Kodak Moment 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: What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?Previous thread: >>4497863
>>4500379$830 in 2026 dollars btw
>>4500381>$830 for a camera with fixed slow prime and no autofocuswew what are they smoking
>>4500379My oldest 135 is probably my Contax IIa and it’s accompanying Sonnar. I guess my oldest medium format camera and lens is my Beyer Rifax with its Leitz Elmar. My oldest large format lens is a Cooke brass knuckle portrait lens.
>>4500340>>4500362Man, why not just get any cheap 35mm camera from a thrift store?Reminds me that I have an old Rollei 35B sitting around, probably the worst of the Rollei 35 family. Maybe I'll put it to some use again if I can find a place that develops.
>>4500408Never liked the Rollei family of 35mm cameras, yeah they’re compact but I don’t like giving up having some sort of input on focus. At least with a rangefinder you can be +-95% sure.
>paper developer and safelight arrivedTonight is the night /fgt/s, im gonna enlarge for the first time
Guys I have some used film sitting around that never got developed, just sitting in the canister.Is there going to be any issues if I send it to a developer? Is it going to be a lost cause or can I at least get to know what was on there?
>>4500417Congrats. You will be based soon.>>4500426It depends, but most likely youll be okay.
>>4500427I guess I have no choice but to try, it's been sitting in a cabinet for maybe a decade or longer.I was looking around for a development service but I'm a bit bummed out how expensive everything has gotten.
>>4500428Yeah, shit has gotten out of hand when it comes to prices. I remember dev + scan used to cost around 5$ where I live, and the quality was pretty great. Now it's like 20$ and the results are hit or miss.I'm considering to start developing at home. From what I've read, if you properly store chemicals they can last for 4-6 months, which isn't that bad.
>>4500429It's been a while, I was into this stuff way back when I was a 16 year old lad (now 17 years ago) playing with homemade pinhole cameras and developing colour film with a b/w process. It was simple enough.You do have to be a bit more tactical about how much you shoot and develop but hey, it's a rewarding hobby to have.Still, it seems like film has gotten more popular but also more expensive, makes me sad. I'll go visit a photography place and just take the gamble with them, see what happens.Heck, maybe I'll score some b/w film and also do some developing again. I mean, I could do it as a kid so it shouldn't be a problem.
>>4500428What film type? Only 10 years will almost certainly be ok. B&W push maybe 0.5 stop, add some BTA to developer to restrain fog. C-41 push +1. I never did E-6 after that long, but probably same.If you think the photos on that roll are worth it, try these guys: https://www.filmrescue.comYou'll pay a lot, but you have a guarantee of no hit-or-miss (not on the part of the lab that is) and you'll get the best result there can be. Read through their site, it's very educational on its own
>>4500430That sounds lovely anon, good to hear you're getting back at it.I do agree with you. It sucks that film got too popular and not a lot of good came out of it. I thought at the very least, films wouldn't get discontinued, surprised to find out that the opposite happened. I'm mad I didn't stock up on Natura 1600, those cost over 200$ now, at least.I don't know where you live, but if you want somewhat cheaper films that are not half bad, you could look on eBay, there are some sellers from Hong Kong. I've had good results with them.
>>4500431I don't reckon the film is that important, it's cheap colour film. Interesting website, I'll take a read.>>4500432Yeah, lets see this in a positive light at least, film is not disappearing for a while.I'm in the Netherlands, I'll visit a analog photography shop this friday, see how the people are and if they are kind enough, maybe they can suggest some things too.Also just found an unused roll of fujifilm superia 200, it can be up 25+ years old as I checked the date. Would be a waste to NOT use it....
>>4500410It's not the most versatile camera but to be honest, this is the only functioning 35mm film I have currently.Besides, it's good exercise to guess distances, right? haha.
>>4500433Oh hell yeah, good to know that it'll be around for a long time.God, I haven't used Superia in ages, fingers crossed you get some great results out of it!I'm in Europe as well (if you can consider the Balkans a part of Europe), I highly recommend PandaCamera store on eBay, some decent prices, and you get your package in 2 weeks or so.
>>4500433Film will never dissappear, although you may need to make your own at some point.
>>4500436Not sure how feasible that is....
Egg and wire mesh.As you can see I flubbed the lighting on the right side of the mesh and background. The egg lighting could be improved a bit as well.
>>4500441If you stick to wetplate and dry plate you could totally make your own from basically scratch. Even the colloidion is not so bad to make from scratch if you really wanted to.The only tough part would be figuring out how to get bromine and iodine salts to make the sensitizer..Albumen and salt prints are also quite straightforward to make from raw materials if you wanted paper prints and pair very nicely with glass plate negatives.
>>4500442Very nice
Reminder: if you don’t have a darkroom at home, you’re just a digital photographer who pays a film lab to edit his raws
Allright boys, I just made a fucking mess in my bathroom and my back hurts from crouching for teo hours but holy shit this is magic. I made more prints but they are of my family...This one is a 35mm shot printed on 5x7 inch paper. I also did a 9x12 print of a 645 neg and that just looks insane. Is there a way to enlarge 35mms to that size? Neither the 50mm lens or the 75mm one I have seem to manage it. Do I just need a taller enlarger?Im also gonna order the multigrade filters and a timer. Doing missisippis was fine one time
>>4500441absolutely feasible up to iso ~100. Higher with experience, automation and pBr sensor
>>4500455Once I get my real darkroom built up in like 6 months I'm going to experiment with making orthochromatic dry plates. If you have the right lab equipment it doesn't seem all that bad to at least start and the chemicals aren't too dangerous.>>4500452Looking good. The tail feather area could use some burning in, maybe. Shadows and midtones look solid.>larger printsYou just need a shorter lens if your enlarger doesn't have enough height.>more gearThe filters and timers will be an excellent addition to your setup. Grain enlarger, easel, and a print washer are also good things to have.
>>4500452Grain focuser*
>>4500459Thx for the pointers. Another thing I noticed is my exposures were around 5 or 6 missisippis, whereas I think the ideal is closer to 13. I was already stopped down to f/11. Is it my mid century enlarger bulb just being too much of a high test lumen monster? I didnt look inside the enlarger but should I get a weaker bulb?
>>4500462Yeah just a bright light or thin-ish negatives. No big deal. Adding the contrast filters will slow it down some. Your enlarger head was probably fairly close to the paper, which will make a big difference in printing times as well.
>>4500451Semi correctI'm a film shooter that takes photos of their film with a digital camera to then edit the digitized version of it.
>>4500470What film is this? I’m digging the halation on it.
My old 35mm camera didn’t like having the Harmann 1 inside of her
>>4500471Kodak 5222. Ya, it's sweet
Here are my 2 prints. Enlarged foma100 35mm devved with pyrocat MC. The staining action of pyro based developers worked a treat and made these easy to print.I did a split grade exposure on the headshot, but I could have gotten away with just printing with a 1.5 filter most likely. The splashing pic was at grade 2. They can still use a bit of fine tuning, and a soak in selenium, but I couldn't spend anymore time printing and I used the last of my dektol. :(I need to order some hydroquinone so I can just mix my own batch when needed.
darkroom gang
>>4500501Nice titty test strip lol
>>4500379Oldest. Possibly my Kodak Retina IIa. (pic) Enjoyed the first roll I shot with it. Want to shoot another, but the case panels seem to be deteriorating, at least the ones on the lens cover. Whenever I pick it up there seems to be a fine black dust on my fingers.I bought some replacement decals, thinking they'd be easy to replace; the one shown was already lifting up slightly. But after an evening of throwing lighter fluid and goo gone at it, this is all the progress I made. It's pretty tenacious. Thankfully hasn't torn ... I thought they were made of paper. Now I'm not so sure.So now I'm thinking of just gluing it back in place. Is there something I could coat the surface with the keep the dust under control? Thoughts?
My first ever darkroom prints, Tx-400 shot at 1600, and printed to 8x10
>>4500550
>>4500552
>>4500452I figured out today that the mid century enlarger I have doesnt really support 35mm negs. The lens doesnt clme close enough to the neg to really blow it up. I modelled and printed a recessed lens mount though and it seems to work. Even my shitty 3d printer managed to make the 0.5 pitch m23.5 thread for the lens. So now im good to go with both lenses and both formats>>4500553Nice I also just made my first prints. I feel like the analog world is really opening up now
Is this a good price or better just sticking with cheaper films?
>>4500569If you are new to film photography go with cheaper film, Portra 400 is good stuff but is very expensive. Not something you would want to learn on. I would recommend Kodak Gold or Colorplus if you are new and wanting color Kodak film.
>>4500569Portra 400 is a waste of money. You can get 5 rolls of Gold 200 for half the price.
Pick something up for you guys?
>>4500594How's the R2? I was looking at them but the price is outrageous, might as well get a Leica M3 at this point.
>>4500605Ektachrome E100 or Provia 100F in 4x5, because you sure as shit can't buy either in the US right nowI'm not even being facetious, if you buy some and bring it back I'm interested
>>4500605If you'll end up anywhere near WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, ND or SD I'll gladly take a 10 pack of Provia and Velvia for a slight premium.>>4500594Ektachrome is where its at my man.
>>4500636>>4500637They had Fujichrome (not in 4x5), but it sure as shit was expensive. I bought a couple of rolls of Superia 400.
Which film labs do camera scans?1: i’m not buying digital camera accessories to take photos of film2: im not wasting glorious 300mp film on a dogshit 8 bit scanner from 2007
>>4500645Blue Moon, Underdog
>>4500569just stick with ultramax or gold
>>4500645>>4500646>camera scansJust realized that I missed that part, sorry. I don't know then. But the two labs I mentioned scan manually on some better equipment, load the pics in PS and adjust them needed, rather than run the film through a clapped out Noritsu on defaults and call it a day. (Blue Moon is better between the two).You'll pay handsomely for their scans though, so depending on your volume, option 1 may be a wiser one long term.
