Someone Step Up and Make a New Thread Already 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: If you were going to try one antiquated/non-traditional printing process (gum bichromate, collodion, oil print), which would it be and why?Previous thread: >>4504208
oh good now I can post all my half-baked snapshits
>>4507355
>>4507356
>>4507357
>>4507358I should do some b&w some time
I should have used my other camera because the om2 was clearly not designed with that activity in mind
Are Nikkor lenses actually worth buying Nikon cameras?Shooting with Pentax is just so much cheaper. The bodies are cheaper, the lenses are cheaper, accessories are cheaperWhy touch any other brand if you aren't made of money?
>>4507347>Someone Step Up and Make a New Thread Already EditionSorry, I'm the recent regular baker but I had an irl irregularity (crunch at work) and was basically offline for the last 10+ days. Thank you for your service. >>4507364Not sure what you're really trying to say or ask here. But Nikon is an optical company first. Not "camera lens" company, but an optical company - binoculars, rifle scopes, microscopes, other precision instruments, and IC lithography steppers which are the God tier of optical instruments. So what I'm saying is that Nikon knows lenses, they're not an afterthought for them. For about 1.5-2x the price of equivalent 3rd party lens for the mount your get superior optical quality, lens coating, build quality, lowest sample variation, and so on. And until a decade ago about 99% backwards compatibility going 50+ years back to Nikon F.Make your own decision about what matters to you, but if you're asking about value for money then yes, it's absolutely there and absolutely worth the premium.
>>4507364nikkor lenses are pretty good but.. u can get sharp shots out of post-80s AF first party zooms so... i think it only matters if ur exclusively shooting very old tech
Still working on my darkroom camera but a bit slow since I also have been organising an exhibition that is happening right now. Did some more darkening of internal parts and sealed some edges of moving parts, the image projected is looking more and more crisp. Also made the hole where the arm sleeve goes and I found some fabric that is light tight in my junk, I just need to sew it into a sleeve and attach it to the lid of the box.
Split prisms suck ass for lenses slower than f/2,8.
>>4507388Ok
>>4507388If you have the wrong one installed, yes. There are different split prisms for different lens speeds. Only taking a Stylus Epic to Mexico City was a 10/10 idea.
>>4507388You always focus wide open, the aperture only closes down when you shoot. Have you never used a camera? Did your dof preview get stuck?
>>4507388>>4507401skill issue
>>4507401Sick creepshots bro, you should go to the beach too
>>4507403Ah disregard my idiot post, I misread
>>4507365>Sorry, I'm the recent regular baker but I had an irl irregularity (crunch at work) and was basically offline for the last 10+ days. Thank you for your service.All good, m8. Shit happens. Can't fault you for prioritizing real life over the Tibetan Collodion Wet-Plate forum.>>4507371Good stuff, anon.. Looks like a fun little project. Making me want to give one a go after I finally get around to learning how to into darkroom at home.
>>4507404I mean, kinda but that's also why there are prisms.made for slower lenses. Every camera with an interchangable prism will discuss this in the manual. >>4507405Uhh, I know the people in those photos dumbass. Nice projection
redid these two
>>4507426sorry for the scanner being so dusty
>>4507401Our Olympuses are starting to get old :(>>4507416It's not an issue with primes, I just want to do some macro shots on the old F body with the 70-180 mm ED lens.
>>4507347Some Fomapan 400/Holga 400 shots
>>4507388I have grid focusing screens both for my Nikon FM2 and Mamiya 645, I can't level for shit, it's very useful while shooting on tripod in dark
>>4507452I like this one a lot, the contrast is pretty cool
>>4507454that last one posted upside down, oops.
>>45074554Chan really isn't playing nice with the photo orientations today.
>>4507456last one I liked from this batch
>>4507457last last one, I forgot it
>>4507452>>4507454i like your pictures but these two especially. Thought about giving Fomapan 400 a try before but now i will definitely get some some day>>4507456that happens when rotation is done via exif metadata or whatever. 4chan strips that so the "raw" orientation is used
>>4507472Thank you! I like your photos too. There unfortunately aren’t too many interesting buildings near me, or I would take way more in city photos. I am hoping to finish a roll of 120 6x6 night sky long exposures this weekend, so if those turn out any good I’ll post them.
