Decisive 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: >>4500379
>>4504208Real Thread Question: To Crop Or Not To Crop?(copied the old version of the template while 4chan was being stupid about creating a new thread, sorry.)
>>4504208>What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?Pic related, my latest acquisition. It's from the 30's. And yes I plan to use it on a daily basis.I'm getting some developer and fixer tomorrow to develop the film I recently shot, I'm doing some experiments to see what ISO is the most practical. Now I just shot Kentmere Pan 100 but maybe if I go a little higher I could also be more versatile and creative with filters. Though I did enjoy doing some timed exposures in daytime shade.I need results first but I'm having a blast with this simple camera so far.
So I shot some 35mm color film and handed it to a shop to get it developed. Had to pay 20 euros for developing, scanning and to have my negatives back. I think this is only going to be a one time thing and switch to b/w and develop on my own. This is simply too much.I am a little upset that the cheap 1-hour developing services are long gone and never returning. Man, we didn't know how good we had it.
>>4504208To answer thread question, the oldest camera / lense I've used is the Zenit E with Helios 44-2, it took great quality images but I found it a bit strange to use, this was a long time ago now, im sure if I unboxed it and put a roll through it I would understand it better now. I did use the helios lense on a DSLR which was a fun experiment.I got some film developed recently, the Olympus Mju ii is such a nice little camera, used Gold200
>>4504211I usually don’t crop. Instead I take multiple shots with different framing to see which one I like more later.
>>4504219This little shrine/chapel is a perfect example. >>4504218>>4504212Real thread question was underneath the OP.
>>4504211I don't crop unless it makes the photo better. I'll leave the film border in if I don't crop as a reminder to myself.
>>4504220I liked the old question and I don't really have enough of an opinion on cropping.Do it if it helps your picture, I guess. But shouldn't you always try to frame the pic correctly from the get go?Anyway, I like your pic, the portrait orientation works really well.
Does my fomapan 100 have covid? What are all these white dots. I seen it on several 120 rolls. Am I developing wrong?
>>4504278Yes.
>>4504278You got cum in the bath water.
>>4504280Yes. Should I cum in the fixer too to balance it out? Not sure I can go twice back to back, Im no spring chicken anymore
>>4504278Precipitation in the fixer? Try filtering it out just mix a fresh batch.
>>4504284The white dots are from foma's thin emulsion.
Are jpgs alright for simple edits? I don't do my own developing and most labs send back jpgs. TIFF is also an option but it costs quite a bit more and is very excessive for my admittedly mediocre photos. The only edits I'd really be doing is a little bit of exposure adjustment.Which also leads me to ask, why do so many labs only offer JPG and TIFF? Why can't DNG be a middle option or something?
>>4504315Tiff and dng are the same candy with a different wrapper. Just get the tiffs once and see if you need them.
>>4504316Aren't TIFFs usually massive though? Like 150-500mb in size for each photo? Even my digital camera RAW files never go beyond 50mb.
>>4504317Depends on a variety of things. My grayscale 2400dpi 35mm scans are like 12-15MB tiff files.
>>4504317Around 50 MB B&W and 150 MB color for 16 bit 4000 dpi scans (roughly 6000x4000 pixels).
>>4504286Does this mean it will always look like this? Or can I develop it differently to minimize the effect? Ive been doing 9 min ilford agitation in rodinal
>>4504328I've gotten mixed results from foma. Sometimes it shows up and sometimes it doesnt.
>>4504329Apparently this was a manufacturing error around 2020 and they have been replacing rolls from those batches
>>4504331Not sure if the defect is the same one as on this shot, but I've noticed the white dot thing appearing on some but not all sheets of foma purchased in 2024.
>>4504338Looks similar. Mine is 645 so the dots are larger. I sent them a mail asking about it
>>4504208>What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?The oldest camera/lens I use is my Graflex 4x5 Crown Graphic with Graflex Optar 135mm f/4.7 lens from around the early 1950s. I believe the lens was originally manufactured by the Wollensak company. It's surprisingly usable handheld, but sheet film is way too expensive to shoot on the daily.
Went to an analog photography shop to get developer and fixer but they didn't have fixer in stock.They didn't have any Fomapan 100 either, so annoying, I am trying to support local businesses but man it's hard.
>>4504380Yeah, I don't have a photo shop in my city so I order online. I'm up visiting family in another state. Theres a shop in the nearby city that's about 15% more expensive for film. Even after shipping it's still a net loss.Then again, these days, you go to brick and mortar to talk shop, swap advice, or network. If you frequent enough, maybe they'll cut you a discount. How much you value that kind of thing is subjective. I'm not that extroverted so that kind of interaction isn't worth much to me, personally.
>>4504381In my local analog camera store the boomer owner is pissed off and upset that you are disturbing him. Hes also angry that he has no customers
>>4504383That's part of the problem, too. More often than not it's some old asshole running the store treating customers like shit. Not always, but most of the time.
>>4504381I don't feel like the kid running the cashier there knows anything, he wants to help but all he does is google for answers on the shop computer. And I am just a bit bummed out they didn't have a complete development kit available nor some of the cheaper 120 films. And yeah, they are expensive, which is becoming more and more big of a deal if the shop provides very little extra in terms of service or knowledge.The sooner I get into a routine of developing and scanning myself, the better.
>>45043801 gallon of stock TF4 is cheap and you make 4 gallons with it. I know it's not the point, but you can just be done with fixer worries for a long time. TF4 is kinda stinky, but you get used to it.
>>4504380>>4504383Reading this makes me thankful for the old asian lady who runs my local lab. 8 bucks dev or 12 bucks dev + scan, always has a decent selection of film at about the same as online prices, consistent quality and they work damn fast. Literally walked down the street to panda express and they've finished my two rolls and are calling me to say they're ready before I've even finished my damn orange chicken. If you live in LA even remotely near mid-city/Hollywood you gotta go to D&J
>>4504386Is that available in Europe, Netherlands specifically?As of right now I just bought a small amount of rodinal and ordered a bag of powder for 1 liter of fixer. This is just to see if I enjoy the process and if I want to stick to shooting black and white medium format film. But I will be looking for larger quantities if all goes well. I currently have three rolls that need to be developed. I kinda enjoy shooting the 120 film so far, fewer frames makes me a little more careful and I am less likely to do retakes, especially with the 6x9 camera.I may want to try contact printing too, how much of the chemicals can be interchangeable with multigrade photo paper anyway?
>>4504390>I may want to try contact printing too, how much of the chemicals can be interchangeable with multigrade photo paper anyway?You can get away with it if you don't care about the results (I did in the past with HC-110), but it's using the wrong tool for a wrong purpose. Paper developers are different from film developers, fixers are more similar but typically use different dilution (1+4 vs 1+9).
Here is one of my piggy prints I am working on. The power of staining developers like pyrocat MC is on full display here. I did a split contrast exposure, but at c0 25s and c4 30s I could have just used a c2 or c2.5 filter and been just as well off.Full midday sun highlights on near white subject + deep shadows on dark objects and printed with no silly business.Oh yeah if you mix dektol from fresh chemicals it is actually a clear solution and not dehydrated piss colored. >>4504390Sounds like a good plan. Unless you want to become autistic about contact printing you can use all the same stuff. Amidol based paper developers + chloride paper is the ideal, but amidol is toxic, stains everything, and is expensive, but you get the most amazing looking prints from it.
>>4504390Oh yeah, misread your question. Get a paper developer. Dektol or Ansco 130.
>>4504380I'm struggling to support my local store. It has good shit but they charge a lot for everything, especially for developing/scanning if you want them to do it, but then a place in the next city is an hour drive and has everything a lot cheaper.
>>4504408Really nice shot there. Very reminiscent of Ravilious's work. What films do you tend to use?
This one needed some dodging to lighten up the goat higher in the tree. >>4504419Thank you. That guy takes some really amazing rural pics. Thanks for putting me onto him.XX @ 400, 50mm summarit.
>>4504400>>4504408>>4504410Thanks for the clarification. Once I get a grip on developing I will delve into photopaper.