>>4500379Beginner here. Do you think this is a shite snapshot or do you see any merit in it? Be honest.1950s "Conjunto Nacional" building at Avenida Paulista, Sao Paulo
>>4500679It's just a building snapshit, if you like it you like it. The halation is pretty neat.
>>4500681Yeah the halation is what saves this picture I think. But it makes sense, dumb question from my part.
>>4500679Does not stand on its own imo, but with better composition it may be an interesting part of a series. It's sort of unsettling how everything is blank and nameless like that billboard and the sign top left. I don't love how the antenna is placed in the frame. The lens distortion is also taking away from what the picture has.
>>4500684Thanks anon, your post already gave me a lot to think about. As for lens distortion I had to resort to a Rokkor 35-105 zoomed out because I only have that and a 50mm right now. Though I swear I can't see the lens distortion (it's pretty severe zoomed in, even I could see that lol)
>>4500594gold 200 is aids thobeit
>>4500605Looks like the film shop in the Shanghai camera mall.
>>4500679Snapshit. Nothing is happening there, not with any subjects, not with the composition either. It's just... dull buildings against dull sky. The street lamp that could be a possible hook is just there by accident, off-center in the gap between buildings. The cut off tree in bottom right and plain part of building on the left just clutter the frame and add to the snapshittyness. I cropped them out and it improved a tiny bit.If you shot it with a filter, or even turned up contrast/sharpness/clarity in post then it would at least emphasize the building and sky textures. Doing it in post is a cheap crutch, but the photo is just dull, dull, dull.Keep at it though anon, you were clearly trying to do something there and that's more than 75% of "photographers". And asking for honest critique puts you in the top percentile. The only way is through though, and you gotta shoot a lot, have a lot of snapshits, be your own harshest critic, and little by little find out what works for you and try to replicate it while improving further. And don't rely on others to tell you if you're good or not, do what you like and shoot what you like, but never stop trying to get better, for your own sake. Good luck, have fun.
>>4500379Oldest I have is a zeiss 6x9 folder that is mid to late '30s. It works but I have better MF options.The oldest I use regularly is a pacemaker speed graphic which is 40's-50's based on its layout with an aeroektar on the front.Pic related, a sheet of retropan 320 I shot when we had snow in January
What's the best entry point to getting more self reliant with my film?I currently pay a lot of money to get my film developed, scanned and printed at the lab and I'd like to slowly cut down on that by doing it myself. Have no idea where to start though, and getting everything all at once is probably outside of my budget.From what I've seen developing your own film isn't trivial, but it's doable. What about scanning, do I need to shell out 500+ bucks to see good results or are the cheaper ones fine too?
>>4500699but it's not?>thobeit>>>/reddit/
>>4500732>Have no idea where to start though, and getting everything all at once is probably outside of my budget.Red - minimum must haves.Yellow - you can (and should) find cheaper alternatives not "dedicated" to photography, like a $2 1 litre graduated kitchen beaker, paper clips for hanging film, etc. Green - optionals, some nice to have, some completely skippable.Mind you those are US prices from a big greedy retailer so treat them as reference only. If you shop around you can find many things cheaper.>What about scanning, do I need to shell out 500+ bucks to see good results or are the cheaper ones fine too?You could go cheaper, but you'd be doing your film disservice. Something like V600 is absolute bottom tier minimum for passable scans, though for 35mm you should really look at V850.
>flatbed for anything other than LFshigg
>>4500755I just want to say that flatbeds are really quite terrible for 35mm film unless you get autistic about film flatness and proper focus. Film misalignment of less than half a mm can drop your resolution significantly. If you plan on only ever shooting 35mm than a different type of scanner will be a better option if you want good quality scans.On an aside I was considering switching from kodak photoflo to adox adoflo II. Have you or anyone tried before? Apparently it has some anti static properties and it doesn't leave marks if you use too much.
First roll through my Canon Autoboy II. Fuji 200 Color Negative.
>>4500760
>>4500762
>>4500758>>4500759The other anon is on budget so I'm giving him budget solutions. For a price of 10-15 full roll scans from a lab he can get a used V600 which will give him much better results than the lab if he puts a little effort in it, and will pay back for itself in a few months.>unless you get autistic about film flatness and proper focusYou can wet mount on V850 if that really bothers you, not sure about V600. Just get Vlad's focus test strips and adjust.>If you plan on only ever shooting 35mm than a different type of scanner will be a better option if you want good quality scans.Absolutely, and like I said flatbed is the minimum bottom of the barrel solution. But I wanted to warn him against plastic chinkshit like pic related which is under 10 feet of mud compared to a flatbed.
>>4500763
>>4500765Last one.
>>4500763Cute dog>>4500760Cute goat
>>4500711Anon, thanks for the reply. It's better feedback than everything else I've got so far. I will.
>>4500765>>4500763>>4500762>>4500760woah wtf did i just jump to a timeline where the dirty negatives and farm snapshits guy had latent talent instead of negative talentmandela moment
>>4500796Absolutely obsessed.
>>4500700That is correct. Nice old man running that shop. There's so many used Leicas in that mall it's unbelievable. Got my lens fixed in 2 hours, which shops back home wouldn't even touch because it's "too old". Got a good deal on a Manfrotto tripod and a cable release for my Nikon, so I'm ready for what's to come.
the focus ring on my 50mm 1.8 AIS is so fucking loose i hate it. what's a good 50mm lens that has character for an f3? I want a good one to use with my ftz adapter
>>4500805The 50/1.4 is a perfect balance between sharpness and vintage character. If you lurk auction sites, it can also be bought for less than $100.
>>4500733That's a really good scan because the sky doesn't look all fucked up and pixelated
>>4500501This guys taking pictures of plastic dolls
>>4500764I have that scanner, it definitely captures 93% of the image fidelity and isn't too bad
I bought this Pentax Spotmatic earlier today. I got it really cheap because the mirror would get stuck with lower shutter speeds. I fixed it and found this on the focusing screen. Any clue what this is and what a safe way to clean it off would be?
>>4500764Picture taken with Pentax WR90, Lucky 400 film, shitty kodak scanner pictured, and the first time I ever tried developing myself today ...
>>4500813Use a sensor cleaning swab with the solution it comes with. Use a bit more than solution if you were actually cleaning a sensor, and you can back-and-forth unlike a sensor.NFI what the goo is, but if it's absolutely caked on give it a soak in the solution by dropping some on and leaving it there face-up.Don't be afraid of multiple attempts.
>>4500810On film, no less.To each their own, no?
>>4500809huh? why would it>>4500810>>4500823there's at least two of us here
>>4500813did you fuck coom in your camera? you did.
That's it. I ran out of Velvia. Farewell the world where instant s***tphone mediocrity destroys everything.
>>4500858It's only been mine for a few hoursPrevious owner did though
how do I into developing my own film
>>4500882https://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Film-in-a-Darkroom
I got this beauty today. I had an older Durst enlarger before where you had to use gelatine filters - pain in the ass, and you can't do split grade.Also I've played with some macro - you can use an inverse adapter for a wide angle lense and get fuckhuge magnification, will post some examples
>>4500796Thanks. Just felt like I was snapshitting with my fingers crossed and I was pretty impressed with the camera's ability to just make it work out once I saw the results.
here's a drop of water on a pine needlewith this magnification you have to always use f16 or f22 to get ANYTHING in focus
a snowdrop
>>4500887Looks like a solid unit. Any plans for ra4?I've started the process of getting the walls, plumbing, hvac, and electrical designs and permits for my darkroom. Probably like 4 or 5 months out and I'll finally be able to use my 45vxl.
Here's a snowdrop leaf, I think you can spot individual cells in the middle which is insane>>4500898eventually, I have many color negative photos I want to print
>>4500899fuck, forgot the pic
>>4500891>>4500900Printing really sets you free from all the sharpness autism. At 4x6 basically anything vaguely in focus looks sharp. If you print larger, think about how you will display the image. If it's hanging on a wall, no one will stick their nose in it and check for sharpness, so again pretty much anything is good enough. Stop zooming in 100% on your scans. Get a cheap old enlarger and enjoy life.
>>4500813Thats fungus. Its fucked. Return it immediately. Dont try to clean it.
>>4500902I completely agree, but also muh tonality bro.
>>4500931lol
>>4500802Nice, I fixed one of my Canons there too. And that's my regular film shop. Developing I do elsewhere though.
Shooting random orto shitstocks is FUN
>>4500953(digishit for context)
>>4500954digital looks better. film is over : (
>>4500955I went into it blind but after looking a spec sheet up, the sensitivity completely craters before it hits 500nm. Gonna exploit it more with the second roll. Poppies should be in bloom for a few more weeks.
On a more classic(?) note, Rollei Superpan 200. This one goes to 750!
>>4500959
>>4500470>>4500476hmmmaybe I should pick some up
>>4500931Was a fb Marketplace deal. Either I deep clean the camera or I'm out $30 and sell the lenses it came withIve just never had to mess with the focusing screen on any camera and know they're fragile
Since this thread seems printing focussed, I just got a durst m670 in the 35mm b&w configuration. Came with a 50mm lens and the whole ilford contraag filter set so pretty nice. Is it worth paying out the nose for the 6x7 condenser? I shoot both so ideally id want it but I saw they cost more than I paid for the whole enlarger
>>4500987you still need lens for enlarging 6x7, usually 105mm but there are also 90mm.Then you could just check if the condenser you have will work. If there is strong light falloff on the edges then you will need a different one.