>>4507458>>4507460>>4507488nice
>>4507484>Thank you! I like your photos too.lmao reddit faggot. >thank you sooooo much for attention i really needed this! pathetic
Does anyone even shoot film anymore? For those that do, how you know which film to pick from? There are so many. Do you read reviews or just try everything and stick with one you liked?
>>4507505>No photos seething because he doesn’t actually take photosPost something or fuck off fag
>>4507484>I am hoping to finish a roll of 120 6x6 night sky long exposures this weekendthat sounds very cool. i've always wanted to do that but the light pollution where i live is pretty bad. What film are you going to use and how do you want to take these pictures?>so if those turn out any good I’ll post them.post them regardless. the "technical" aspect to those sounds cool enough to be posted
>>4507506>Does anyone even shoot film anymore?Is this a trick question?>For those that do, how you know which film to pick from?Whatever is the cheapest. Fomapan 100 or Kentmere pan 100 usually.
>>4507505miserable reddit faggot contributing nothing to this thread as always
How do I learn to shoot film in the evening and at night?I've recently switched to a camera that doesn't have a light meter and been getting some pretty good daytime shots with sunny 16.But I've had this idea for a while, that I would like to get some cheap BW film and push it to 800 or even 1600 to take some low light pictures without a tripod, but I have no clue how to even approach that.Am I just screwed without a light meter?
>>4507523i have never personally used this film or shot without a lightmeter but this sounds very promising for your situation
>>4507523jesus christ don't push film if you're gonna shoot on tripod. Only thing pushing does is increasing the contrast of the negative - in low light or night scenery the contrast will be already pretty big. You don't need a fast film on tripod.>>4507525DO NOT DO THISFoma 400 is barely a 320iso film in compensating developer, Foma writes bullshit in their data-sheets don't trust them. Pushing this film is useless you will have completely transparent shadows. Never trust retards in the internet telling that they have "good results" pushing foma. "Good results" for most people is that anything appeared on the negative, even though half of the frame is transparent and highlights are cooked.
>>4507532>jesus christ don't push film if you're gonna shoot on tripodI think you misunderstood my post. I want to push so that I can shoot without a tripod and don't need to shell out on a fast film for now
>>4507537Hp5 can be pushed to 3200 with pretty good results.
>>4507514Beautifully shot and very fluffy
Having an issue deciding which camera to take with me on my hike today My ME super is great but I just got it a couple weeks ago and haven't had a roll from it developed yet so I'm still "testing" it. I also only have the kit lens with it so I'm stuck at 50mmMy Minolta 5000i that I got from my parents is flawless but bulky and probably wouldn't be that fun to take on a hike. I have a prime 50 and a 38-80 zoom with that one
>>4507573How is the light meter on yours?ME Supers are gorgeous cameras and fun to take around, but their light meters are pretty notorious for shitting out by this point. Mine is to the point that even adjusting the ISO and exposure compensation isn't enough to counteract it. Still working up the courage to try taking it apart and trying to fix it myself.If you haven't had any test rolls developed yet, make sure you compare its exposure readings to a camera with a meter that you trust before taking it with you so that it isn't massively over/under exposing.
need to get more of those metal maze style film cassettes for my canon L3. or just splurge on this 3k leica m3 on facebook marketplace and get some of them ixmoo cassettes that are readily available used everywhere (like 20-40 dollars a piece but again theyre everywhere)the one for the canon theres one listing on ebay for 40 dollars from thailand and im tempted. thats the only listing there is online currently that works with the canon L series
>>4507580>How is the light meter on yours?Pretty good as far as I can tell. When I first went to look at it. I compared the reading it was giving me to a known good light meter I brought along. Either spot on with the meter or rarely slightly overexposing if the meter recommended a shutter speed the camera didn't have.I haven't had anything I've shot from the camera developed yet, so that's going to be the real tellI enjoy the camera for sure. Had an issue with Ilford 400 though where the lead would keep slipping out of the "magic needles" and unraveling on the spool inside the camera. I'm sure I've lost a few frames by having to reload the same roll multiple timesDidn't have that issue with ultramax 400 though and Ive noticed the plastic base on Ilford is SIGNIFICANTLY thicker than the Kodak.