>>4504438I like the pic but I didn't notice the goat in the tree at first, would be very curious to see how it ends up if you tweaked it a bit.
>>4504556Going to be quite challenging to make the upper goat pop more. Maybe we can cope and say that it's a good thing it is somewhat hidden because it rewards careful observation of the photograph. Lol. Do you have any suggestions? I'm playing around with the image in C1 with little to no luck. It's tough because the goat blends in with the foliage so well.
>>4504564Not sure, maybe it's not so bad if you show us the picture laying flat and properly scanned.
>>4504565I can do that later. Print is still drying.
i just got a canon L3, shot 4 rolls thru it, was great. then i got a canon v film magazine (basically a canon v version of a ixmoo/filca of lecia) and it worked out well enough indoors with a slight rebate lightleak. got a great price on the cassette (7 dollars on ebay, the next available is 30 dollars), and thankfully my bulk loader can close them properly.
>>4504565Here is the print. The scan came out pretty close to what the print looks like.>>4504571Looks like a fun camera.
>>4504572it is a fun camera methinks. need to figure out the parallax error, and i think the 1.8/50mm canon lens seems to be good as well. cute goat.
>>4504572I feel the frame is to cluttered to make it work while keeping realistic tones desu. I think I'd try to go full Ansel on it, burning the fuck out of the background, and printing the goats and the foreground trunk at highest contrast factor while underexposing them to make them glow. Something like pic related. Kind of silly, but at least you can tell there are goats in the picture.
>>4504577i think you just need a higher grade of contrast, this still looks pretty flat, yet the dodged parts are extremely jarring
>>4504578>>4504577I think that more contrast is the best that can be done to get the highlights and shadows a bit more seperated. Some dodging to keep leaves balanced like I've already done. I don't think that lower contrast images are necessarily bad, and the style works fairly well for these kind of images, but I also think it's just too flat how it is now. If you push the contrast too far, so you have near white/black it gets a little too gharsh looking for the subject matter.I may work on it tommorow. It's an interesting/fun problem to try and fix.
I just started developing my own film and I dump the Ifosol 3 down the drain
>>4504637I dump my rodinal (suspected to cause genetic defects). Its just a little
>>4504571> canon v film magazine this shit is scratching the fuck out of my negatives. havent printed so idk if it shows up on the print but i spent money so it wouldn't scratch my negs and now it does a lot. wtf.
luv RodinalKentmere 100 at 80 iso, will see how it prints, negatives look good
Pentax K1000 with TriX. Choochoo
>>4504637How else should it be disposed of? You can take engine oil to any auto store and they'll dispose of it but idk how it would work for film. I haven't tried developing yet since I don't want to dump shit down the drain.
>>4504753Most developers are fine to dump down the drain. Same with stop bath. You should absolutely not dump fixer down the drain. You can either add steel wool to your spent fixer and reclaim the silver, or take any spent photo chemistry to your local dump that accepts household hazardous waste.
>>4504756How much fixer is usually use for developing one or two rolls? Maybe I can just keep a jug that I eventually take to the dump or something.
>>4504760Depending on fixer you can fix like 20 rolls or more with a single liter. You can get this stuff that lets you check if your fix is spent. You put a couple drops in and if precipitate forms the fixer is spent. You can sort of tell when your fix is running out because your negatives will be more pink/purple color after the standard fix time as well, but using the drops is better.
My first foray into film, I've bought a Nikon F-501 and used my 28mm AF-D (should've used the 50mm desu). I shot kodak gold 200.
>>4504792
>>4504208Don't want to make another thread for this, I have two functioning film cameras>Nikon FE with a knock-off 28mm lens from a hardware shop that no longer exists (Dixons)>Minolta 404si with whatever basic zoomy lens those came withI want to shoot more film photos again and can't decide between just getting better lenses for the nikon FE, or something like a nikon F90X (N90S) or some other better "Last of the film SLR" plastic blob, but would that be much of an upgrade from the minolta? I do actually like having auto focus and stuff sometimes too even if using the fully manual nikon FE is fun in it's own way. What do?
While I wait for my slides, the gf took this with her mju on color plus 200. It looks like dogshit on cinestill 50d.
>>4504828For reference.
>>4504828Kino. The grain is perfect.>>4504829Agreed, it doesn't look good. I hate to say it looks like a phone pic but it kinda does, it just doesn't look like there's much detail somehow.
>>4504828>>4504829looks like she exposed correctly and you underexposed
>>4504875SLR bros... How do we recover from this?>>4504867Results from that 50d roll that morning with sunlight was wildly inconsistent. Everything was crushed. That was luckily one of the last on that roll. The 50d fared better in overcast conditions, but then the low ISO forced me to shoot wide open.
Got a quote for 3.7k for my darkroom sink. Nice.
>>4504875>>4504875>b-but the highlights are all blown and y-you can't see the detail in the... fuck... the sky! >Yeah! Mine is better because you see more sky! >It's not like the mountain range is supposed to be the subject, no sir-ee
>>4504939Both of those films can handle the DR in that scene.
>>4504828Awesome photo!
>>4504942Here's my scientific comparison of the densities.>>4504939lmao, thanks for the laugh
15 months of waiting to finally score the film adapter for this camera and it is finally here. 645 for now, but maybe one day I will score the 6x6 back. We got AF, 1 fps exposures, leaf shutter, rodenstock/zeiss lenses and a bunch of other "useful" functions on one of the most advanced medium format cameras ever made.Foma100 pics soon.
>>4504950Pics. This was a really old roll of foma. Idk wtf was going on. Sorry about the dirty negs. I will be getting some fp4 and delta 400 soon.Very very nice to use this camera with film. The autowinding film back is quite satisfying. These were all taken with an 80mm xenotar.
>>4504958
>>4504959Last one. This is big mamma. she's my favorite pig. She acts like a 400lb+ dog. My gear post has now been balanced with some farm snapshits. Thanks.
>>4504950Love leaf shutters, simple as. The same white dots I had with my fomapan 100. Here is some fomapan 200 with scratches instead. I dont think ill buy anything from foma again
Going to be developing today, finally.I have rodinal, adofix and loaded up some a 120 film of kentmere pan 100. I initially wanted to do my Fomapan roll first but I misread the label and only when it was spooled I saw the backing paper reading kentmere.Oh well, to be honest, I am quite overwhelmed with the amount of information I have been reading about times, temperatures, dilutions, agitations, I have a feeling I'm going to mess it up somehow. But we'll see.
>tfw new lens day>tfw still overweight and without any social connections>tfw browsing the lomography galler of my new lens and hating myself, why did I buy it, I will never shoot happy late night moments on the way home from the bar, or qts in their underwear>maybe I can snap some building corners at f1.4 tomorrow
>>4504971You can go out at night and do long exposures on street lanterns too.
>>4504969alright so apparently things didn't go as bad as I expected. I took out the reel after fixing and was a little scared cause it looked very dark and nothing was visible until I unreeled the film.Here's a little preview, the film is still drying but I couldn't resist checking to see if things look alright after inversion.
>>4504975Okay so I decided to go at it and develop the old fomapan roll too. I rinsed the film before developing and out came this beautiful green liquid... what is up with that? Is that a fomapan thing? Cause this didn't happen with the roll of kentmere.Either way, the development went fine, the fomapan roll was shot on an old cardboard Kodak target Hawk-Eye six-20 so it crunched up the negatives a bit but fortunately, besides being a little out of focus, it looked alright.
>>4504976Also, another preview, the film is still wet, you can see the edge being messed up, I'm never forcing 120 film in 620 camera's again.Still, I'm happy, there's at least 2 or 3 photo's worth saving on the roll.
>>4504976Thats a foma 120 thing they use shrek coloree anti-halation layer
Still playing a bit with my snapshit camera to find a good way to scan these, it's a bit of work but I'm getting close. At least I'm at a point where I can show them to people, still these aren't perfect. This one in particular was quite fun to take, it's a 3 second exposure in a hallway where musicians were playing. And I realize now that the viewfinder is even more skewed than I assumed. All my shots are a little off. But I guess that's part of the fun of photography, right?