>>4500732>>4500755>>4500764Honest question as a beginner who has done some research: why would you put that much in a scanner when you can put together a dslr scanning setup for under 400$? The way I understand it scanners are slow and have shit image quality at consumer price, so I'm not sure why an amateur would consider it. Is it just because it's more convenient to use?
>>4500992What camera + lens are you thinking?
Saw a Voigtländer Vito B in a tgrift store.It was 50 euros so it felt like a little much but it looked rather good and has a leather casing.I am looking for a compact manual camera so I thought this could be a good option for some practice snapshit street photography. Any thoughts or experiences with this particular camera?
>>4501010They're fun and feel solid, but definitely not worth 50 euros. Zone focus only, which is definitely a vibe. Use higher speed film and you'll be golden.Pretty sure this pic is with XX and the vito B.
>>4501010Here's another one
>>4500982You should. Double-X is awesome. I've shot both it and some well-preserved Plus-X, and Double-X looks almost the same in D-76. A little extra grain from the higher speed, but it's my go-to for cheap B&W.
>>4501010I remember seeing an Agfa Silette at a thrift store and was intrigued by it. For 50 euros its a bit much desu, but they're cool cameras.
>>4501011>>4501012Thanks for chipping in and nice photos, honestly now I am a little more tempted. The full manual operation is what I'm after. I want to get better at setting up the camera without meters. The one I saw did look rather good, maybe I will ask if I can take a closer look, if it's in particularly good condition I may still end up getting it.
how is ortho 80 120?Im thinking about getting some for my backpacking trip in the rockies in a few monthsalso 12 rolls of film to get deved (kill me)
>>4501022Don't you get some bulk discount, lmao.
My first few rolls came out absolute garbage, I need to git gud before I go to Nippon
Ubernewfag here & first time with a dedicated camera, first roll dicking around on an unwanted AE1 discovered during moving duty... how to change approach towards a serviceable photo?
>>4501041I've been lurking these threads and finally decided to pull out my dad's old XG-M. I shot a roll and a half. I'm afraid to see the results. I've never shot film before so we'll see. Cute doggo. I had a tri-color just like that.
>>4500992>why would you put that much in a scannerTo me the goal is to create the ultimate "archival" digital versions. The kind I can go back to in 50 years and not feel like I need to rescan them. The kind that, if negatives ever get lost, I won't feel like I have lost anything because I can use the scans to create prints just as good, if not better than from negatives.Being able to send around low-resolution edited versions to family (or post here fwiw) is a desirable, but not main purpose of scanning in highest possible quality. (To be precise: highest possible quality at reasonable cost and level of effort - for example drum scanning or even wet mounting are past my arbitrary point of diminishing returns.)>when you can put together a dslr scanning setup for under 400$?But can you? Not including the DSLR and good macro lens in the price is cheating.>Is it just because it's more convenient to use?Not just, but that too. To memearrow a bunch of reasons:>setting up and calibrating the scanning rig each time is a pain in the ass;>if you dedicate the DSLR to just scanning, then a) the whole rig takes way more space than a scanner, and b) at that price you might have as well bought a real film scanner;>for color, you lose out on ICE (infrared scratch removal etc.);>dust on sensor, dust in the lens, dust on backlight;>unnecessary processing in the chain - DSLRs color profiles are calibrated for taking photos, not scanning negatives;>lens issues - vignetting, focus, resolution drop-off in the corners, all avoided with a scanner;Could keep going but running out of character limit.>I'm not sure why an amateur would consider itDon't undersell and underestimate yourself. If your photos are throw-away and not worthy of best possible treatment, why even bother shooting film then?If $400 is your reasonable budget for DSLR rig, then for 2-3x that you can get a prosumer scanner (like LS-4000 or 5000) that will beat the shit out of DSLR with very few downsides.
>>4500635It's great. Comparing to a m3 with no meter, slower max ss, less framelines, wimpy cloth shutter, and a dumb loading system is weird. I paid $400 for mine though. >>4500637*Provia
>>4501072>LS-4000Im a happy dlsr scanner but I looked this one up due to the "beat the shit out of" promise.Honestly seems like a downgrade in all regards. More expensive, slower, takes up more space and the scan quality is fine but its on par with my 18mp apsc scans, definitely not any noticable difference in the LS-4000s favor at least. Plus the software for that beast is 20 years old and it connects via firewire. Im tempted to call boomer bullshit on these machines, but full disclosure, never tried one myself
>>4501079>More expensiveHardly, if you don't exclude camera and lens (and NLP and LR licenses if you want to be honest about it).>slowerOverall, yes, but not by that much when you factor in having to manually advance and position frames for DSLR scanning (risking scratching film in the process), having you babysit the focus, alignment, dust, and so on. End to end scanning takes longer (and frankly, only if you do like 8x multisampling, below that it's on par), but most of that time you're free to to other stuff, like edit.I feed a 6-frame strip into the scanner, do a pre-scan (about 10 seconds), select between 1 and 6 frames I want to scan, select preset if needed, and click Scan. Then I have been 5 and 20 minutes to do whatever.>takes up more spaceAbsolutely not, where did that meme come from?>the scan quality is fine but its on par with my 18mp apsc scans, definitely not any noticable difference in the LS-4000s favor at least.That's the crux of it, with a lot of dicking about I can get on par results with my DSRL rig. But it's 10x the effort that just feeding film into a dedicated machine, and where step off the way I'm working against the system that was not designed to do what I'm doing. It's not with the time and effort. I only fall back to it for the most esoteric stocks (Phoenix being the least weird of them) that for various reasons the scanner or the software just can't handle.>Plus the software for that beast is 20 years oldWorks fine on Windows 10, and that's only if we're talking about official Nikon Scan. If you go with Silverfast or even Vuescan, you're as good as new.>and it connects via firewireI forgot about that desu (I use LS-5000 which is all USB). But a $5 adapter dongle or a $15 controller card solves that.
>>4501108Yeah I mean you make good points too. Im totally happy with my dslr setup but not trying to bash the scanner approach either. The resulting images look great from it, I guess thats the most important thing. I have to say though I dont have to fiddle too much with the camera. Of course you gotta align your stuff but its pretty much a one time thing. And I already had a camera youre absolutely right, im only out a macro lens and a light source (less than 200€ total) but thats of course gonna be different if you start from scratch. 3d printed the film holder too which is the kinda stuff thats fun for me but might be annoying to someone else
Lads, you think this bad boy can still be of any use?How bad could it be anyway? It still seems to work fine, appears to have been open as all screw holes are exposed and a strip of leather is missing from the side. Packing a yashimar f/3.5 80mm lens, maybe I should just take it out for once, let it get some fresh air.By the way, how easy is it to cut replacement leather for the camera body anyway?
I just modified my Beseler 23C enlarger to take normal E26 bulbs instead of the retarded bayonet mount bulbs.I want to put in a smart LED bulb and control the colors for contrast. Does anyone have any experience doing this?
>>4501108Goodness I should have proofread that.>having you babysithaving to babysit>been 5between 5>and where stepand every step>It's not withIt's not worth>>4501116That's fair, if it works for you then that's what matters. I just like to evangelize because I want people to get the most out of their film and not have regrets or have to redo the work years down the line. Maybe I can dedicate a day to doing side by side tests with all my scanners (plus DSLR) so I can post them for reference for other folks.Most of my DSLR rig came as a side effect, too - camera I already had, light and film holders are parts of the enlarger, copy stand I bought for the enlarger. Only the lens (Signs 150mm Macro) I bought with general use in mind, but decided that it's too nice to bang it about in the field, so it's essentially dedicated to scanning too (and occasional macro work at home).3D printing has been tempting me for a while now, but that's another hobby that I'm sure would very quickly lean towards five figures so I gotta keep it in check for now.
>>4501120I bet youll get sharp, grat photos out of it, tlrs dont seem to ever break. Just keep an eye on the film advance, sometimes the mechanism is wonky and allows you to advance too far or you get weird spacing. Maybe try it with a roll of backing paper to see. Also nice sketches fellow painter
>>4501154Yeah I'll give it a go, I did some toying with it, cleaned it up and tried shooting a photo, seems to go alright.The film advance is just a knob that advances the film for as long as you keep turning, there's a little inspection window that shows the number, can't really go wrong. Still got a roll in it with 9-10 frames left, it's Fomapan 100 so not sure what I can get away with, I'll just try to overexpose every shot by a fair margin.I think if the film is up I might do a more thorough cleaning and maybe a replace the skin. The top lens and mirrors need some cleaning cause the top window is looking very dusty from the inside.
>>4501120Can't ID it exactly without seeing a few more details that are not visible in the picture (especially the shutter type), but it's almost certainly one of early A-series models. Possibly pre-1957. No auto-stop on advance knob and Yashimar lens means it's one of the budget types.You could send it to Mark Hama and he'll rebuild it for you like it's new, but given the low specs and mid condition it's probably not worth the money.
>>4501010>>4501021Ok so I decided to check it out again, on closer inspection it's an earlier Voigtländer Vito B, it did look like a good condition one but it's the one with merely a 4 speed shutter and I decided against it in the end, the price was just too much for what it was.
