you had been here
>>4500155>tungsten basedimagine winding a tungsten coil through your camera lolshort answer is they’re both Vision 500t with no remjet backingCinestill gets theirs directly from Kodak with no remjet, everyone else has to remove it before packaging with mixed resultsup to you if it’s worth the risk
>>4500176Thank you for the explanation anon, really appreciate it. I think I'm gonna roll the dice and order like 4 rolls, fingers crossed the lab doesn't fuck it up.
>>4500178>fingers crossed the lab doesn't fuck it upyou got the wrong way around, you could be fucking up the lab machine
>>4500179They've messed plenty of my rolls throughout the years, so whatever happens, happens.
>>4500075Thanks, it's in the Marin Headlands near SF. Here's a couple of cliche shots of the bridge too.
>>4500185
>>4500146Meds.
Help, where did I fuck up?I know I'm quite inexperienced, shooting film indoors. So I'm not surprised many of the shots where I just eyeballed the setting turned out underexposed.But this is one of the ones I actually double checked with a digital camera first, inputting the same settings into my DSLR and seeing that it's more or less the exposure I want. But this result is way off. I don't think that film reciprocity plays much of a role at 1/125 sow hat could it be? Maybe that I was looking at the jpg preview instead of the raw file, which might have been darker? I'm genuinely surprised the results differ that much.
>>4500192Do you have the DSLR pic to compare? Just eyeballing, this doesn't look like the kind of scene and lighting where you would go 1/125 without shooting at ISO 6400 and wide open. Maybe the DSLR tricked you with some Auto-ISO adjustment that wasn't showing in the UI, while you thought you were metering for ISO 100 or something.
>>4500196It looks like I've deleted it.I'm pretty sure I was shooting in full manual, but who knows. I do still have a reference image for another indoor picture I took on my current roll, so I'll make sure to keep that just in case.>this doesn't look like the kind of scene and lighting where you would go 1/125 without shooting at ISO 6400 and wide openIt's a 100 ISO film and I'm almost certain I was at 1/125, can't remember the aperture though (it goes to F2 on this lens). It's hard to tell from the picture but this was actually close to a big window on a bright day. I think the sun had just gone behind a small cloud, so I put out a flashlight and that's the only reason you can even see anything at all.I'll definitely wait for the results of the one I do still have the reference shot for and see from there.In general I'm happy that at least my outdoor shots turn out more or less okay, considering this was only my second roll of shooting on a camera without an internal lightmeter. Though even some of those are a bit darker than I would like them to be. I'm still getting used to how deceptively dark indoor scenes actually are, even on sunny days.I think as a rule of thumb I should just try exposing a stop or two brighter than what I think is appropriate for now.
>>4500197Just get a small light meter for like 30 bucks.
>>4500199Do you have recommendations? All the ones I find for 30 bucks only seem to show the raw lumen value. Or are you saying I should get one of those plus some converter app?
>>4500197Yeah, there are too many variables here. Do make sure your DSLR is really giving you the readings you expect. Make sure your film camera works as expected, too.This >>4500199 advice is really the best for a full manual film camera, but once you know your DSLR is reliable then you can download one of light meter apps for your phone and calibrate against it. It will never be as accurate, but it's close enough when shooting negatives. The two I use interchangeably are these: http://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=lightmeter.jb.com.lightmeterhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vodemn.lightmeterDon't need more than the free versions. Or just learn and practice Sunny 16, it's good to know it anyway. And always err towards overexposing when shooting negatives.Nice commieblocks by the way, looks like home lol
>>4500202Sorry inflation seems to have made them more expensive since I last looked. Something like a Sekonic l-398M will serve you very well. I see some on ebay for 70-100 dollars. I have one and it works perfectly well. No batteries required, so it is a great backup if you ever decide to get a spot meter or whatever.
>>4500202NTA but I have Mk.1 of this for my Yashica. It works well and I think the current $80 burgers price would be fair. There are some other meters in this form factor too, less DIY-looking, but more expensive and not necessarily better. https://www.reveni-labs.com/shop/p/lightmeter-mk2Only problem is it's easy to lose it, even at home or in the bag, not to mention in the field.