>>4504971>>maybe I can snap some building corners at f1.4 tomorrowHeh, I did just that. Though my camera only had f11 and f22.Anyway, I need to figure out scanning because the way I do it now only gives me an idea of the pic works or not but it's missing a lot of detail because my camera can't get close enough.
>>4504993I can see the grain anon, I dont think there is any hidden detail there
>>4504993>>4504993The dust and grain seems to be pretty focused, so are you sure it wasn't just missed focus during the shot itself?Also definitely need to work on finding a good way to flatten them out during scanning. Should help with the distortion and probably even the light masking issue as well, since I assume that's contributing to it.Maybe throwing an anti-Newton glass piece over top or something? I don't know. What's your current setup look like?
>>4504977I just bought some 120 film from filmphotographystore because it was cheapest and I noticed they have respooled 620 for sale. Kinda pricey, but if you're just screwing around it could be worth it.Also edit your film scans. They could use some contrast adjustments.
>>4504996>>4504995Ah good observation, I had not realized that yet. Yeah there isn't much to do about the focus, the camera I'm using is this: >>4504212My current stack is just a plate of white plexiglass, the negative and a plate of normal glass on top. Taking with my smartphone camera now because it's doing pretty much as good as a job as my camera did.I will retake some of the pictures, I don't expect the best results as I simply don't have a proper camera that can take the close up shots at a high resolution, this is the setup.>>4504997I'm retaking some of the shots now. That one pic was just a quick snapshot as the negative was drying.
>>4504975good work bro
>>4504997Alright so with some effort I managed to get a better shot. Shot on a Kodak Target Hawk-Eye six-20 with Fomapan 100 (only 14 years expired) and developed with rodinal like normal.Not planning to get respooled film as I have settled on a box camera that actually takes 120 without issues.>>4505001Cheers anon.
>>4504977>>4504997Respooling 120 to 620 is piss easy, takes a minute per roll. FPP sells empty plastic spools. I had to sand the sides paper thin so they wouldn't jam in my Tourist, but after that they work a charm. Just remember to spool the film back onto 120 if you're sending off to a lab.
>>4505003It looks like absolute shit, but it's a good start. Are they 645? You can compare to my cow/pig pictures that are also 645, scanned on an epson v850 shatbed. They're also shit, but closer to a good scan than yours.Hard to tell exactly, but it looks like a combo of out of focus negative, motion blur, and a very low MP scan. The borders don't look too bad focus wise, but you do get some of that mushy look on the rebate. All the more reason to invest in a little enlarger so you can start making some prints. Your phone will take significantly better scans of 8x10 prints. :)These are with your brownie, correct? Do you remember your camera settings?
>>4505005Yeah, the Target Hawk-Eye is closely related to the brownie family but it shoots 6x9, twice as big as a 645 frame.The settings, 100 ISO film, I used the large aperture, held a yellow filter in front and pulled the shutter lever which fired the shutter at 1/30, I admit even with a tripod, the lever is bound to cause some vibration because it has very little grip and requires some force.I reckon even doing contact prints and scanning those on a flatbed would give better results.
>>4505008That camera looks like such a pain in the ass to use. Maybe a flash and closer up subjects would be a better match for it. Even 1/50th shutter speed is pretty slow for a wobbly tripod. Is there a specific reason you're going with a brownie style camera?
My first ever film reel came back a lot better than I thought it would
One last experiment before I head to bed, I inspected the negatives with a lupe, it does appear to be a little more sharper than what I had posted before.I tried taking a picture through the lupe just to test it out, naturally it doesn't look very good especially on the edges but it does bring out a little of the sharpness. Anyway, still some way to go.
>>4505016
>>4505017>>4505016>>4505013Neat, what film?It's super noisy though.
>>4505016>>4505017Crisp setup.
>>4505018>noiseerm...film doesn't have noise
>>4505018I'm >>4505013Different from this anon >>4505015I was using Ilford HP5 plus in a Pentax Spotmatic
>>4505020It's a digital image that I'm looking at tho
>>4505022is this better??anyway it's hp5+ on f3 with voigtlander 55mm 1.2
>>4505012I found it cheap and had to try, but I am not using it anymore after I tried this roll because it is a huge pain in the ass.I upgraded to the Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54, it shoots 645, handles 120 film properly, has a tripod mount, cable release compatible, and a optional built in close-up lens. I want to do at least a couple of test rolls with that camera, also play a bit with colour filters, see if I can actually get some nice photos out of it.The cardboard kodak has already found his place in my mum's cupboard, I'm never touching it again.
More piggie pics. Tmax 100 this time and a different lens. Can you tell I used a zoom lens for these? AFD-Variogon 60-140mm f4.5. Absolute beast of a lens. >>4505024Cable release with those cameras seems crucial.
Cow
Horse. All done.>>4505023I like this image, but the foreground tree kinda throws the vibe off for me. It feels like you're being a sneak instead of just capturing a really nice scene, but maybe that's just me. Could also use a bit more contrast imo.
I can get some expired film REALLY cheap but is it really worth it? It's all only expired by about 1 or 2 months but I have no way of knowing what sort of temps it's all been in. Some of it is still wrapped in the pallets so I assume it's just a lot of film they couldn't sell in time.
picked up a very wide boiI'll see if I can take some pics with it this weekend, but I've also got a few rolls to dev & scan which take priority
>>4505039I wouldn't bother without testing first
Olympus Mju II zoom with Tri X.
>>4505039If it is black and white it shouldn't matter too much. A few months is nothing for non stupidly stored film.
>>4505039Oh, I didn't read (1 or 2 months)Thinking 20 yr expired color
>>4505051Color only from what I've seen. Mostly Kodak Ultramax and Ektar.>>4505052Yeah only 1 or 2 months, so not too bad I'd have to think.
Some macro shots on Tri-x400, hope you like them.1/5
>>45050682/5
>>45050693/5
>>45050714/5
>>45050725/5
>>4504278the white dots in the sky are called stars.
I just replaced the ribbons on a kiev 4a shutter. Most involved repair I did so far. Very satisfying to succeed
I don't usually like my photos, they never seem to have the "pop" I see in other peoples. I've tried editting them and I feel that it's better but I'm not sure if that's just editting blindness. So, thoughts?
>>4505115Just a quick, somewhat heavy handed, phone edit so you can see something different. Having grayish-black areas of zero information/detail just makes the picture look bland/flat. If I was to make a print of this image I would aim for having rich blacks in the shadow areas, so when you edit you may want to push those areas even further than you have. Use your levels slider to push both the whites and blacks to near clipping, adjust midtone, and then if the vibe is off you can dial the shadows/highlights back or forth to your liking. I think your picture wants fully black shadows and strong highlights. It adds to the harshness of the cold steel kinda vibe. Higher contrast also makes pictures look sharper because it emphasizes edge detail. If you arent pushing the shadows all the way to true black you lose out on that sharpness.Lighting/exposure is also very important for getting good "pop" in pictures. I think the fully black right side is a detriment to the overall image and having some detail in that section would improve the look. The lower bar of steel being blurry also takes away from the image I think.
>>4504208
oof
>>4505187Unfixed? Wait until dry, spool it up again and fix for another 5 minutes. Can do in normal light.But it also looks like film was stuck together in the spool, in that case it probably also has not developed in the spots, so it might indeed be an oof. But you'll find out.>faceberg filenameanon plz
>>4505192no need to find out, I know what happenedfirst roll on a jobo reel, thought it felt on all the way but guess notoverlapped with second roll and didn’t develop in those spotsironically of the 4 rolls I had to do, this was the only one with shots I wouldn’t have been okay loosing (rest are a mix of snapshits and strobe failures)>facebergancient iphone
>>4505185There's a lot going on here
>>4505115I think you could improve this a lot before you ever open the shutter. A white background to increase the contrast or a truly black background to emphasize the darkness and turn every area of light into something eye-catching. Changing the lighting as well so you don't just have the closest part of the round surface to us lit (depending on how you light it) can also make things seem more separated. A pure black background with rim lighting could keep the dark mood while giving your subject a clear separation is my initial thought. Editing can't fix everything, shot setup is very important.