>>4501161Hey man I appreciate it, if you got anything interesting to say about it I'm all ears. here's a clearer photo from the front.I'm in the Netherlands so sending it overseas is out of the question, but honestly, I'm tempted to take a look inside it myself. At the very least I want to fix the skin, as the current skin is peeling, missing, or filled in with black paint (as is visible on the front). But only after I have gone through the current roll.
personally I use a film scanner from the 90s because it's all part of the larp
>>4501173Nice, so it's gotta be model A-I, dated between 1954 and 1956 - rather later than earlier. You can see the shutter has almost fully transitioned from cable release to button press, but still has the tell-tale cover at 8 o'clock where the cable mount used to be.Seeing how the screws have been access previously (and in a not very professional way) there is a small chance it's a hybrid with some donor parts from other models, but most of the details seem to check out.There weren't really that many critical differences between models of that time, for example only difference in A-II was that it has a frame counter rather than the red window. Which is nicer I suppose, but where it really mattered (lens and shutter) they were the same. I don't know if there are any repair specialists in Europe, but if it's really your opa's, or just has a lot of sentimental value due any reason then shipping it overseas is not impossible - just costly. Whatever you decide, don't ever think of using super glue for anything, leatherette included. Ask /diy/ maybe for advice on working with leather and attaching it safely.
Taking HP5 on a trip soon. Has anyone ever pulled it to 100iso?
>>4501218Funny you should say that. There's an interesting video about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVhozjE-NIA
>>4501218Yes. You can go down to 25 iso with it and up to like 1600 if you develop correctly.
>>4501203Ah neat, yeah I reckon that is the model. A little confused about the shutter because the brochure you posted says "d) connection for flexible shutter" but I don't see it.Or is it a different design that screws on to off the button? Because it does look like there's a bit of thread around the base of the shutter button.Like you said, it has a little plate covering the old wire shutter, fun to learn about this.By the way, I think the camera still works fine, I have no intentions to get it serviced or overhauled, yes there is a little sentimentality but not enough to justify any big investment, the camera itself also isn't luxurious enough to justify it either. I will just use it and not expect too much.
>>4501219Ha that's cool>>4501220Shot a roll @1600 once. Think it turned out alright
>>4501179based
>>4501222Sorry, a bit of confusing wording. Earlier revisions did not have a shutter release button at all, but you had to screw in a standard plunger type release cable directly into the shutter/lens assembly. Not my pic, but it should make it obvious where the traces of that are on your camera. Now to use a release cable with YOUR camera you will need an adapter that will screw into the collar around the shutter button. Then you can screw the plunger release cable into that adapter.
>>4501222>>4501230It's called the "Leica nipple", apparently. Also used for Nikon F. Some cable releases (like Nikon AR-2) have this integrated, I believe.
ive been using kentmere 400 a lot, then my friend gave me a roll of tri x and holy fucking shit im amazed on what tri x gave me. too bad i just got a roll of k400 literally that day i got the roll to shoot
>>4501244I was gonna ask if the quality difference is worth the price difference, but I see that K400 is only $1 cheaper than Tri-X now. The fuck.
>>4501247bulk loading its 30 dollars more which is crazy to me
>>4501072Thanks for the thorough answer. My intuition came from the fact that the scans I saw from cheap scanners (under 500€) are worse than a lab scan and IMO not worth taking photos in the first place. It seems that building the cheapest dslr scanning setup possible (link below did it for less than 400£ lens and crop sensor camera included) will yield far better results. But now I understand a bit more the argument that someone would not want to deal with a wonky setup, even though I personally think paying several hundred €/$ to get worse scans than the lab is a waste of money. I also still think if you own any dslr and have a sub 1000 budget dslr scanning is a no brainer.>>4501003If I didn't own a dslr something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBh8nO3dRw&pp=ygUZY2hlYXAgZmlsbSBzY2FubmluZyBzZXR1cNIHCQmaAaO1ajebQw%3D%3D But I already own a D600. Going to get a Nikkor micro AI 60mm f2.8 (130$). But there is cheaper options with an extension tube.>>4501129Would love to see the side by side. This kind of ressources is lacking on the internet.Then there's my personal case, I live in an arctic shithole so used scanners are hard to come by and shipping of heavy stuff is expensive. I don't have much money and I already own a full frame nikon d600. So I probably did the right choice with dslr scanning. I should have all the pieces to build it in 2-3 weeks. Might post updates here. Will keep the film scratching issue in mind when I use it.
>>4501232>>4501230Ah so my gut was right, it screws on top of the shutter button, makes sense.Thanks for taking the time with this, I really enjoy learning more and more about this low end camera, hopefully I can put it to some use soon.Say you happen to have a recommendation for a simple light meter? Preferably under 100 euros. Been looking to get one, also to assist with my Rollei 35B which has a working selenium meter but I'm not sure how accurate it is.
>>4501244Kent 400 is your reliable bog standard B&W. For when you just want a nice baseline for unknown shots.Trix is creme-da-la-creme.
Paterson tank just flew open as I was emptying the stop. Luckily it was that step and not earlier and photos are fine. But how can I trust it now next time. This never happened before
I'm probably worrying too much but it's fine to leave fresh slide film out of the fridge for a few weeks, right?
I bought some Lucky 400 B&W, it was nice but not sure I'll keep shooting black and white. I thought it would be cheaper than color. I did buy the Patterson kit but it seems like buying the chemicals and $6 rolls of B&W ... is it even a savings over dropping off film at a lab?>>4501179based>>4501348nice
>>4501334Did you twist the lid until it clicks?
>>4501355I mean yeah its not my first rodeo. It held fine when pouring out the developer. I guess I fucked it up one way or another and managed to unclick it
Expired velvia / Leica M5 / Voigtlander Nokton 1.5
Leica M5 / Voigtlander Nokton 1.5on expired velvia
>>4501370Nice
>>4501247i buy it in person at my local store. 13 dollars a roll :( vs 8 for kentmere>>4501311i definately didnt need to work hard in the darkroom to get a good print out of tri-x. it was kind of just good blacks and whites vs kentmere i have to subtle change the timing and filters, i dont mind at all but it was mindblowing
>>4501247Tri-x is suspiciously cheap these days
>>4501375sucks that the roll price doesnt have any correlation to the bulk loading price$164.99 for 100' tri x$101.99 for 100' kentmere 400prices from bh
>>4501375Check on ebay for slightly expired stuff or frozen old stuff. It's a complete crap shoot, but I've gotten a good amount of cheap 8x10 film that way with mostly good results and if it is fogged just use it for experimental stuff or whatever. I mean you can usually print through fog if your end game is darkroom prints.Got 25 sheets of expired txp for like 120 the other day. Even if it is fogged I won't be too sad because it can just be my snapshitting film. Fresh kodak 8x10 is too expensive for snapshitting. 18 dollars per sheet. :(
i hate this "new" take on that "the civil rights movement were in black and white bc ppl are racist!!!!! color was available!!! its just black and white so people can say it was so long ago when it was in one generation's lifetimes!!!!"it was the golden standard for photo journalists to use black and white film. the ease of processing and printing in a bright darkroom means you can shoot a roll, run 12 blocks to develop in boiling developer, print something, run another 12 blocks back to the newsprint and give them to the front page of the newspaper that same day. color film requires delicate temperature control and a completely pitch black darkroom along with the fact that most newspapers still used black and white paper until the 1990s. black and white film were the standard until digital came around for photo journalists, even when color boomed in popularity for the common people. back and white is still the most archival negatives you can get. color can degrade faster than bw.sorry for that little rant ik you guys probably know this already
>>4501382>the civil rights movement were in black and white bc ppl are racist!!!!! color was available!!!First time ever I hear about this and it sounds like the usual flavor of the week manufactured outrage to be offended about because people grew tired of hearing about all the other flavors of bullshit. I wish you hadn't posted about it and I wish I hadn't replied to it.
>>4501383i just watched a youtube video about the history of racism in photography or whatever its called, and i remember when my ethnic studies teacher said it, along with seeing it several times on instagram reels.
>>4501334>>4501355>>4501356just get a jobo 1500-series tank and never look backit's just so much easier to manage than a patterson
>>4501384>my ethnic studies teacherAnon please.
>>4501396What film stock, camera, and format do you think jesus would have used?
>>4500192>>4500196Mystery solved I think.Got a new roll back and on there all the shots I metered with my DSLR are perfectly as I would expect. The only difference between the two is that this time I was shooting on 400 instead of 100 ISO. But I suppose on the other attempt I just butterfingered some settings wrong or read them wrong off the DSLR or something.
given a Halina 35-600 by a friend, put a roll of ilford 400 thought it. It has no battery (they were mercury and as such, banned. you can get adapters apparently), adjustable aperture but only zone focusing (designated by pictograms of a person, two people, some trees and a mountain) and because of the aforementioned no battery it was locked to 1/40.
Does anyone know of a decent "small" LED light box for inspecting film?I saw Kodak has some, but the smallest one they have is out of stock everywhere I looked. And the others from Kodak are too expensive.Amazon also has a bunch of unbranded A4 sized LED panels but I prefer something a little more compact.
>>4501479I use a cinestill cs-lite to scan my film, maybe it could work for your inspection needs too?
>>4501479Why not specify a size?
>>4501510Ah sorry, I should have. Looking in the range of A5 size.>>4501506Hey that one looks pretty good, maybe just what I need. I think the biggest issue I had is that I didn't know what exact search terms to use. I kept running into light fixtures and advertising boxes, or the typical slide viewers that only view slides and not irregularly shaped negatives.
first time home develop and scanned. i think i had ambient light coming in while scanning so it looks like a light leak but i was happy anything actually came out looking ok
>>4501515congrats on being based>>4501634I love the high contrat in this one
>>4501376Bulk tri-x and Tmax have been stupid priced for years. For a long time a bulk roll was more expensive than buying 18 individual rolls. Even now it's basically the same. >>4501382>>4501384This isn't a take. Get off the Internet, anon.