I'm about to scan some old expired Kodak BW400CN that I developed in regular Ifosol3. I'll let you know anything comes out ok.
>>4507651came out much better than I imagined considering it's a C41 film and 20 yrs old. My cheap kodak scanner did Sepia until the end under color neg. then randomly adjusted to a B&W read but it worked well.
>>4507653the film seemed pretty thick and wanted to curl up something gnarly albeit I didn't let it dry very long
First time developing at-home. Then used a Nikon z7 to scan - set up some cardboard cut-out against a desklamp that had a diffuser on it already. I think it turned out ok
>>4507675Problem I found was though my Minolta XG7 at high shutter speeds does this. It only goes to 1000/s , but at 500/1000 it has some issues. Not sure how to fix that.
i consistently ruin shots with my leica m6. there's a lot of shots i would have gotten if it were a digital camera. >flaky, uninformative meter, "< o >" leds only tell you if you're within half a stop.>rangefinder viewing angles mess up composition, pic related>mechanically unreliable 1/50s flash sync>scanning + developing 35mm film sucks>heavy and not pocketablefor all the trouble i might as well just use medium format. considering switching to an m10r to keep my 28 35 50 kit. also considering just selling everything for a ricoh griv bc i shoot a lot of parties and cant be fiddling with settings. can anyone redpill me on this thx. trying to own less garbage
>>4507699if you don't like the process just sell it
>>4507356I really like this, the color reminds me of Boards of Canada's "Music Has the Right to Children" album cover.
>>4507699You’re meant to shoot without looking and make poetic references to japanese wabisabi culture (the lazy aesthetics, not the spicy horseradish)l2leica git gud scrub
guys guys guess what film this is
>>4507784Fomapan 100
Was able to shoot one of my new brass lenses with my sinar shutter and actual film. This is the Hermagis Eidoscope. Shot wide open at f5 with fp4. Pretty cool.>>4507784My guess is fomashart as well.
Thoughts on Pentax me super vs super program?I have an ME super and it's a great camera but I've heard that the super program has much better eye relief for glasses wearersThe super program also just seems like the same camera but a bit newer and an option for full program mode with A lenses
About a month ago I was talking to an old man about film photography, he told me he still had a lot of things from his photography career. Yesterday I saw him and he handed me a Canon Canonet QL17 GIII, was a fun surprise. He gave me the old battery along with it, I put it in and it still has some charge but I am not sure what to do with replacing it because it's not a common battery form factor and it's 1.35v on top of that. How do you guys deal with these issues?I don't need a battery necessarily, as the camera is fully mechanical but it's nice to have at least a working light meter.Pic related, it's a nice upgrade from my Rollei 35B and a little more refined than the Voigtländer Vito B I was eyeing earlier. Quiet funny how I ended up with something better and it didn't cost me anything.
>>4507820>it's not a common battery form factor and it's 1.35v> How do you guys deal with these issues?1.55V -> 1.35V
When I take photos in very dark, very bright, or backlit environments, labs always auto-expose the scans, which negates any sort of exposure compensation that I was using during the shot. Is there something I should be asking for when I drop off my film? Maybe a kind of "flat" colour profile which I can then adjust myself?
>>4507355this has such a nice feel to it
>>4507831Won't the voltage difference mess with the light meter? I read that many of these old cameras that use the 1.35v mercury cells do not have voltage regulation, so the meter will be thrown off.
>>4507885That's literally what that adapter is, a voltage regulator stepping the modern battery voltage down to 1.35V. Works like a charm in my Yashica.
>>4507789>>4507808Nope. All homegrown from emulsion to perforation
>>4507899You made your own film and coated it on polyester base? Pan or ortho?
>>4507899big if tru
immediately after taking this picture the storm started and soaked me
first roll ever
>>4507921
>>4507922taking with old point and shoot so not sure if quality is bad because scan bad or lens bad
>>4507923
>>4507923>>4507924Looks decent. What film type and camera?
>>4507837y-you too
>>4507925it's first gen canon autoboy with some fujicolor 400
>>4507899Can you elaborate a little more, you have grown your own film, huh?