Thank you anons>>4505209Lower bar being blurry (hadn't actually noticed) does take away, not intentional. I'm still learning with my macro lens and struggling to tell what is/isn't in focus because of how shallow the DOF is. A lot of this roll came out under-exposed, I think I fucked up metering a bit (which is odd because I'm usually good at that at least) or it could be the lens was reducing effective aperture too much like how extension tubes do (? anyone with an SMC Macro Takumar f4 weigh in here pls).I can't remember if the specific pic I showed was with a mist filter but if it was that could also explain lack of sharpness. I should probably take notes. I was a bit scared of pushing shadows fully because I don't want to over-do the editting Rockwellian style.>>4505209>before you ever open the shutterAbsolutely, my set up was thrown together in a rush and I think that shows. I was using a brown wool jumper as background simply because it was the darkest bit of fabric I had to hand. Turn every area of light into something eye catching was very much what I was going for.I took the photos outside so lighting was fixed, I was trying to get the glare/shine of the metal but only got one photo which really captured it (picrel, obviously let down in other areas). I will have a go with rim lighting, good suggestion.
>>4505234I think generally for this whole set of photos under-exposure is a big common issue and struggling with DoF/missed focus. Some of these shots had macro tubes on as well which I thought I had correctly compensated for but guess not by enough.At least the idea of what I was going for is there, even if the execution is shoddy.
>>4505235I tried editting this with darker shadows. The wood looks weirdly flat to me. I think it probably wanted more direct light to catch some reflections.Might have over-cooked it a bit, I'm not using proper editting software, just the windows photo viewer, which I am sure is also part of my major skill issue.
>>4505236I think this one just lacks range, there's only black and a midtone but little of anything else.A little more powerful highlight on the metal and the screw would help, and some subtle movement in the background would also help.Anyway, I don't know why I'm trying to help, I barely know anything about this stuff.
>>4505193Sorry to hear that man. There's always the first time - just need to learn the lesson to make sure it's also the last time, and move on. Lots more of film to burn out there.By the way when I wind multiple pieces of film into one spool I tape them together to make sure this does not happen. Never tried it with 120 though, I'm not even sure if Patty spools could fit 2x 120 length.
>>4505237Yeah actually now you point it out, lack of highlights is bothering me. All the highlights in the image are on the metal plate which I felt didn't need more attention drawing to it, I wish there were some on the wood. More DoF would help with the background I think, the jumper I used is very textured so could help?>I don't know why I'm trying to help, I barely know anything about this stuff.Don't worry, majority of people on this website don't know anything about the things they talk about. Going on /k/ gives me a fucking aneurysm nowadays. Other people looking at my pictures helps massively at spotting things I would miss otherwise.
>>4505239Yeah, I know what your saying, just having a second opinion and listening to what the viewer notices can actually help a lot.Anyway, I'm still dipping my toes in black and white, I have shot this with an old Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54, it shoots 6x4.5 frames, has a focal length I belief to be 105mm and only one shutter of 1/30.I kinda like that despite it's limitations can still produce fun images though it will never be absolutely sharp like more modern cameras and I have not managed to really get the most out of yet, it's a learning process and being a 645 camera it's a bit more forgiving on the 120 roll. Despite all that I'm having fun.
>>4505238> I'm not even sure if Patty spools could fit 2x 120 lengthit can, I’ve done it before, but on those there’s nothing at all keeping the two rolls separated, so I kind of lucked out that onceI’ve done it on the Jobo rolls too before, possibly just rushed it this timewelp, only wasted half a roll of portra 800, two family photos, and an early morning pic of a krispy kreme I was looking forward to how it turned out
>>4505236Flat lighting = flat picture. Wood can be tricky to get looking nice. Sometimes color filters can help. Creating a greater tonal seperation between background and subject, and using a larger light source that wraps around the handle more would create better definition. Exposing for the handle to be 1 stop above middle gray may also work in your favor.Sometimes stray light entering the eyepiece of your camera can throw off the ttl meter and cause underexposed images. If you're working in sunlight off a tripod instead of taking pictures while looking through the eye piece it could totally happen.
Who would you go to to have a developed piece of film printed for you? All the services online talk more about development with prints tacked on rather than accepting developed film and printing it for you
>>4505246Blue Moon does optical printing, in color too.
>can never get the meter right in the centerHow bad are my photos going to look if they're slightly over and slightly under?
>>4505307It only really sort of matters with slide film. Most b&w/c41 films have about a stop of exposure tolerance where you get a fine looking image. Contrast may not be exactly what you want, but not so far off you can't fix it with a higher grade paper.
>>4505311Thanks. It's been bugging me since I've just started and the only perfect exposure I've got is by also adjusting aperture, which then just ruins my intent. The jump from 1/125 to 1/250 is massive on the meter.
>>4505315If you need to adjust your exposure by a third or two using the aperture it shouldn't make too much of a difference to your DoF. You can usually go with a little more or a little less depending on what you want. The main concern is not getting enough shadow detail if you underexpose with b&w or c41, so it's usually better to err on the side of over exposure unless you have an extremely high contrast scene. Standard C41 and b&w films have like 15-20 stops of DR.
>>4505316Neat. I did some photos last night at sunset and I slightly overexposed more than underexposed, plus the film I'm using is expired by just over 2 years that I found in the back of my closet so I think overexposing is better for that right?
>>4505244At last it was only 6 frames or so
looking for a telephoto lens to add to my collectionI use a pentax spotmatic and currently have a 50mm f/1.4 super takumar and a Auto Berolina 28mm f/2.4135mm auto takumars are plentiful and really cheap but ive heard people say that 85mm is much more versatile (and much more expensive on m42 mounts)Im also considering getting rid of the Auto Berolina. I cant find anything online regarding this lens and it strikes me as kinda cheap.
Goddam GAS gets bad when you're looking at vintage character lenses. A pictorialist era lens just sounds amazingly cool to use. Imagine the beautifully mushy pictures you could take with such a lens!>>4505317Should be okay unless your meter weighted the scene incorrectly. You can point the camera at the ground/shadows and then set exposure two stops higher to insure that you have correctly exposed shadows. A spot meter is kind of expensive, but it is an invaluable tool if you're really trying to nail your exposures.
>>4505356>ground/shadows and then set exposure two stops higher to insure that you have correctly Damn, that's a good idea. Hadn't thought of it. Should I use spot or center when doing that?>A spot meter is kind of expensive, but it is an invaluable tool if you're really trying to nail your exposures.It's an early 90s camera, so it has matrix, center and spot which is pretty nice, but my trust in old meters is another question. I roughly know what to expect from certain apertures and shutter speeds based on using digital cameras for a while now but the contrast is where being imprecise will mean it won't look how I'd hoped and I can't adjust my mistakes in post (I mean I could, but my goal is to be perfect in camera).I've been looking at phone apps but I'm not sure how good they are either. The one I got recently is LightMe and it seems like it wants me to overexpose just a little, though maybe this is also because it bases the measurements off what film you're using (in my case usually Ultramax 400 or Fuji 400).
>>4505358You should use the spot meter for spot metering. Center is probably center weighted, so the meter looks at the whole scene, but adds weight to the center of the frame. Most cameras with a matrix metering mode are basically good enough for c41 and black and white. What camera are you using?You need to check the calibration of phone meter apps. A gray card can work for that. If it's close enough it will work fine and phone lightmeters often work better in very low light situations.You can also use your digital camera to check that your light meter is giving you good readings with a gray card.>editingYou should always edit your scans imo. It is an innate part of making any type of print, so why avoid it when scanning? If you wanted to keep it "pure" only changing contrast and exposure is sort of a good mid ground, but there are techniques you can use to essentially edit levels of a print as well, and that isn't even considering dodging and burning.