>>4501382>>4501383I've never heard this pitched as a conspiracy theory like photojournalists were purposefully doing this, but I have heard people say that seeing things in b&w makes them think whatever is depicted is much older than it really is. In the same way normies see a film photo and think "whoa what a vibe it's like we're in the 90's!" They see a b&w photo and think "damn they looked weird in 1892" even if it is an event in living memory for people. But it's absurd to say that it was done intentionally to deceive... Future generations? Idk.
My canon AT-1 has developed some kind of light leak. It was present in about half the pictures on my last roll, no issues earlier. Any idea what it could be? I checked the curtains with a strong led and they seemed fine. Roll sat in the camera for 6 months maybe that has something to do with it? Its in the same place everytime thats why I suspected the curtains
>>4501713Check the sprockets on the negative, if the leak is covering the sprockets it's likely due to the film door seals. A replacement kit is $10 on amazon, it's really easy to do it yourself.Shutter issues usually show up like sharp edged lines, half a frame missing, etc.
>>4501618Nice. Is it just me or does B&W often look sharper (maybe better contrast?) than color film ?
>>4501756in images with a lot of texture and contrast i think so. this one doesn't have much
>>4500982>>4501014for some good contrast, 200 or 400 for XX? What does it like better?
damn fuji 400 did some leg work
porta 400 pulled to 100 has some really nice colors
>>4501383> I wish I hadn't replied to itwhy did you reply then?
I knew I had an enlarger in the basement. It's ancient, the base is completely rusted out. Everything else is fine. The plates aren't broken, the lens isn't scratched or cloudy. The bellows might need to be replaced. Other than that she fired right up. Granted it's just a lamp so it doesn't need much. Thanks grandpa.
>>4501763200 is close enough to box speed that it handles it like a champ. Slightly denser, but that just gives you more to work with in the shadows. It can also handle 400 with normal development (depending on developer). It also handles pushing a stop or so pretty well if you want to be safe. Honestly, it's hard to go wrong. Given the cheap price, it's become my favorite B&W for everyday use. I'll break out the Tri-X if I want to push beyond 1600, and Pan F if I want some slower stuff, but Double-X is just incredible in most developers at 100-1600.
>>4501763800 + yellow filter
>>4501772Weird pupils ... flash?
How do I imitate film photography in NX Studios?Do I need to see as many film photos as possible to understand their key points? They seem to be different depending on the film type
>>4501836Go to mspaint (or gimp if you're a chad) and slap a 35mm film border around your pic.Joking aside, what about film do you like? What is it that you want to see in your pictures? And why not just shoot film?
>>4501838>why not just shoot film?I'm poor.>>4501838>what about film do you like?colors and shadows seem to be more artistic. Film photography is not just a 1:1 copy of reality
Are 1.4v hearing aid batteries really a good replacement for old 1.35v quicksilver ones? Do the 1.4v drop to a stable 1.35v or why are they used so often? How long do they even last?I have a Konica autoreflex TC and want to avoid the meter being inaccurate due to wrong voltage.
>>4501839>>4501836I'll try an analogy. If you were painting, how would you do to imitate photography? Although it's required, it's not enough to just know how reality look like. It's also not enough to have a reale life model. You need to know precisely the image you want to obtain down to the details. Obviously moving around the sliders is not as hard as making a photorealist painting. My point is, it's not enough to want to make your photo "more artistic". You need to have a precise result in mind.> Film photography is not just a 1:1 copy of realityit's closer than digital though
>>4501840Yes, even 1.5V LR44 batteries work good instead of the 1.35V ones. You'll have to set the iso/compensation to like half a stop of underexposure (for 1.4V), I'd check with a light meter (app or external meter, even a dslr worked for me) just to be sure. I'd change them every month or so just for it to be precise but you can just adjust the compensation before shooting just to be sure.
>>4501848here I tried to do something like this >>4501770How does it look?
>>4501881It just looks like digishit
So I did a thing... lolthey're real cheap on eBay, seem robust and well built, all work fine except one the zoom only goes to 85 instead of 90.
How long would i need to expose my film for if i am using a IR filter with adox hr-50?I really cannot find any good estimates to plug into calculators. The filter is supposed to have a filter value of 16 according to wikipedia so 50/16=1.3but then you also need to account for reciprocity failure which above 30 seconds is another stop on top.But is this really all there is to it? I would be shooting in broad daylight obviously but IR and visible spectrum don't share the same EV do they? From sun spectrum pics i read around 20% less so the EV would be 13. But that is just intensity and IR is much thinner than visible light so eight time less on top?I dunno this is really messing with my head. A tiny difference in numbers changes the result by so much.Does anyone else understand this retarded challenge?
>>4501887It's more than just a simple compensation because of factors like weather, season, clouds, scene variance, etc. My advice is to shoot a stop or two over what you think the correct exposure is and take good notes. B&w film handles density really well, so unless you really screw up it will give you useable pictures and a good starting point.
Posting crappy film pictures, crappily developed 15 years after shooting and scanned with a crappy setup.
>>4502012Crappy!
>>4502015Thanks!Just need to get a better lens for my digital camera so I can get closer up for exponential crappiness.
>>4502019Set your camera resolution to 640x480 before scanning film lol
>>4501887On a sunny day, I'd go for a bracket of 4s, 1s, 1/4, 1/15 at f8. This give 2 stops between each exposure so you should get something useful. Examine your shots then write down what works, comparing it to any reading your camera meter gave through the filter. IR is a little or a lot different for each film so you have to test each type of film.
>>4502021Heh, maybe I'll try it.I just need it to focus and fill the entire screen but I can't figure it out. But maybe I'll buy one of those cheap macro filters and set it up on my tripod.Here's another crappy shot.
>>4502024The next logical step is to print these on transparency paper as a negative and make contact prints with them. They definitely have a vibe that makes up for/compliments the kinda mundane subject matter.
Found some old slide film of my mom as a kid. Hit me really hard in the second hand nostalgia.Need to look up how that shit works, how do you get a positive on film?
>>4502025Yeah maybe.The colours are just so messed up and I'm trying to invert them in GIMP but the negatives are probably cooked from being developed too late and the development probably could've saved it a little bit.Anyway, I got some fresh film in my camera again, not planning to wait this long again, and hopefully I figure out a way to capture sharper images or pay the hefty scanning fee.
>>4501881I think your camera sucks too much to like like filmyour colors are ok but the textures are soft and there's a lot of awful digital noisemaybe add fake grain to mask it
>>4501926Yes I see. No two ways about it. I need to figure out things experimentally. Will do two runs as the other anon described. One in the morning and another in the evening. High noon is not as IR intensive in europe I understand?>>4502022>so you have to test each type of film.Will share my results here. Considering that I am also using rodinal with this film the results should be sorta unique.But before that my camera needs its light seals replaced. Any advice or is it pretty straight forward? I am sort of scared of the mirror dampener. Getting the old stuff off while in such close proximity sounds a little risky.
>>4500760I lied - technically this roll of Kodak 400 B&W that I accidentally shot at 1000 ISO was the first roll through it. There were a couple shots that I ended up liking.
>>4502055
>>4502056
Has anyone tried out these new Harman switch azure? Kinda made me cringe but I guess it can be funny in a specific setting
Fuji can't possibly be saving (or profiting) by having Kodak make their own film. I can only surmise there's some shady background agreement... like Fuji can stick to Instax domination and Kodak can keep 35mm domination. Sad!
>>4502069I bought a couple rolls, have one I need to develop but haven't gotten around to yet but I had pretty shitty light for when I had time to shoot it. I think it could be fun for specific stuff - same as you.
>>4502069Bought 4 rolls (2x 135, 2x 120), only shot one 135 so far but like other anon I haven't developed it yet. Next month maybe if I accumulate enough C-41 rolls to run a batch.Very curious to see the results, had it with me on a hike on a bright sunny day with a lot of spring colors around so it should be interesting. But I will probably be cursing my life when scanning it, just like with Red.>pic>Ferrania P33I'm still seething I missed buying it when it was available at normal retailers here (for about 5 minutes). I hope Ferrania gets its shit together because I kind of fell in love with the P30 and would like to have a steady supply of it for life.
Been considering getting a 6x9 box camera, only gives you 8 frames but the negatives will be nice and big. Anyone here does this? I also saw a half frame box camera shooting 6x4.5, could also be fun...
>>4502098Not with a box camera but I have a Fuji 6x9 "Texas Leica" that I quite like and the negs are hilariously big.
>>4502069>>4502074>>4502090Ok, developed a roll, working the scans now and it's a mildly hilarious headfuck when you convert with NLP but haven't left Lr yet so you make a small RGB curve tweak but of course a) it's negative and b) it's got the colour swaps and it fucks your head for a moment lol. I'll work through more later, I don't think there's anything particularly good on this roll cos I just banged it out quickly to get a feel for it but I might post a couple more if there's anything half decent or that shows something interesting about how it captures.Certainly isn't gonna be something I reach for every day but I think there'll be good reasons to fuck with it, I think it might do night time cityscape long exposures rather well if you can expose it right.
>>4502100Yeah I read they often used the negatives for contact printing, sounds like a fun way to duplicate your photo's. My first thought is that it's simpler but I have no idea how it works (yet).Also, is it me or is the 35mmc website a bloated mess? My computer always stresses out when I open it.
>>4502107>Also, is it me or is the 35mmc website a bloated mess? My computer always stresses out when I open it.I didn't used to find that but I went there recently and found the same thing.
A quick rant about these older camera designs like the Kiev-4 series, where the shutter speed dial doubles as the film advance.At least on my model it's always a bit of a gamble which speed you've actually end up setting it to. Especially with the ones that are so close to each other like 1000 and 500
>>4502106>>4502069>>4502090
>>4502109What is the best soviet camera? Were they actually decent compared to Canon or Nikon?