>>4507900>>4507936Well I just helped with patents and hard yo find info, plus connected the guy actually making it with former chief technologist of Svema. The base is PET with an undercoat-otherwise the emulsion would just fall off even dry. 20 iso with no sulfur, gold, dopants and spectral sensitizers . It's a work in progress desu, but I think we'll get to iso 100 ortho before summer. Pan would be easier to make, but the dyes are too toxic to then coat the emulsion by hand
>>4507933Looks pretty good overall, especially the night shots. Maybe the scans are a little off but pretty close
seems that HC-110 is not good developer for Foma 200. It accentuate grain too much?
>>4508026
>>4508027
>>4508009neato. what's the process in going from 20 to 100? just getting better at coating the film? more concentrated coating?
>>4508029
>>4508094various additives in this case. They affect the crystals shape->effective area, crystal structure, and let the crystals see a broader spectrum It's also possible to attain higher speed by precipitation at a precisely controlled pBr, to get T-grain, but it doesn't make sense for now
Ilford panf is getting released in 4x5 and 8x10 format. Freestyle accidentally leaked the news.Will you be getting some?
>>4508115no
>>4508134Why not?
>>4508135I dont need such s fine grain for 4x5the other reason is I dont like ilford filmsfor me is only tmx of tmy
Another Hermagis 8x10 shot. I had to try integrating some fabric into a shot to see how it looked and I kept the lens projection centered on the film plane to keep bokeh/glow as smooth as possible. Wow.>>4508137Funny you mention tmx. I just opened my box of 1979 expired 8x10 tmx for this "test" shot. The guy said it was kept frozen, and for like 120 bucks I couldnt really pass it up. Shot at 100 iso. Some base fog, but this picture still came out beautifully, I think.
What are the best bang for your buck entry B&W 35mm films? I hear a lot about Ilford hp5 or Tri-X but its hard to imagine paying $8/ roll for black and white....
>>450814636 pictures is a lot for 8 dollars. Fp4 8x10 is 200 dollars for a 25 pack. Make each shot count.
>>4508026You know what they say about 200 ASA film - sensitive like a 100, grainy like a 400. Foma especially takes it to the next level.That said those are perfectly reasonable results grain- and tonality-wise. If you think that's grainy, wait until you dip it in Rodinal.If you want even less grain then try something like ID-11, if you can be bothered mixing it. But don't come crying if the first word that comes to mind when you see the results is "muddy".
Anyone tried Lucky Color 200 yet? Some of the results don't look bad that I've seen. Seems better than memes like Harman Phoenix.
>>4507834Flat scan yea. Or get tiffs and just dial the contrast down yourself.
>>4508146HP5+ has very strong grain. I like Tri-X more.Delta 100 is my favorite B&W>>4508115Large format bros let's fuckin go [spoiler]wait indefinitely for slide film stock to be released again in our formats[/spoiler]
nicest shot of the day out. I had two shutter misfires on the C330's 105mm lens's shutter, so I guess I need to service it.
>>4508152Ya, I really liked it and thought it looked a little more honest than gold. If they only offered a 3 pack for around $20...
>>4508146I can find Trix for 8 but I always see hp5 going for 9+ for 36 exposure.Anyway, you could try kentmere or fomapan. It's usually a buck cheaper.
now that Kodak has bringed their films back "in house" would they become cheaper ?
>>4508115even better news
>>4508154>>4508155>>4508156Those are fantastic. How do you achieve this look? Not sure what to call it, "forced perspective" comes to mind but I don't think that's that. But she just looks 100% natural and proportional to the background and the whole scene. Is that because of DoF? Only achievable with LF? How tall is she actually? Do you have any behind the scenes pic of how you set up those shots?(Questions, questions, sorry, I just really really like those).
>>4507347My sister-in-law gave me her aunt’s Nikon film set-up and I haven’t used it yet but I’d like to. First thing that I need to know is if there’s a good indicator of when the film roll is completely finished? She didn’t know how many shots she’d taken nor how many emulsions were on the reel.