>>4505361>Center is probably center weighted, so the meter looks at the whole scene, but adds weight to the center of the frameNever knew that, I always figured it just went off what is in the center, sort of like a much larger version of spot metering.>What camera are you using?Nikon N6006, it's got some pretty decent modern features on it.>You can also use your digital camera to check that your light meter is giving you good readings with a gray card.Results vs the digital have been a little mixed, generally the mirrorless I'm using chooses to be just a little faster in most situations but not by much. Something that's 1/250 on the mirrorless looks about perfect and meters as being perfect while that same setting on the film camera says that would be a bit too dark and I should use 1/125 instead.>You should always edit your scans imo.I'm just starting out with film, so I don't really have any of the gear to scan or develop. I previously used a little compact film camera just for fun and had those rolls sent off and scanned by a lab, but they're always JPGs. TIFF is also available but I've played with TIFF before and the filesizes are massive. Would editing the JPGs still be fine? The most I'd ever be doing is adjusting some contrast and exposure by very small amounts.
>>4505361>You need to check the calibration of phone meter apps. A gray card can work for that. So I just tried a gray card under artificial light with spot metering on all 3 devices and the results were extremely varied.>App readingf/4 at 1/500>Mirrorless readingf/4 at 1/200>Film readingf/4 at 1/125What a pain in the ass. I'm trying to decide now if I just slightly underexpose on film all the time or just go by what the meter says and hope it looks okay. At least I've yet again learned that apps are pretty shit for this kind of thing.
>>4505368>App readinggarbage, don't trust reditors to use the fucking app, it's retarded anyway to take out you r phone every-time you want to take a picture>Mirrorless readingmost correct one, probably matrix metering>Film readingthe difference is probably because of different metering styles. Lot's of film cameras has weighted 80/20 lightmeter. This one is also correct. 1/125 and 1/200 is like a 2/3 of a stop or less, slight overexposure is very good for film
>>4504278It's a manufacturing defect, they say it can be removed if you wash the film in 40% ethanol or something
>>4505373Like, after its already developed? Is this a prank to get me to melt my negatives? Foma never replied to my email about this
Kit for a week in Mexico City. 5x Kodak XX and 1x Gold 200
>>4505386Bulk rolling and p&s is such a weird combo. Its like yeah I like convenience but ill also spend time rolling my own film. No hate though, looking forwards to seeing those vacation shots anon
>>4505397I don't like spending my time doing it, I just don't want to spend 2x the price for individual rolls. That said, it only takes ~30 minutes to bulk roll 18 rolls of film so not much of a time commitment.
>>4505406Do you use a loader?
>>4505412Yep, they're only $20 off eBay.
>>4505414Do you load in daylight? Doesn't it waste the last 1-2 frames on the roll? I think I have the same model, got it from an old dude at work, complete with box and receipt from like 40 years ago. But I haven't checked it for being light proof yet, I kind of don't trust to just put $150 bulk roll in it just to ruin it.
>>4505418Ya I load in daylight. I load my rolls to have 36exp before the last frame or so. Still get 18 36exp rolls + a bonus 20 something exposure roll at the end. They're pretty simple things and don't even have foam light seals that deteriorate. Unlikely yours isn't light proof unless it has a crack or something obvious.
how do you pack film for airports? just load them in a clear bag labelled do not x-ray and tell the mfers at security to manually check them?
>>4505371>most correct one, probably matrix meteringI used spot on all 3 to make them all properly comparable. The app was so far out that I won't even bother using any metering app again.>Lot's of film cameras has weighted 80/20 lightmeter. This one is also correct. 1/125 and 1/200 is like a 2/3 of a stop or less, slight overexposure is very good for filmBased, thanks for letting me know. I'll just go off the film cameras meter since it seems to be within the accuracy range it should be then. I might just stick with center and spot for it rather than matrix, as the wiki page for the camera says matrix was brand new tech at the time so it might not be that good on it.
>>4505427Yeah, you just ask them to and most of the time they'll agree, unless they're one of those hard-ass divas.Tbh I've traveled a lot and most of the time I don't even bother to ask for a manual check. They've gone through the machine and I've had no issues.
>>4505470This. An additional note, the scanners for checked in are extremely strong and will destroy film, so only take them as carry on. Something else for the carry on scan is that the ISO will also contribute, so something that is 800+ ISO might get moderately damaged after a few scans and 3200 probably wouldn't survive one scan. A few review sites and bloggers have tested it out and usually the carry on scans were perfectly fine with lower ISO film (100-400) but they all started to show fogging after something like 8 scans.
Lab scans came out disappointing. Oh well, there's at least 2-3 nice pictures and 2 pictures missing. Don't know how that happened since one of the missing pictures isn't even on the ends of the roll.
>>4505427Don't bother packing it with specially marked bags. Just ask security to hand check, it varies a lot by airport if they will do it:https://www.handcheckfilm.com/airportsMost of the time they will tell you 800+ can be hand checked but not anything lower. But if they have CT scanners they *should* hand check any film. CT scanners are rounder since it's a rotating 360 degree scan, not a single plane like on an x-ray, if you can't see signs which tell you.I haven't had noticeable issues with film under 400 iso but if you're pedantic technically it gets damaged. I think if you insisted they'd probably hand check it, but I've never tried because arguing with Croatian airport security at 6am isn't my idea of fun, especially knowing 200 ISO film is barely impacted. >>4505474This video is the most comprehensive I found on the topic:https://youtu.be/oRlReCTzDV8?si=-TftDgXBOVvZyR07>>4505477Talk with your lab, when you get the negatives back (you did pick an option to keep them right anon?) you will see if there are any blank frames etc. When my lab missed a frame I just brought the negatives back and asked them to scan it again, it was no problem.The majority of "lab issues" people come across are user error imo, I see it all the time on Facebook groups. What was disappointing about the lab scans that made it only 2-3 nice pictures? sometimes scanners play fucky with certain stocks of film (picrel).
>>4505478Yeah I did pay the extra 2 euros to get my negatives back.I think I'll drop by tomorrow to pick them up and then I'll check if the pic I'm missing is actually on there and ask what they're plan is.
Tree shot with a Rollei 35B on some fujifilm 400 iso film.Not really a fan of the grain in colour film, maybe I'll go wit 200 iso next time.
>>4505427Yeah if you're in America anyway every airport I've been to you just ask for a hand check and they take it and swab it. Though I've accidentally gone through carry-on security with film and not had it hand checked, this included slide film and color neg from 100-800 iso, I'm pretty sure I've developed all of that film and none of it had any noticeable issue afaik. so take from that what you will.
>>4505648Film is usually fine with one or two scans, so if you do just a normal return trip of 2 flights then you won't see anything. But that's also assuming your film is 400ISO or less.
>>4505187>>4505238
>>4505685another shot from the same rollthis one I'll need to rinse & re-scan to share with the pipe buddies, but that won't fix it having just a bit more motion blur than I had hopedalso starting to think I just don't like portra 800?it always comes out just a little green for me, but maybe I should just try a fresher roll some time
>>4505686ektar this time, with my new 65mm (also got a 50mm >>4505047 but it was after I took this)is it just me or am I seeing some slight distortion with this and the 80mm >>4505685 ?I mean it's not surprising for wide lenses, just a bit disappointing for a system otherwise of this quality, and limits their use for architectural purposes
>>4505687this one I just fucked up the focal plane & exposureprobably because I was in a rush, it was late and I was attracting a cloud of gnatsshould have added some tilt but iirc only used swinggave up waiting for the illegally-parked lexus in the background to move
Buildin an instant camera, found a wine crate that was the perfect size.
i know that chemicals leave residue, especially when dried, but i never had crystals growing during use. And this is from just 4 small papers!It is past its working-solution expiration day but it still works somehow. But what exactly is going on with it now?And since i am getting a new developer anyways do you have any recommendations if i want to burn through a bunch of older and warmer paper? I was thinking SPUR Cool Black or SPUR UFP for some reason. Does anyone here have any experience with this company?