>>4502113
>>4502115
>>4502114Hard to say. I bought a Kiev, because I wanted to see, if shooting rangefinders is something I enjoy and I could get it for 50-60 bucks. Plus I think its history is quite interesting.So I can't say how it compares to other brands. For such a low price I'd say it's a very solid camera, if you can get a good one. My dad, who grew up in the USSR used to own a FED and said that from what he recalls the Kievs were considered to be the higher end of consumer cameras at the time.I would say my main gripe with it, aside from the one I mentioned above is the position of the second rangefinder window. I'm still getting used to how I'm supposed to hold it, so I don't cover it with my finger half the time.Also word of warning, these are unfortunately known for having an overengineered shutter mechanism that's prone to breaking due to wear and there seems to be next to nothing you can do about it. The first one I got had a broken shutter (despite the seller saying he tested it) and luckily I could send it back and this second one has been working fine for 3 rolls so far.I'd say the main advantage they have is their low price point, while still being fun to shoot in my experience.
>>4502116So I don't think it's something I'm going to shoot very often, and the latitude is pretty narrow, but it's a bit of fun and I think it could be quite cool for night or long exposure night stuff.
>>4502114No, they're all pieces of shit stuck at late 50s technology. They were selling FED rangefinders with selenium external meters in the 90s lol.
Decided to buy an Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54, saw one online with a supposedly broken shutter but it was cheap and this exact model is not as common as the later ones, it's a 6x4.5 camera as opposed to the more common 6x9 variant. It also has a mount for a cable release and tripod, which is perfect to accommodate the single 1/30 shutter speed.Thinking it'd be a little bit safer to experiment having 16 frames as opposed to 8 and I found a spanish webpage about disassembling pretty much every model of the Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor, pretty confident I could fix it.Pic related. I may pick up it's bigger brother too, a Box Tengor 56/2 as they're all cheap and plentiful. Will experiment with the smaller one until I get more comfortable with shooting a box camera.Still waiting for it to arrive tho.
>>4502119>>4502116>>4502115>>4502113>>4502106Thanks anon, the nightshots especially and the last one with the tower block are fucking dope! If my photos with it (mostly outdoorsy nature stuff) turn out this satisfying I can see myself reaching for it more often than just for novelty.I don't think Ilford/Harman ever made cine stock, but now I want to see some dream/psychedelic sequence shot at it for a movie. Anyone got Nolan's number on hand?
Are there some good modern film cameras around that aren't too expensive and are readily available? I'm looking for two kinds and I just want the picture quality to be pretty good.One would be a regular P&S for my parents to use as they miss using that instead of phones. The second would be something like a Nikon F100 where it's like a regular DSLR/mirrorless in every way except it uses film, I think that's pretty neat, but I don't know of anything new or that's from the last 6 years that would be like that. Any help and reccs?
Can old light meters on something like a K1000 still be trusted? Or do I need to whip out my phone and use an app?
>>4502197Canon elan
So I'm just starting off with film photography and I have 2 camerasOne is an old pantax and the other is a Minolta with auto focus and exposure Which one should I start with? The pantax to get more experience with exposure and focusing or the Minolta so I don't have to worry about it?
>>4502106>>4502116>>4502119seems potentially more useful/versatile than lomo turquoise at least. gonna have to shoot it I guess...
>found a Pentax K1000 for about $70>supposedly works but dunno how to fully test itWhat do? Seems like a fair place but it's a retro store and they don't specialize, they just vaguely test shit. Are they pretty reliable? It would be my first manual film camera.
Ricoh 35 ZF, Fuji 400
>>4502222
>>4502224Nice>>4502206Does it take batteries? Just put those in and try the advance and shutter. Maybe lookup the manual online.
>>4502197Get your parents a Pentax Zoom 90WR -they're pretty sturdy. >>4501885
>>4502225>Does it take batteries? Just put those in and try the advance and shutter. Maybe lookup the manual online.Fully manual from what I understand, the only electric part is the light meter (which I don't know if they become inaccurate over time or not).
How do you guys deal with film and traveling? I know that you should take it as carry-on, but I'm afraid of any scans hitting it and that kind of thing. I've heard about these x-ray cases but is there even a point? It would just block the scan and need manual inspection anyway.
>>4502228When you get to the x ray line you pull out a small clear zip lock bag with your film rolls and tell the person you don't want it x rayed. They just look it over and hand it to back to you on the other side.
>>4502229>When you get to the x ray line you pull out a small clear zip lock bag with your film rollsCool, I've seen a lot of clear travel bags around so I'll get one. My fear has otherwise been some kid or thirdie working there doesn't know what film is and just pulls the lead like it's a ripcord as they don't know what exposure is.
>>4502230Maybe tape the lead to the canister, just to prevent that.
I just started shooting film, man it has a look. I scanned this myself, first time too.
Is home development hard or risky? I'm afraid of being a total noob and irrevocably ruining rolls.
>>4502233cool pic, there's some magenta hue though
>>4502228> x-ray casesdoes that work? why isn't there morz data about this in 2026? it would make it so much more convenient to fly with film.
>>4502238They do work, I just question whether having that bag go through the machine would annoy the workers and cause more issues than just showing them the film and saying "please dont scan this".
>>4502228I bought such a pouch. Most of the time they hand check my rolls of film if I ask them not to pass them through the x-ray, sometimes they call some airport cops to check them, once they made a small incision into my lead pouch to check for drugs, sometimes they pass the films through the X-ray but not the pouch, somethings the other way around. There is no clear mode d’emploi
>>4502245I feel like it might also be worth considering to check for a photography store in your place of destination.
>>4502239I would guess it's more convenient for everyone involved. When you ask for a hand check, 50% of the time there's gonna be an argument both because the agents are told bullshit about how the scanners do not damage film but also because when you interrupt the agent's work and slow down the security checks for all the line, to hand check what is seen as hipster nonsense in the public's eye, everyone's gonna start with the assumption you're a jerk. Using the xray pouch if the agents are bothered they already have a streamlined process to put you on the side line and hand check your bag. That said I never tried and I'm not a TSA agent so I don't know.
>>4502236For BW it's incredibly easy, if you can follow a basic cooking recipe you can develop BW at home.https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/develop-film-at-home-a-step-by-step-guide
>>4502248My two last trips where to South America, you should’ve seen their faces when I asked for film photography shops.
Durst M600 or Meopta Axomat for 35mm?Both are priced the same. I sort of like how the Durst is easily stowed away but the Meopta looks like it has a nicer carrier. Can't decide:/
>>4502233Nice sharp photo
>>4502228It can go a few different ways. Some things from personal experience (at major US airports unless noted): - Yes, never put film into checked baggage. Checked baggage scanners are powerful and will fry it. - Have your rolls in a clear ziplock bag and ask for manual check at security, right when you get to the tray conveyor belt, not last second.- Plastic canisters are fine, they might open some (or all) to check. They will open the paper retail boxes, so just unbox them at home to save time (and space).- About 7 out of 10 times they will swab the film then run the swab through the analyzer machine for explosives. - If the analyzer flags it, the film goes into the scanner, period. Don't bother arguing. You may also be getting lots of suspicious stink eyes from now on. - I don't know why but it's usually my bulk loaded film that gets flagged, maybe traces of darkroom chems on the reused cartriges trigger it.- The swab test is not always consistent, more then once I had it fail on outbound trip, but pass at the other airport on the way back.- Either way you might need to wait up to about 5 extra minutes (over 10 in few extreme cases) if there's no one available immediately to do manual check or run the swab analyzer (I guess not everyone is trained or permitted to), so if you're in a rush then just don't bother.- French are either absolute cunts about it, or just useless and clueless (this mostly goes for the second language "French" iykwim). Last time I was connecting at CDG (including terminal transfer from non-Shengen to Shengen area) it got to the point that they were calling le gendarmerie because they really got under my skin with the cunt factor and I wouldn't let go. Luckily some old grumpy (but White) French supervisor (who was probably the only other person there who ever saw a camera film) stumbled upon, took a two second glance at the bag of film and waved me through. Fuck the French.tbc.
>>4502237I'm red green colorbind. I sorta have issues fixing the hues because i can't see them. Does anybody have any tools for colorblind plebians like me?is this better or is now another color hue?>>4502259Thank you.
>>4502228>>4502278contd.:- Germans are ok with manual checks, they're just stiff about it, but as long as everything is in Ordnung it will be fine. - Frankly, after having one batch of film ran through scanners three times during one trip (once it failed the swab test, twice I had no time because of delays and tight connections), I noticed no issues even on the couple of rolls of HP5+ pushed to 1600. But color film is supposedly more susceptible. - This is not from experience, but supposedly the x-ray bags a) do work, but b) because they do work, the security can't see what's inside so they increase the scanner power thus damaging the film, or just open it and spill it into the tray and run it through scanner whether you like it or not.- I haven't traveled in the US since the current TSA boogaloo started so I don't know how it goes, but I imagine no one appreciates any extra delays at security right now. - Did I say fuck the French already?HTH.
>be mei have a pentax mx. i want to buy a flash. i am looking at the Keks KF-01. that should work on the hot shoe right? and if i connect it to the x port with a pc sync cable for off-camera shooting, that will work too correct? the mx has two ports for flash cables, and in the manual it doesn't say pc sync so i'm guessing its some new fangled invention. but will it connect to the x port? never used flashes before. please respond.
>>4502230When I went through TSA last year they literally swabbed the outside of the boxes and the plastic film tubes and moved on. They didn’t even try to look inside. You should be fine.