>>4508174Every camera ive seen has an exposure counter on it, even the super cheap ones. If the counter doesnt work though, the end of the film is firmly attached to the spindle inside the roll, so you wont be able to cock the shutter anymore, it will just stop. Make sure you rewind the film all the way before you open the back cover.
>>4508174The advance lever will be physically held back by the film once you reach the end of the roll. Never force on it so you don't detach the film end from the cassette, that would be a mess to deal with. Exposure counters give a good estimate of remaining film length but it's not always exact, depending on how you handled the lead and how generous the manufacturer was you can usually get a few more exposures than advertised out of a roll.
>>4507933I'm surprised a p&s gave you images that that good with budget 400 film in extreme low light >>4507923this one looks like motion blur maybe
>>4507820I got a Ricoh 35 ZF from '76, direction was to use LR44 batteries with the caveat that it would likely cause the meter to "run hot." I've tested it a couple different light meter phone apps and it's dead on. So that's my recommendation.
Are there any zoom lenses from the 70s-80s that are actually good enough to be worth using?Specifically PK mount lensesThey all seem like such massive compromises for the zoom function and I'm wondering if I would be better off just buying a handful of primes
From the first roll I've ever shot. Always wanted to try just never had the time.
>>4508226Not really, for old K mount lenses just stick to primes. Only good thing about the old zooms is that you can get them for virtually free.
>>4508226Early 90s, definitely yes, I use one (not PK) on 24MP digital and it performs quite well. Don't know about any earlier ones.
>>4508226as a pentaxtard with a few manual lenses the only manual zoom lens i found to be interesting/worth it was the 35-105mm f3.5 pentax-a, you can find this for $40-60. 70-200/210mm f4 pentax-a has a lot of chromatic aberrations, pay max $20-30, i hate pump zooms. found the 70-200/210 f4.5-5.6 pentax-f superior in every way despite being slower aperture and costs the same $20-30. 80-320mm fa is my go to for a telephoto prime only better zoom would be is the 55-300mm da on the low end but that's apsc only
>>4508226Zooms made for medium format cameras are generally quite excellent, but very bulky. I know this information will likely never apply to your photography, but I'm still telling you.
>>4508226I got a pretty rad vivitar 28-200 that i'm pretty sure they made in PK as well as the SR mount I have mine in. its heavy as fuck and its just pull zoom but I end up using it a lot on my srt because its a good lens otherwise
How do you keep all the particles from old light seals from getting everywhere inside the camera when removing them?Camera I just bought's light seals are in such bad condition that they're disintegrating
>>4508384Use a vacuum
>>4508173This isn't LF, it's medium format. She's about 55cm tall standing up.I don't really do anything special, I just find a scene, put doll in scene, and take the picture. I guess generally I find the longer focal lengths help to fudge the sense of scale, if anything. And the camera low to the ground, keeping the lens at the same proportional height to taking photos of normal people is necessary.Just liek take photo>>4508172What a relief that large format isn't forgotten about, . Shame it didn't include ektachrome>>4508171Already is cheaper. Portra 160 4x5 (Alaris) was $75/10. Ektacolor 160 (Eastman) is $65/10
Egg and cloth. It's funny how random inspiration can be sometimes.
>>4508211I see, the shutter speed going down to 1/8 i figured if there is enouh neon lights it should look alrightbut yea the motion blur is introduced at that point
>>4508440a few more
>>4508441
>>4508440If this didn't have the blur, it would be pretty kino.>>4508442Very nice, using the flash was the right move for this one.
>>4508301>70-200/210mm f4 pentax-a has a lot of chromatic aberrationsCan confirm, I have one and it's not great. Shame really because I think all my other pentax glass is quite nice.
>>4508301>>4508450Are you talking about the non-SMC 70-200 F4 or the SMC 70-210 F4? These are two completely different optical formulas.
Why doesn't the Pentax super program get any love?
What camera was she using?Looks like a Spotmatic
>>4508428Pretty shitty photo
>>4508502Pretty good
>>4508515Why tho?
Tried out a pyro based paper developer for a little azo contact printing session. Super active developer. Pretty nice. The pinkish/orangish stain is maybe a little weird, but it is awesome to see these on paper finally! Next step is flattening and framing them once they fully dry.