I found a Nikon FM on fb marketplace really close to me for a really reasonable price. $125 and comes 3 lenses I already own and use a Pentax Spotmatic so idk if it's worth getting another full manual, full mechanical camera. I would *like* to have a camera that uses F mount because Ive heard glass for that mount is fantastic Idk though. Maybe it would be more worth it to continue using the Spotmatic and learn as much as I can using that before buying other cameras
>>45057982 bodies means you can shoot twices as much tho. and you can have two different film stocks going at once
Film was really expired
>>4505790>instant camera>wine crateNigga what. Don't get me wrong I'm intensely waiting for an update, but holy shit are you using sheet film for a project point and shoot?
>>4505807could be an afghan style camera
>>4505805looks really dreamy.. woah :0
>>4505807Aiming to do something like fotografo lambe-lambe or camera minutera. Basically a box camera with a built-in darkroom too shoot and "instantly" develop a picture. So far though my box is nothing but a camera obscura with an adjustable viewing plate and a 150mm projector lens which I may upgrade to a large format lens with a shutter and aperture selection.But first I need to get this thing light tight, probably going to glue some newspaper on the seams and paint it all black.
>>4505790It's going to be a nightmare getting in focus images with so much slop in the film plane carrier assembly. A simple solution could be brass tubing glued/pressed into the wooden blocks that has a close ID tolerance to the steel rods. Having your lens and film plane as close to parallel as possible is very very important for image quality, especially with larger aperture lenses.I would also recommend using something that is more precisely flat and a bit more rigid for your film plane.The wine crate is pretty smart tho. It should be pretty easy to add felt or something to get it all light tight.Excited to see what you come up with.
>>4505818I'd start with felt on the larger sections then go with glue and flocking on the more annoying parts. In fact I'd see if I couldnt get away with just the flocking because it means you to just throw a bunch of shit at the wood and problem solved.
Does anyone know a source where to get cheap replacement lens caps?
I'm a newfag to this whole film photography thing. I just got a couple of rolls back from the lab. I have a few images with overexposure on the edges. Not all of them. Probably about 10 of the 72 pictures I took. Anyone know how to diagnose the issue? I think it's shutter stutter but I'm not sure. I guess it's time for a CLA since this camera is 40+ years old.
>>4505835
>>4505836Looking at them now, it was actually more like 4 images had this issue. This one is towards the middle of the frame.
>>4505837Those are light leaks. Hopefully, it's just degraded light seals. I'd take it to a camera store to check.
>>4505838No doubt, the seals are pretty shot but it wasn't happening on every image so I figured it was the shutter not closing quick enough or something.
>>4505839If there are frames where it doesn't appear, then at least it doesn't look like a hole in the shutter. That would be catastrophic, either really expensive to fix or the death of the camera.
>>4505835>>4505836>>4505837>>4505839some of this could be due to shutter hang or a bad seal, but it might also be the lab fucking up the scan. I had a few rolls that came back with frames like picrel, turned out they had to replace a bulb in whatever scanner they use.
>>4505840I'd probably use the money and just buy a different camera. I'm using an old Minolta XG-M. It's hard enough to find someone near me who works on them, let alone for less than an arm and a leg. I was kind of looking at getting a Minolta a7/maxxum 7 but I kind of like these old manuals. Really I'd like to just buy more lenses for this camera.>>4505844Would be funny. I'll have to wait for my negatives to come back to see. That'll probably answer most of my questions, really. You may be on to something, since only a handful of pictures have the "leak" issue and I shot most of the rolls in direct sun from all angles. I also considered that maybe it was when I was switching lenses but I dunno.
>>4505839What film and camera?
>>4505847Minolta XG-M, Tri-X.
>>4505825There's a brand called Inca and they're alright, they're really cheap. Amazon sells them.
I took this photo while very briefly owning an x100vi (its sold now) I used the built in ND filter, this day was my first time using an ND, I love how the people blur past in the background I have an Olympus OM2N which takes beautifully sharp pictures and am thinking about recreating some similar style images on b&w film using an ND filter Does anyone have any tips or guidance on metering or do's and don'ts for using an ND in the daytime on film? With the fuji i could dial in my look until I got it right but obviously with film you don't have that luxury
>>4505894The om2n meters ttl so as long as you have the ND filter on the lens you'll be metering accurately. I've never used an ND but they basically just block X stops of light right? So it depends on your film speed but if you want to shoot at low DoF in broad daylight some 50-100 iso film and like a 4 stop ND will probably let you reliably shoot at like 5.6 or 4 in the sun at a shutter speed where you might get a bit of motion blur.
I got my photos back from the lab and a few have random orange streaks through them. Is that light leak or a fuck up when developing? It's randomly one a few photos throughout the roll with the majority looking perfectly fine, so I'm confused how a light leak could just happen at random on a closed camera. I also used a point-n-shoot so there weren't any lens swaps or anything like that going on either.
>>4505908that looks great
Is there anything wrong with using auto mode on a SLR that supports it? Assuming I'm not intending to use a certain aperture for a DOF effect at the time and just want the photo metered correctly.
>>4505924Not at all, but why would you use it over aperture priority? Intent is almost always a good thing when photographing.
>>4505925There are just some times where I'm too annoyed to stand around trying to get the meter just right, it seems to be really touchy on my camera. I'd also be handing it off to other people at times and they have no idea how a camera works beyond the shutter button.
>>4505927Fair enough, but still git gud.
>>4505929I use manual on my digital cameras all the time, it's just the metering on this SLR seems extremely sensitive in comparison.
>>4505821I did just that, had some brass tubing, cut a slit in it lengthwise, pressed it in the wood. Initially it had such a narrow tolerance that it wouldn't move at all because the box and slider rods are probably crooked. I drilled out the hole by half a millimeter and now it slides with just a little bit of resistance but smooth enough to be operated properly.Also, I do want to make a couple of aperture plates that can be slid in to give it some extra sharpness. At least until I get my hands on a lens with built-in shutter and aperture selection.Next up I will make a better paper holder, after a visit to the hardware store.>>4505823>flockingAh, never knew it was called that. Why felt though? Could I not just use a matte paint?
Saved this from a light leak. It’s not great but looks cool.
>>4505815Thanks :)
Thinking about getting another camera body. I've put about 10 rolls through my Spotmatic and it's helped me learn a lot about how SLRs operate, what each dial does and what it means for the image when you adjust them but I think I'm in the market for a camera that helps me out a bit more. Having to check my light meter while I'm lining up a shot because a cloud moved has made the process almost tedious. I'd like to find a camera that is still mostly manual but helps me a bit more. Maybe something aperture priority that will adjust my shutter speed on the fly after I've focused and decided on a f stopWhat sort of cameras should I be looking for?I'd prefer something that I would still be able to easily use my m42 lenses with
>>4505987Get an ESII. They're usually pretty cheap, and their meters are usually still in great condition. Use an MR-9 battery adapter, and your exposures will be spot on.
>>4506008That's really cool for an m42 mount cameraI've heard k mount also adapts really well to M42. You can still focus to infinity. I know that's not the case if you adapt to something like F mountSo I'd be willing to grab a k mount camera too
Do people that use sunny 16 just accept a certain loss factor due to missed exposures? Or do you get so good after a while that you basically dont miss?
Finally started scanning my own negs... holy shit this is a game changer from lab scans
>>4506016For K mount the go-to Av bodies are the ME and ME Super. The former is Av-only, the latter adds a manual mode. There's also the Program bodies which are built similarly but add P mode with the right lenses (A series and up).Other Pentax options (outside of the much more expensive LX) get pretty plasticky but might be worth trying if you find them for pocket change.
>>4506035there are films like Tri-X and HP5 that work well with packet exposure
Progress is a little slow, blackened most of the inside, made a more solid view plane, made a little door to close the back.Will probably add a little red window too.Still looking for tins that are small enough for the box ad big enough to hold the 9x12 paper. Next up will probably be the sleeve, which will be added to the removable panel on the side.Did some checking with the lens and the image looks nicely covered, very shallow dof but an aperture plate can fix that.Will be ordering some photo paper soon.
>Most pictures with the 35 mm lens overexposed by one stop due to the aperture >High contrast scenes underexposed because muh sunny 16 instead of trusting the matrix >Either the lab or I misplaced one of the rolls, so I only have the positives for 2 out 3It's an unforgiving endeavor, borderline masochism, to shoot slidefilms sometimes.