>>4502228my gf got me one of these x-ray cases and I used it to bring some film with me to court through the scanner there before dropping it off at the lab on my lunch break and the film didn't get fucked, make of that what you will
>buy a lot of 4 2nd hand lenses>Mfw 3 of them have a little bit of mold in them
>>4502309Those are your muh character lenses now.
>>4502114I own 6 sovi-shits and have shot with each at least twice. My favorite is Arsenal's Kiev-10. It's a 35mm SLR with some unique design features (not stolen war reparations). A few different lenses available, but I only have one. After that I would have to say the Droog - Дpyг or Zorki 4 is pretty good to use if you want a rangefinder.
>>4502249But isn't the pouch going through the machine and blocking the x-ray going to piss them off evern more? Unless all it does is reduce the x-rays, I actually don't know. Even the info page about the pouches is vague on if it just reduces the radiation or entirely stops it.
>>4502278>>4502280Based, thank you. I plan on taking film to places like Australia, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia etc and not so much through the US or anywhere French (except maybe New Caledonia or Algeria). I have no plans to visit the US for quite a while. I did go in mid-2019 and things were fine but I also didn't use film at that time and things weren't as crazy yet. >because they do work, the security can't see what's inside so they increase the scanner power thus damaging the film, or just open it and spill it into the tray and run it through scanner whether you like it or not.Yeah I'll forget the x-ray bag and just get a transparent zip bag with the rolls in it.
>>4502205>>4502165Yeah I'm definitely more interested in shooting the second roll I bought now than I kind of expected to be - I think it has potential to be good fun.
Ugh, My Rollei 35B is giving me film advancement anxiety. The numbers are counting but the rewind knob is is acting a little springy and weird when I advance the film. I'm halfway into the film supposedly so I just push forward and pray.
>>4502286It will work on the hot shoe just fine. The MX's front sync ports are indeed PC sockets so the PC cable will work too, you can also use a hot shoe cable or even a remote. The X port and the hot shoe do the same thing electronically speaking.
>>4502204I was in a similar situation where I tried learning photography with a camera that's fully manual, so I can "learn it properly from the ground up". And guess what happened? I was immediately overwhelmed and didn't enjoy the process at all. A few years later I tried it again with a slightly more modern camera that at least offered auto exposure and some more small qol features, and then I actually regularly went out and took some pictures and gradually made progress while reading some books on the side and doing things more and more manually as time went on and my experience increased.tldr: use the Minolta and learn to have fun before trying to do things the hard way, but don't get stuck in your comfort zone eitherWhich specific models are you using?
Picked up a crusty Kodak Six-20 Target Hawk-Eye (quite a mouthful for such a basic camera lmao) it was 4 eurobucks and thought it would be a fun fix up project, it's a cardboard housing camera, the lenses are seriously foggy, the mirrors in the viewfinder flop around in the housing but it appears to be all complete and in one piece, shutter works but I want to see if I can find a way to clean and speed it up a little.Should be a fun learning project.
>>4502336Rewind knob always a bit floppy. Film in canister isnt tensioned at all so it moves sporadically. No worries, live free
>>4502341I have a Pentax Spotmatic and a Minolta 5000i
>put off scanning for a couple weeks>do one roll, really liking all the frames>dawdle a bit doing editing, now not enough time to do the other roll >busy weekend, can't scan until tues probably AHHHHHHHHH
>>4502340cool, thanks babe
>>4502342How do any anons go about refurbishing an old, beat up, yet functional cam? Just fiddle around with glass/sticky shutters/ etc? Surely there aren't manufacturers production guides available.
>>4502419Well, in my case, the box cameras are so cheap which gives you a lot of leeway in terms of experimenting. If I mess it up, it's no biggie. Besides these camera's are so simple, I doubt I need very specialized parts.Dismantling, cleaning and lubricating is usually enough. Also, sometimes I stumble upon some old weblog of some old dude fixing up a niche camera, it's good to take in the information whenever you find it.
Guys I have some Fomapan 100 that expired in 2014, is it still possible to shoot on it?Thinking about throwing it in my box camera, it has a shutter speed of around 1/30 to 1/40 after checking but will it register at all? Or should I set it up in bulb mode on a tripod if I want to get anything out of it?
>>4502437Yeah just shoot it over by a stop if it's a decade expired is the general rule. I guess if you're fixed ss and aperture you gotta get creative with the lighting/development
>>4502440Yeah it's either 1/40 or bulb for the shutter and small or big aperture, I reckon the smaller aperture was used when shooting bulb mode indoors.I'll figure something out then, no use in leaving it sitting, right?May throw a yellow filter over it too.
I'm this anon>>4500813I ended up buying a different refurbished camera body off eBayGoing to use the lenses that came with the moldy camera and keep it for parts
>>4502441Just err on the side of more exposure. Foma100 likes being shot at 25 or 50 iso. 12 years old is nothing for slow b&w film unless it was baking in the sun for 8 summers.
I got one of these (Nikon A6006/F601) for $150. How'd I do? The specs and usability seem pretty good and it came with the 35-80mm lens. My only concern is if I can trust the light meter, as I hear light meters are funny on old film cameras and this thing is 36 years old.Regard ISO too, do I just set the ISO to the film ISO and forget it? Or is there something more nuanced to setting the ISO vs the films stated ISO?
Got a Canon T50 for 20€ with the lens included so shot a test roll to make sure it worked. Nothing spectacular but I’m happy with the camera. A glorified point and shoot for sure, but it was cheap.
I want to avoid working on the mirror dampeners if possible as it looks like hell keeping everything clean while scraping off the old foam.So does this need replacing in the first place? The light sealing 100% needs to be replaced but the foam here is in much better condition. Even if it doesn't look really good.
>>4502498just realized that those are also light sealing to prevent light entering from the viewfinder.
>>4502471The metering is probably the least complex thing on that camera, it should be fine. On older cameras you can set the ISO to under/over expose, but yours should have dedicated exposure compensation.
How should I be storing my film strips and the prints? I'm realizing now I've been just dumping it all in a drawer like a retard after scanning and I think I've lost some. Are there any decent organizers to keep 5x7 prints with their film strips?
>>4502314>just get a transparent zip bag with the rolls in itI've just done this while in China. Through subway security I keep the bag in a jacket pocket and the camera over my shoulder. Train security is a bit more thorough, so I keep the clear plastic bag in my hand, and let them scan me with the metal detector. Expect pictures in a couple of weeks, /fgt/s.
>>4502620>Expect pictures in a couple of weeks, /fgt/s.Based. I'll be disappointed if all the photos are black from being scanned like that though.
>>45026145x7 sleeves definitely exist because 5x7 film is a thing. Keep everything in a good 3 rinf binder. Label your film sleeve and then label your sleeved prints so you know which roll the prints came from. You could also use a divider between rolls + prints.Keeping them unsleeved is just asking for disaster.
>>4502621Erased the film with a metal detector? haha
Mounted the camera to a tripod with a smartphone holder, worked quite well. Loaded old b/w film and went out, shot a couple of pictures, felt like I made more mistakes than I have shots on the roll. It was a little overcast today so I pray the shutter was slower than usual. Overall a little annoyed as the rewind knob was not turning as smoothly as I hoped, reckon I didn't snip the 120 roll properly.Still contemplating if I should buy the chemicals or send it to a developer, I have the tools but not the chemicals at home. What would be the cheapest option to develop Fomapan?
>>4502664Quick update, I still have two frames left but the wind lever is slipping across the axle and so it's not winding the film any further. What a bummer.Maybe I will grind a little notch in the axle and use a screwdriver.Guess it's to be expected that you are a little clever when using gear that's close to 100 years old.
>>4502665The perpetrator.
>>4502666Ok, forgive me for blogging like this but I got impatient and had a better idea. I cleaned it, loaded it up with some flux and put a nice glob of solder on there, it worked and I managed to advance the film.Not sure how this will hold up, not sure how my soldering job will influence the film inside, but I am glad it's working again. And I ordered a more sophisticated box camera in the meantime because this is fun but I do think having a more durable camera would make it a little less stressful.
I've mainly been shooting tri-x recently, spring has me wanting to load up ektar instead for those blues and reds now that spring is here. I guess I should just pony up for a second body so I can always have a roll of color and b&w going at the same time, but I am cheap. Picrel from a few weeks ago on a FM2n + 50mm 1.8 ais with a yellow filter.
>>4502349nta but I'd use the Minolta for going out and about (street, wildlife, sports, etc) since it offers both shutter and aperture priority which would come in handy for those situations, allowing you to focus more on composition than worrying about nailing exposure. i would use the spotmatic for still life/product until you become more familiar with how to nail exposure. i would also take some test shots of the same subject in the same lighting with both on a tripod, so you can get an idea of how accurate their light meters actually are when compared to one another. the last thing you'd want to do is get comfortable with the Minolta, have settings for specific lighting conditions memorized, only to find out the meter in your pentax is off by a stop or 2 leading to poor exposures. or vice versa. just my .02
>>>/g/108483698/g/ tries to discuss film photography, enter at your own risk
>>4502669So I managed to shoot two more pics, the rewind knob got loose again when I tried to wind up the roll, had to open the camera in the dark to get the roll out.Naturally the box was incredibly difficult to open, and it being dark didn't help either. took a lot of force but I got the film out, rolled up, presumably safe.I let out a big sigh of relief when I felt the film rolled up in my hand, I'm pretty sure I won't use the camera again because of the winding mechanism and how stuck the outer casing sits around the film mechanism. It's a chore and I'd be surprised if any of the pictures come out at all because how much I fiddled around with it.Still, I am charmed by the box camera, I have one coming my way in a couple of days, one that was made for 120 film and not 620. One with a dedicated tripod mount and a wire release mount, so the journey is still on.