I shot 400 speed film at box speed and went out at night to shoot. I made sure to expose for the bright areas by +1. Dead curious to see how it looks. +1 may not have been enough exposure comp is my worry and I’m gonna have some mostly dark images.>>4508518there is no whydon’t ask such questions
>>4508556I post pics here to talk about them. I really like the image, especially in my series so I would like to know why someone doesn't like it. Or we can keep having absolute beginner questions and discussion for the entire thread.You need to expose for the shadows if you're shooting at night. Why would you ever meter highlights at night, unless you're shooting slide film, when film has such exceptional latitude and struggles with shadows? Your images will most likely be very dark.Point your camera/light meter at a dark only area and reduce exposure by 2 stops if you want to preserve shadow detail.
>>4508428Carrots
He need some milk!
I really need to work on my grading
Pardon the spam
>>4508569gorgeous
>>4508455i have both (cosmicar 70-200 f/4 i paid $15 for and smc pentax-a 70-210mm f/4 i paid $36 for)the cosmicar has an auto aperture pin (so its PROBABLY a pentax-a under a store brand) and fungus, the smc some light hazing.im honestly happier with the later autofocus 70-200 and 70-210mm, less chromatic abberations, sharper, more compact even though those are f4-5.6 to be fair i use them on dslrs and not film. the only pentax manual zoom i actually like is my 35-105mm f3.5, the problem is that its a fucking chonker of a glass you could beat someone to death with. my tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is more versatile.
>>4508556Yeah you definitely fucked it if you took a meter reading in the brightest part of the frame for a night shot. Might get some decent if dark photos depending on the subject and the framing but probably a lot of unintelligible shots.
>>4508562I like the concept. Maybe emphasizing how they look like people chilling out on the peeler more would make it even better, or just too corny. Maybe too much negative space also, but Im not really offended by it. Nice colors too.
>>4508564are you using Neglabpro?
>>4508589no, I'm grading on my iShit
pipes
>>4508583>>4508557copy thathow about I get that roll push processed one stop?
>>4508628Push processing does not magically save shadow detail. It only increases contrast. Welcome to the world of sensitometry. (It may help a little bit)
Started experimenting with contact printing. It's a fun way to get positives out of the 6x9 negatives. A bit fiddly because the negatives are a bit scrunched up on the edges and don't want to lay flat but I am happy to see results, and also did some contact prints with 6x4.5 negatives but those are just a little too small.Really cool to see the image appear on the paper. This is my first dark room experience and I'm surprised how simple it actually was.
>>4508639Use a piece of glass on top of film/paper to keep everything flat. Split back contact printing frames apply like 30lbs of pressure on the film and paper. It makes for sharper prints if there's plenty of pressure. If your negatives are good printing is quick and easy. If your negatives suck it can take lots of time of fiddling around to get a nice looking print. Proud of you for making prints.
>>4508562
>>4508567
>>4508642Yeah the negatives weren't that high quality because of incompetence and a very limited box camera that it was taken with but for this test it was more or less successful. Good point about the pressure, I think I should have been a little more careful with that as the fomapan film is quite tough and really wants to curl badly.Even if the result is not particularly outstanding, it's a very rewarding process.
>>4508648Carrots are a bit too saturated for my taste but the grading is miles better than the one I did
>>4508562If anyone cares to know, these are all Silbersalz 500T developed at Silbersalz in Germany
Today I found out my Nikon DK-29 eyecups slip right onto my Minolta viewfinders. This is amazing. Are most eyecup covers designed with the same specs or is this just a coincidence?
>>4508657Ah the dirty underwear place. Those ugly rebates are not doing your photos any service, especially the dark shots. Black point seems off all around. Dont call it "grading" thats a video post production term lmao, kinda self reports you as a short form social media zombie. All that being said, nice shots anon
>>4508676I work in the film&tv industry that's why I mix up my wordingI received a coupon from Silbersalz so I thought I'd give it a try
>>4508154>>4508155the eyes make it look as if you missed focus, it's weird
>>4508156>>4508154>>4508155how do you transport your anime doll and how much did it cost
trying arista edu 400 for the first time.
>>4508726>>4508727Not bad for Foma, how did you develop?