>>4506157I mean you went out in harsh light and tried to wing it without a light meter and then lost an entire roll. Not really slide films fault and whats up with blaming the aperture of your lens? Be the fucking master of your fate anon, take back control of your life
>>4506183Instead of thinking "full sunlight, should be 1/200 f/8" and AE-locking onto that I should've:>Skies? +3 that shitOne roll got physically lost after scanning, but I can say for sure where, or if the lab is to blame.>Always check the order before leaving the store.I thought the sticky aperture on the 35 was fixed, but a quick test now on the DSLR shows about one stop difference. >Always test new equipment.>>take back control of your lifeOnly I am to blame for this.
Did seven small prints in the darkroom this evening. This was my fourth session and Im getting better and more organized each time. No absolute bangers today but a very enjoyable evening. Most prints were family and friends which I wont post here though
>>4506035what would be the greatest risk factor? if it's too dark for the exposure?
>>4506296The risks are under and overexposure yes. And missing the shot while doing reciprocal math in the head I guess
>>4506035I don't. I'd been using DSLR for a long time and more recently mirrorless and I can roughly estimate what shutter speed and aperture I need to get the exposure right. I don't get it 100% perfect every time obviously but I can at least tell when the sunny 16 won't give me the look I want in spite of what the meter says or what the rule says.
>>4504948How was the 50D developed cause holy shit that’s terrible. Did you do ECN2? I’m guessing this is some C41 mutilated film.
>>4506212Looks great
Which would look better?>film that was used before it expired and is then developedOr>film that is used after expiring and then gets developed
>>4506335I got it done at the lab in Beijing, and I'm satisfied with the other rolls I got done there (for 1/4th of the price at home). I thought the point with Cinestill is that they enhance the film for development in C41. The 800T I did there turned out great, save for some static orbs. Could I have something to do with being one year expired? Either way, the shot was undercooked as you can see here with RVP50: >>4506185
>>4504208You know, I've been seeing this image for 15 years since I got into photography and this is the first time I notice the ballerina poster in the background.
>>4506335Isn't ECN2 just c41 with a bath to get rid of the AHU backing (which now new vision film won't even have)?
Bday present to myself. 2 highly collectible and rare pictorialist lenses and a super fast petzval made between 1910-1935.Im getting custom flanges for these so I can mount them on sinar boards from a local machine shop, so pics will not be shared until those are completed unless I get lucky with the random crap I have laying around.
This instruction sheet came with the perscheid. Pretty cool. It talks about suggested apertures for women/kids vs. Men, and it says you should focus on the tip of the nose when photographing a woman's portrait, and on the eyebrows for men. Kinda neat.
First roll I shot with a Pentax MX and everything went well aside from a single shutter misfire. Should I worry?
really in love with my voigtlander 58mm f1.4
>>4506518
>>4506519
Picked this f2 up the other day and my god I love this camera. I've shot with a couple other f mounts and a k1000 but this thing just feels like a machine.>>4506462These old lenses are so beautiful, share some pics when you're able to take them out! >>4506518love the rendering of this lens I just don't use that focal length enough to justify it's purchase.
>>4506515The camera's old. My Spotmatic does it. Once in a roll isn't a terrible thing to worry about. You can get it cleaned but that will probably cost as much as the camera to do
Turns out Eric over at pentax.com doesn't work on MEs or ME supers anymore. Anyone know someone who specializes in Pentax who is willing and able to CLA an ME Super?Inb4 just buy another cameraI'd rather have 1 camera cleaned and lubed than 2 cameras that don't work properly
>>4506603Just git gud and DIY, pleb.There won't be anyone to do it for you once we plunge into totaler krieg.
>>4506556I got this
>>4506607I'd don't have a machine to calibrate the light meter
E100, Tiffen 812 and CPL. Metered for the sky and water to silhouette the foreground. However, I feel it was still underexposed and that I had more latitude to expose the sky more.I also notice more grain than I would like in my shots on Ektachrome. I was trying to err on the side of underexposure, should I stop doing this with this film? It looks like underexposed areas develop more of a grainy appearance.
>>4506556Yes. The black finish is technically a cheaper finish than the polished brass, but I love how glossy and soft they feel/look. I got the hermagis on my deardorff lens board. Might have a pic to share today or in a couple days. The image through the ground glass is crazy. Wide open it is super dreamy looking.
>small and light quick draw>super quiet shutter>perfect for street photography>also have the rangefinder in my pocket>able to do carefully set up shots wide open too
>>4506617>also do portrait style too
Mfw when the few date back cameras i own don't allow the user to set a time after 2020 or so. Why did they hate us? Why not allow the screen to display all numerals like it should?
>>4506632No way anyone will use a film camera in the 2020s, they'll have flying cars and shit.
Lucky 400 film. Would actually be decent if it wasn't so scratchy all the time.
>>4506635Uniquely harsh looking image. I guess for a cheap film it isn't so bad aside from the racism inducing damage to the film.
>>4506610with negative film more light builds density in the image so when you overexpose dark areas you end up with more noise than if you correctly exposed them. with slide film its the opposite - you're making areas more transparent the more light you give them, so a bright but underexposed area ends up somewhat grainy. at least, that's my take having shot about 6 rolls of E100. some of it also might be scanner noise, as imo slide film tends to have a super smooth look compared to equivalent iso/quality c41 films>>4506635at least it turned out kinda cool in this one
>>4506661I think it's very likely scanner noise as the scanner is trying to see into regions too dense for it. I could try different labs but I'm considering just shooting at 80 because although I would like to project my slides I also want good scans and hopefully shooting at 80 doesn't totally mess them up for projection. I'll have to experiment.
>>4506185looks like a iphone 8 shot with a bad filter : /
quick look at the film and i love it when greenery just comes out white. i'm not even trying to get the wood effect going or anything but this film just renders stuff this way by default and i love it.i just cant wait to print it
>>4506556Here's a quick photo paper 8x10 phone scan of the Hermagis lens. Exposure was 1/10 at f5, and I had to use a lens cap as shutter, so I overexposed and pulled from the developer once everything started baking in, which caused uneven development, but for a quick and dirty test shot the lens looks extremely promising. Just look at that lovely falloff on the little wagon planter and glass jar. Wow
>>4506734Cool pic, I like the rustic look of it.These lenses must've cost a small fortune, no? I've been looking for large format lenses for a project of my own and it surprises me how much money is being asked for antique brass lenses. Why is that? Did they do something better? Is it just the imperfections in the image they create what makes them so desirable? Or were they of a impeccable high quality?
Old car I saw in a street. Shot with Rollei 35B, and fujifilm 400. For a quick "in the moment" shot I'm happy I didn't fumble it completely.
>>4506739Yes. They were very expensive. The three lenses I got have 99% mint optics, which is rare for 100 year old lenses. The hermagis and perscheid are both highly collectible, rare and desirable portrait lenses for the images they produce. The physical size of them + rarity + cult status + quality all add up to expensive lenses. The interesting part of soft focus/pictorialist lenses is that each company designed their own optical formula for creating softness through spherical and/or chromatic aberration. They all have unique character, and some of that character is more desirable today. Pinkham and smith soft portrait lenses that cover 8x10 demand prices upwards of 5k dollars because of the images they produce.If you want to get into vintage barrel lenses my advice is to start off with anastigmats that cover 4x5. They can be had for under 200 dollars most of the time and brand doesn't really matter too much. They are well corrected lenses that produce overall sharp images, but are also usually much slower than portrait lenses. Some of the more modern LF lenses can be had for cheaper than brass lenses and you get a shutter with them. 4x5 coverage super angulons, and a lot of the fujinon glass is pretty inexpensive.