>>4500212>https://www.reveni-labs.com/shop/p/lightmeter-mk2Why would they show this on two cameras that have light meters?
>>4500221I have the Mat-124G, same as the pictured one. The original meter on them is pretty rubbish, if it works at all in your camera, and even if you get a voltage adapter for the battery to make the readings accurate (because lol mercury 1.35V cell).
>>4495183finally got a decent scanning setup but was too lazy to clean the film again for scanning. Great first shooting run but my second one at a cool cathedral all sucked for one reason or another. Fuck
>>4500202I like this one, it matched my d3400 in most settings
>>4500256These look kinda gay and not as useful as a "real" lightmeter. Depending on what you're doing you may have a lot of >1 second exposures, and a handful of higher end cameras go over 1/2000. I guess if it pairs well with your camera it isn't so terrible, but still.
>>4500260that wasn't his question.
>>4500261I know, but I think it is still worthwhile to comment on the sexuality of that lightmeter.
RPX 25. First time shooting it and it's much more gritty than I expected. I'll try with something else than Rodinal next time.
>>4500270It has no mask, so the scanner has a hard time coping with the sharp transition between very dense sky and virtually transparent bridge supports. At least that's what I think is the reason for the weird ghosting. I wonder if it's inherent to the scanner, or if maybe my optics could use cleaning. I'll try with a DSLR next time. Anyway the negsb themselves look absolutely sexy (and also like a nightmare to print, but one thing at a time) and I know I will be getting more of this stock and trying a reversal process.
>>4500271Did you do stand dev?
>>4500272No, I went by the book since it was my first roll, Rodinal 1+25 for 6 minutes. And yes, I'm thinking about stand dev in 1+100 next time, and also TD-3 once I have enough rolls to run a whole batch in it.
>>4500273Well that's good because the scans seem to have a nice overall contrast imo. I would try 1+50 before doing stand if you wanted lower contrast. Why do you say the negs look bad to print?Stand dev is just going to make your super fine grained 25 speed film even grainier than you've already made it. Why shoot such a painfully slow film if you aren't going to keep the grain small? Is this some kind of sick joke??
>>4500281>Why do you say the negs look bad to print?Same reason really, pitch black highlights and near-transparent shadows, and with no baseline film mask. Admittedly I'm much less experienced in printing than I am in scanning, but so far my experience was that if it was tricky to scan well, then it is exponentially more tricky to print well. And those sure were tricky to scan well.>Stand dev is just going to make your super fine grained 25 speed film even grainier than you've already made it.I expect that, and once I see the results I'll decide if the tradeoff is worth it for getting more restrained contrast.>Why shoot such a painfully slow film if you aren't going to keep the grain small?As a side note, I shoot different stocks at 8 and 12 quite regularly, so 25 hardly feels slow to me.>Is this some kind of sick joke??Like I said this was my first roll of it. By principle I develop the first one per manufacturers recommendation, and then put subsequent ones through different paces to see what it can do and if another recipe gives results that I like more. Photography would be boring if everything was just by the book. Not sure why that got you all flustered.
>>4500303Just seems backwards to use a very fine grained film and then a developer that makes the grain extra big when there's low contrast developers that don't make grain bigger, especially if it's such a slow film. Even if you shoot lots of slow film you have to admit it can be quite limiting/annoying in many circumstances.Maybe your intent is for a specific look rather than simply fine grain and that is fine!
Lomography has a new point and shoot camera out. It seems like it does everything you'd want a point and shoot to do except half frame. Anybody get one?
>>4500340Dammit bro. I have a new egg picture to share and you hit the image limit with a lomo camera. I need to refine the lighting some and retake the egg pic, so it's whatever I guess.The camera looks pretty fun for something a little better than a toy cam. Do you know what the price is?
>>4500359Sorry about that. The Lomo MC-A is $550. The reviews are looking like it's a bit shit, though.
>>4500362I would never buy such a camera, but that is terrible news about the price.
>>4500340Looks neat, I'm gay for point and shoot cameras. I like how you can charge the flash with a usb-c and autofocus. If I had disposable $550 I'd buy it.
NEW: >>4500379>>4500379>>4500379We're cooking lately boys!
