Soggy Bottoms 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: Do you even cook?Previous thread: >>4507347
>>4511253If you buy like 10 or 12 different chemicals in bulk you can make a shitload of different developers for way cheaper than buying premixed. Most of them never go bad and the ones that do like phenidone can be mixed at convenient ratios in propylene glycol and will last a very long time.I've been mixing my own film and paper developers for a while now.
i love mixing d-23 per the gallon. works great.
>>4511279One of the simplest developers to mix yourself. Very good choice.I used d23 when I was experimenting with making masks. The low contrast nature of d23 makes developing lith film pretty easy.
>>4511289if d23 is low contrast, youre just underdeveloping. 10-15% more time than the d76 times gives me a normal contrast, 2-3 grade print in the darkroom. works for most films.
>>4511251i feel like such a freak when taking pictures of shitty bar bathrooms because youre entering a public restroom with a camera.. but theyre peak subjects
>>4511290D23 is definitely considered a low to normal contrast or soft working developer. I have only used it for developing lith film because I have my pyro developer for pictorial film.
I just had my offer accepted for a Plustek 7500i for $400AU. Worth it? or should I let the lab keep scanning my negs?
>>4511296yes its considered that because most people are underdeveloping their negatives
>>4511299worth, itll pay for itself after like 20 rolls or somake sure to keep it VERY dust free
>>4511303D23 is metol + sodium sulfite. Without any accelerator metol is a low energy, soft working developer. That is why it is considered a low-normal contrast developer.
>>4511304>make sure to keep it VERY dust freenoted. are you speaking from experience?
Idk what it is about manual focus full program cameras They just feel like the most feature rich cameras that still give all the little stims that make a film camera so satisfying
>>4511317what lenses do you use?
>>4511319I have a Pentax-A 50mm f1.4, a SMC 30mm f2.8 (got it for $20) and a Pentax-A 70-150mm F4 zoomThose are the ones I carry with me at least. I have a few other lenses that I could put on it
>>4511317there is something special about those late 70s early 80s electro mechanical prosumer bodies. you get that nice metal body with all the knobs and levers but you are also able to throw dat bih into aperture prio and spam shots
>>4511322i like to imagine you took this snapshot on a large format view camera
>>4511317>>4511322They feel good. It's kind of funny, my XG-Ms were kinda shit in when they released for being so plastic but compared to my SRT they're nice to carry around since they're so light.Though, one of my XG-Ms has capacitor failures.
>>4511317What all cameras fit this description?Seems like there was very little time between full program bodies and autofocus The ones I can think of are:Pentax Super ProgramMinolta X700Canon AE-1 ProgramNikon FAMaybe the Nikon FE2?Everything else I can think of is just aP or sP only
Heading off to japan soon, I know its gonna be a bad idea, but I want to take more than one camera and my rz for 120. A part of me just wants to keep it simple and just shoot the m6 and 50 rolls.
how the fuck do i focus with a rangefinder patch? i've had good luck with the 80mm patch of the canon L3 and the double rangefinder+vf thingy of the old barnacks+niccas but my m4 im having trouble with focus. even with the 50mm patch of the L3 i had trouble.
>>4511315experience of using scanners in general.>>4511314even kodak was trying to have the times be the same as d76, since it was kind of an alternative and supposed to be nearly the same. so the myth of the same times as d76 made a low contrast developer. you actually get a better negative with the added time, without blocking out the highlights while still keeping the fine grain (ofc with a slight hit in sharpness as opposed to d76). it works nearly identically with d76 other than slight edge sharpness like i said.
>>4511416>without blocking highlightsLiterally what a soft working developer does.