>>4506748Thanks for the tips. I'm doing a bit of an artsy project, building a camera myself and want to shoot on 9x12 photo paper and am just looking for a lens that can do the job good enough. Having a shutter would be nice and I really don't demand too much from the lens itself as long it covers the paper well enough with decent speed.Have seen plenty of lenses available, just need to take the gamble. I'm thinking I'd be doing okay with a lens between 135 and 150mm.Also, I've heard of the Fujinon lenses but where do you get those? I've been looking through sites dealing in vintage and antique photographic gear and seen so many lenses that have been produced throughout the years but the fujinon lenses I never see available. I'm in western Europe by the way, not sure if that matters.
>>4506749Ebay has them. I see shorter FL fujinons under 300 all the time.Consider a process lens like a ronar if youre talking about 9x12 inches. Shorter focal lengths are quite inexpensive for the amount of coverage they have, but they usually don't have shutters attached. They're slow, but very sharp with little distortion and a very flat focal plane.If you really don't want anything in particular from the lens aside from specific focal length and coverage any brand will be good enough, really. F5.6 is fairly standard, and fast enough for larger formats. Just verify the lens has the amount of coverage you need and the glass is in good quality.Photo paper has about 70%-80% of the resolution that film has, so you really don't need anything special.
>>4506758Ah no I was talking about 9x12 cm. Basically the smallest photo paper available, also, I hadn't used ebay in years, I'll check it out but it's down right now. Is there anyway to know what the coverage of a lens is without checking? For the lenses I'm considering I just look at what their intended use was and if the focal length is a little bigger than 100mm but I'm not sure if this is entirely the right approach.Maybe I'll get a "cheap" lens first, I have seen some lenses with shutters for large format cameras, not terribly quick ones but I reckon just for experimenting it can be good, especially if it's below 100 euros. And if all goes well I can always upgrade to a more pristine and faster lens.Thanks for chipping in with your knowledge, it helps.
>>4506762You just need to look it up. All the datasheets are very easily accessible online. It's hard to tell based on appearance alone.
>TFW first 15 pictures on my new 400 roll were shot with my light meter set at 50 ISO because I didn't change it after I got done with an expired roll I was playing around with
Cool if I take a dump in here?>>4506781Yikes. Sometimes that's not such a big deal but 3 stops under...
>>4506784
>>4506785
>>4506786
>>4506787
>>4506788cameras were Canon AF35ML and Ricoh 35 ZF
>>4506791horrid scans desu. not that the photos were very good but these look so much worse because of the scans. if ur lab is shit consider a light table and a cheap full frame camera and macro lens. u wont believe the difference.
>>4506793What makes them so bad?
>>4506784>>4506786Cute dog/cat
>>4505688dumping some recent 35 as well
>>4506809
>>4506810
>>4506811
>>4506812
>>4506813
>>4506814not sure what that is at the bottom of the frame, pretty sure it was a flare not a leak
>>4506815
>>4506816
>>4506817
>>4506818
>>4506819
>>4506820look ma i took the same pic again
>>4506821… and basically the same one againanyways done for now
>>4506821>>4506822Stunning. Did you use spot metering for these? I'm curious where you had the spot to get these exposures.
>>4506826both used the AE-1's built-in meter, aperture on autoI basically yolo'd the entire roll, trying to break my urge to note down settings for every shot, and leave that for MF work (and the GX680iii takes care of most of that)the second one I took two of, one without and one with the AE-1's backlight comp button, iirc it basically just adds 2 stops?the one I posted was with comp
>>4506827I see. Looked up your camera and it's just center weighted, so in that case I guess it just metered for the seats mostly. The one I'm using is a 90s SLR with spot, center and matrix so I was curious how I could do a similar look in a contrasty scene.
Ugh, I keep making dumbass mistakes.Guess it all boils down to practice and repetition.
>>4506835So I just made this mistake with the fixer, I spooled it up again, dipped it in fixer until it disappeared but there still seems to be a darker band left, unfortunately.Oh well, trial and error I guess. Time to scan and see if I can get anything acceptable out of it.
>>4506845And my killer self-portrait. Set up was difficult enough, planning out a composition on a box camera that has only a viewfinder is challenging, had a little selftimer attached to the cable release to make the magic happen. The wind was pretty crazy too so I had to keep an eye on my painting easel too. It's really not that great of a photo but I guess I like it because of the memories that are attached to it.Still though, I want to do a better job at this stuff.
>>4506872kino
>>4506882will probably retake and frame it better some time in the future
>>4506888Maybe a touch wider so the ground is in the frame more. Tilt shift would be icing on the cake to fix the perspective distortion.
>>4506889i'll do both next time. that was me just messing around with a simple point and shoot. It messed up focusing a bunch too
>>4506871i don't know how i messed up that scan so bad. the original doesn't look that bad
>>4506860nice
How fucked are my photos?I was taking photos earlier on a hike and the film in the camera twisted free of the sprocket wheel. I took note of which frame I was on, rewound the film until I felt the lead slip off the take up spool, reloaded the film and placed a lens cap on my lens. I then fired the shutter and kept winding until I hit the frame I was on then advanced one further. I'm quite certain that a single frame was triple exposed at the very least but I'm afraid everything before that is trash nowAny thoughts?
New plz I have pics to share.>>4506914If you didn't expose them to light, you felt the film spooling until the jam you should be fine aside from whatever parts of the film got jammed up.
>>4506917the only extra exposure i can think of is the fact I used ONLY a lens cap. it was late in the evening when I reloaded it and I was sitting across the room from a lamp so idk how much light mightve made it throughframe 10 is going to be wild when it develops though.
>>4506919Those are always fun. You probably would have felt that the film was oddly short when respooling if it didnt actually take any pics. If you want to be triply sure you don't expose over any images you can set your shutter and aperture to their slowest/fastest settings also.
>>4506919>the only extra exposure i can think of is the fact I used ONLY a lens capYou're most likely fine then.
What's some better ways to do camera scans of 4x5? Currently using a piece of etched acrylic and regular glass, but it's a bit of a pain to level it and shift it around. I also don't think it's holding very flat as is. I've been considering some 3D printable options, but would it be possible to hold the negative flat without glass?Either by printed clamping holder, or maybe an enlarger holder. That should avoid newton rings and be easier to keep clean, right?
>>4506933Beseler makes a film holder that grips the negative by the rebate and gently pulls it flat. Theyre like 150-300 dollars. Apparently anti-newton glass is often a scam and you need to source it properly to get the real stuff. I'd just print a frame that holds the rebate down like a standard non-glass film holder. It should be flat enough with a little pressure.
>>4506981I think the scam is that there isn't such a thing as anr glass. At best it might be a slightly refined acid etched glass.
>>4506933just use non-reflective (museum) glass
>>4506933or print glassless frame holder
>>4507099https://www.printables.com/model/1434022-4x5-film-holder-for-dslr-scanning
>>4505805Is this helios 44?
Wer da new tred at?
>>4507188Make it
Posting my film photos in rpt gives me the ick. Baker PLZ!
>>4507188this is the last one. it's time.
>>4507326If no one else makes a new fgt I will make it and use a picture of my dog for the thread image.
>photography is all about the decisive moment>thread full of anons who can't pull the trigger on making an ephemeral thread on a website no one looks atmake it make sense. I'm gonna make it. and It'll be a picture of me.
>>4507330>go to make thread>you have mistyped captcha>captcha prompt doesn't show up when I try to make new thread>posting here again>already verified no captcha neededREEEEEEEEEEEEE MAKE IT MAKE SENSE
>>4507330But bressneed staged all his photos.
>>4507330>ephemeralThe bottom threads on /p/ were last bumped over a month ago, at least wait until we're on page 5 or something before whining.
>>4507337It's at image limit, chud. I WILL complain until I can post more of my snapshits.
>>4507347Since none of you fuckers would do it.
>>4507348What took you so long?
>>4507349Oh, I've never baked /fgt/ before. I just happened to check in on this thread for the first time in a few days and saw everyone complaining about no new thread but not actually just doing it themselves.
>>4507351I already shared all my recent film photos in rpt and I'm dling portraits, so I couldn't have done it. Only complain.
>>4507351I would have but I encountered the issue described here >>4507331 still don't know how to get the captcha to appear to make a new thread because I'm a brainlet I guess (probably some adblock setting)