Got a Pentax Spotmatic SP II for €30. Everything seems to be in order except for the battery door which is completely stuck. Not sure if it’s corrosion or if it’s been worn down to the point that a coin can’t get a grip on it
Relative newbie to film here, what's causing the effect in the photo here, a double exposure? I may have gotten to the end of the roll and forced it through again, but I'm not sure how that would produce this photo, wouldn't the double exposure be layered on top completely?
>>4502844Yeah that's probably double exposure. If it was at the end of the rolls and it started again or something else odd like that, you can end up with a half or quarter frame. I had that happen once except one quarter of the image was fine and the other 3/4s were overexposed to the point of nearly no detail, not quite sure what I did but the picture looked really terrible.
>>4502844>I may have gotten to the end of the roll and forced it through againDon't do that with a manual wind camera, in a bad case you'll rip through the sprocket holes and will need to retrieve the film in a darkroom, in the worst case you'll mess up the winding mechanism and turn your camera into a paperweight. >wouldn't the double exposure be layered on top completely?There were about 6 sprocket holes of film left after the second last photo, you started winding and the shutter got cocked before you hit the hard stop, and since your camera apparently does not have an interlock requiring full wind it allowed you to take the photo while overlapping the previous frame. Oh and if this is a motorized advance camera then I wouldn't worry, unless it randomly overlaps frames throughout the roll and not just occasionally at the end, then you do have a problem.
Here's something I'm trying to understand, if I have 400ISO film and want to push it to 800ISO by using that setting on the camera, would I then develop as normal or would I do a push process of 1?
>>4502866I would assume that if you set the camera to expose for 800 ISO instead the film would be underexposed by 1 stop, no?Which I think can be corrected in development, if you overdevelop the film by 1 stop it should balance out again, right?I am no pro with this stuff so if someone can confirm or correct me that would be nice.
>>4502867Yes and as a bonus your photos will look like shit. Pushing film is some tiktok level shit. Try pulling
>>4502867>>4502866Unless you are using crappy film like fomapan 400 you do not need to change dev time when you're pushing or pulling film one stop. You are technically correct tho. Less exposure, more dev and vice versa.>>4502881What if my scene needs an extra stop of contrast? Wouldn't pulling my film just make it look even flatter?
>>4502886>What if my scene needs an extra stop of contrast?you adjust contrast post by setting higher filter gradation in enlarger or by a slider in lightroomWith pulling you get more details in shadows, better tonality and contrast contraction, you have wider dynamic range.Only thing pushing is achieving is rising contrast of your negative, which is undesirable, makes it harder to print with thin shadows and cooked highlights. But in VERY flat scene it's ok to develop for longer to increase the contrast a little bit - but that's not pushing.
>>4502866>if I have 400ISO film and want to push it to 800ISO by using that setting on the camera,Then you will have underexposed the film by 1 stop.>would I then develop as normalThen you will have developed that film to be underexposed by 1 stop.>or would I do a push process of 1?Then you will have compensated for the film being underexposed by developing appropriately longer, thus correctly pushing your film +1.>>4502886>you do not need to change dev time when you're pushing or pulling film one stop.What an idiotic statement, push/pull dev times are provided for a reason, not following them results in incorrectly developed film, no matter the price, quality, latitude, b&w or color.>>4502886>What if my scene needs an extra stop of contrast? Wouldn't pulling my film just make it look even flatter?Then you print with higher contrast grade. Or tweak the curves in a scan.
Lads, I got me self a new 120 film camera, it's so tiny but it feels solid, shoots 60x45mm frames. Will give this a careful and thorough cleaning cause it's sticking and full of dust but I am excited, the seller told me the shutter didn't work but it doesn't appear to have any problems, maybe a little slow but after cleaning and maybe replacing the springs it should be a bit more snappy.Just need to find a tripod adapter as it has a 3/8 mount.
>>4502935>>4502931But I have 36 shots on one roll of film in scenes with varying levels of contrast! I really wont get a good result unless my exposure accuracy was within 1 stop?? I thought that film has really good exposure latitude.
>>4502959>But I have 36 shots on one roll of film in scenes with varying levels of contrast!Were they all measured at the same ISO? If yes then no problem, you'll get photos with varying levels of contrast because the world around you has varying levels of contrast.If you changed ISO mid-roll then you fucked up and have only yourself to blame.>I really wont get a good result unless my exposure accuracy was within 1 stop??Correct. Depending on the film, scene and and amount if under/overexposure you'll get results that are less-than-good, subobtimal, actually bad, or plain unusable.>I thought that film has really good exposure latitude.Correct, that's why you'll get ANY results at all - that may or may not be salvageable.Stop fighting reality and shoot at box speed, unless you absolutely need the extra stops and you don't have a roll of faster film available, or if you really know what you're doing and you're going for the specific effect.
>>4502967I metered for shadows, but the scenes all had different contrast ranges! I must be totally FUCKED.
>>4502969>I metered for shadows,On negative? Good.>but the scenes all had different contrast ranges! I must be totally FUCKED.Then shoot large format if that bothers you. The fuck are you on about.
>>4502970Im just scared because you said missing my exposure by one stop without compensating for that in development is going to ruin my film!! I thought I could have fixed that in post with contrast filters, but then you said you can't.
>>4502972Did you or did you not meter the entire roll at the same ISO? If yes, did you meter at film's box speed, or higher or lower? Provide one-word only answers to each of the two questions. Do not elaborate. Do not provide irrelevant details. Do not change the subject.
>>4502973I set my ISO to the box speed, but... then I chose my exposure based on the scene. Sometimes I chose to underexpose because I had very strong highlights and other times I chose to increase exposure because I wanted to maintain shadow detail. Im so scared because this means my effective exposure did not match the box speed and I have so so many pictures on one roll of film.
>>4502974>I set my ISO to the box speedThen develop normally, and you'll find out if your metering for shadows or highlights made sense. If you messed up some of your shots then it's a lesson learned, take notes and do better next time.I can't tell if you're trolling or just too retarded to comprehend a simple thing (leaning towards the former desu) but I don't have time for any more of this.
>>4502975So what you're saying is that most films have some tolerance to over/under exposure? What about charecteristic curves????? I need your help please. There are so many images that need development and you have made me fear the worst. I don't want my pictures to be like the ghost lady.
>>4502977>I don't want my pictures to be like the ghost lady.Should have thought about this before taking the photos. Develop the roll normally and learn from your mistakes. I can't help you any more than I did.>Sometimes I chose to underexpose because I had very strong highlights and other times I chose to increase exposure because I wanted to maintain shadow detail.This is called exposure compensation by the way and has nothing to do with push/pull processing.
>>4502978But exposure compensation is essentially changing your iso! I thought you said shooting at iso was the only path to good pics!It looks like ghost lady can be avoided if I just develop normally even though I may have overexposed and then use a contrast filter when I'm printing. Should I be scared still? Do you believe in ghosts btw?
>>4502979Drink bleach.
>>4502978Oh yeah I also heard through the grapevine that denser negatives are sometimes better to print for certain reasons. Have you ever heard of this tomfoolery?
>>4502980Im not shooting or developing c41, DUMMY. There is no need for bleach in the black and white process unless you think I could save my prints by bleaching them to selectively lighten areas? Maybe I could avoid ghost lady if I overexpose the print and then carefully use bleach to lighten the background. Wow anon you're so knowledgeable and helpful! Thank you
I hope Lomography would some day bring APS film back to life. Since they are already making 110 film it would be super to have Tiger 200 or Orca 100 also in APS format. 110 is fun to shoot but the factory applied film mask is pure faggotry because in these Agfamatics the film transfer mechanism is not accurate.
I always thought my negatives lacked contrast and in the computer I almost always need to crank dat s-curve but tonight I used my set of ilford contrast filters in the darkroom for the first time and I had to reach for the 1 and 1/2 most of the time. Interesting
>replying to obvious bait
First time shooting Ektar. Using a Pentax K1000 with the standard 50. Really impressed by the film's range.
>>4503056Also had some Fuji 200.
>>4503042ISO hitler is not a free thinker. Simple as.
>bwaaa I gotta _push film_ because the beanied leicamen told me>no I wont try it at box speed first to understand the process, the whole meme is to _push film_ how will I get social media engagement unless I _push film_?>just tell me the recipe now what is the correct way to _push film_ none of these stupid followup questions make sense "why do you want to push"? Just fucking tell me the secret this is unfair literally you are gatekeeping me from being a coolguy on youtube shorts
>>4503083Why would I push film? That sounds mean and I like film. STOP BULLYING FILM, DAMMIT. Next time you want to push film consider embracing it instead. Thank you.
>>4503086Nah its like statutory rape, it just sounds mean
>>4503087Exposing film should always be a consensual experience for both parties, dammit!
>>4503088No greater feeling than slipping 1600 iso all the way in a 15 year (expired) Trix and absolutely destroy it. If they are overdeveloped they were asking for it
>>4502846>>4502851I see, thanks anons. It's a manual wind, so don't do it again lol, got it. I tried it because I've had a bit of luck in the past with winding a little more film out, but I guess the risk of breaking something isn't worth it.
>>450309015 years old sounds a little underdeveloped for my tastes.
>>4503094It was a joke I only make pictures with fomapan 200 at box speed and send them to a legally recognized lap every time. I dont even look at the pictures afterwards, lest I be tempted to sin
>>4503095>Fomapan 200I once contemplated buying some, it's the cheapest brand and the worst ISO range, naturally the results have to be amazing.