>>4511417im just saying it doesnt deserve the wide spread "knowledge" that its a low contrast developer.you get significantly better negatives by adding like 10-15% of the times that d76 gives you for stock+dilutions
>>4511418Low contrast is not a bad thing in any way. It's just a different tool in the toolbox. It's the chemistry and resulting tonal curve that determines the amount of contrast a developer has.Sometimes a high contrast developer can be a really bad thing if you pair it with the wrong scene/film. Aside from my favorite developer being the best and yours being the worst there is no best developer. As ansel adams used to say, "the best developer is the one you have on you, aside from the toxic ones. That could be bad."
>>4511325can confirm. i took that picture on a 8x11 monorail that they had to deliver with a crane >>4511334xgm/x700/x500 has insanely good ergo. i love my x700 to death however it ALSO has capacitor issues haha >>4511415is it dim? sometimes if its dim or not vertically aligned it could be hard to see whats up but ive personally had way more luck with M bodies than ltm ones>>4511419yep. low contrast negatives look pretty boring when scanned as-is but its a godsend when printing sometimes
>>4511420i think the patch is bright, it can also just be me and my vision. again, the L3's 35 and 50mm modes have the same slightly out of focus issue that is fixed with the zoomed in 80mm vf (and also the other older single rangefinder and single viewfinder cameras such as the iiif and nicca 3-F). that or i just need to use not 60 shutter speed anymore lolol
>>4511422>>4511420note: i also use glasses for everyday use. is this an issue?
>>4511420>it ALSO has capacitor issues hahaiirc the cap that causes issues in the x700 is located right under the bottom plate. Should be a really easy repair if you have soldering experience
Is ecosystem a big concern for anyone else when choosing a camera?Im in the market for a digital camera to scan my film at home and im not sure how much weight i should put on making sure my camera can take my vintage film lenses easily (either no adapter or still able to infinity focus with an adapter) in case I ever want to take it off the scan mount and shoot digitalI currently shoot pentax but have a good selection of minolta a lenses that ive gotten from family
>>4511490Different uses. For scanning you are going to have your best macro on there and leave it as undisturbed as possible.For going out and shooting if you have a mirrorless (doesn't matter much which) you can adapt any of your old lenses.
>>4511470the problem is that turning it off and then back on fixes it for about 20 minutes. so its just barely not annoying enough for me to fix lol>>4511490you will be able to adapt almost any vintage lens mount to any modern mirrorless system unless youre doing something really freaky. i would recommend going something full frame if you wanna keep the fov the same for adapted lenses. >>4511423usually the issue with glasses people mainly run into is not being able to see the widest framelines. im thinking if its a focus issue, its probably your ltm adapter or your rangefinder needs adjusting. ive had bad luck with faulty ltm adapters. the telltale sign of a funky adapter is if your infinity is off. i had a crappy aliexpress ltm adapter that couldnt focus to infinity because it was ever so slightly too thick
>>4511557i can see all the framelines relatively easily, and the 35mm is just the entire vf so i dont mind half seeing those lines anyways. it can be my adapter, it was 25 dollars at the shop and not the leica ones. i will get an m lens for my next paycheck, but i focsed to infinity to the clouds and some mountains way in the distance and they all seem relatively in focus. i can try to tweak it with the little screw but im sure its already fine and, again, just a skill issue.
>>4511317I picked up an early 90s Nikon SLR recently and love it, all the features on it are just like on a DSLR. Having Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual etc on a film camera is just an amazing thing to me for some reason and the meter is really good. The display through the viewfinder is also similar to my late 10s Nikon which made it really easy to start using.But the negative aspect is film prices are still really high, developing costs are getting worse and I still fuck up exposures from time to time.
>>4511617I just don't get as artistically motivated when I shoot digital When a picture is free and you can see it right after you take it, I just don't pay attention to framing as much as I would otherwise Like when I know each photo costs me about $1, I keep my finger off the shutter longer waiting for that perfect shotDoesn't always turn out that way but I do get some pretty good ones where all my digital photos might as well be taken on my phoneAlso not to say I'm an *artist*, just that I care more when each shot costs me money to not only take, but to see
