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
Is it worth it to fuck around with film cameras beyond a love for the aesthetic and physical use?Does film last longer than digital storage media?Is the theoretical maximum quality of film greater than digital cameras nowadays? I have a good digital mirrorless camera and I am considering getting a good old film SLR.
>>4511688Some redditor with a gfx100s rig scanned his consumer grade 35mm that was shot with soviet glass. The resulting 275mp file still had discernible, pixel sized detail. It was all soft and glowy, but still more objects like paint scratches and moss fronds than would be visible at lower resolutions. Anything you shoot on film has a 0% chance of being AI. Literally no digital technology can create realistic detail down to that scale and write it to film without severe artefacts.
I think this setup was kinda interesting so I will share it. I had to use lots of swing to get the whole subject in focus.32 inches of bellows extension on a 180mm lens for a 5:1 magnification ratio on 8x10.Aside from the bounce card the only light was directly pointed at the black background. Subject was cool, but I wanted to give it a more interesting lighting setup than what I was getting from lighting it from the front/sides.>>4511688Yeah, but you need to have a bit of the 'tism. I've gotten well over 600MP of resolution from 8x10 on a flatbed scanner, and if you believe the anon that says 35mm is 275MP that means 8x10 is actually 16500MP because it is 60x the area of 35mm film lol.
>>4511692And here is the resulting picture. Egg + bone.
>>4511693shoot an egg being smashed with a hammer to symbolize how /p/ feels about eggsnaps
>>4511694Thanks for the suggestion, but that idea would not fit in with the series I'm working.Photographing eggs is really quite fun. You should take that picture on film and share it here.
>>4511688Not really. I personally don't think film can be compared to digital much beyond "it's a picture" but the differences really do come down to aesthetic and feelIs there a reason to swap from digital to film? I don't think so. Its incredibly cheap to get into though, so I would find a camera, shoot a few rolls and see how you like it. Film gets expensive when you factor in scale. If you're shooting dozens of rolls a month, you're going to feel itBut 1 or 2 just to try? $100 will get you a decent camera with a kit lens.
>>4511557ok so i didnt print but i did develop and use my enlarger and grain focuser to look at text - i think it is a skill issue bc both of the pictures i took yesterday was sharp
>>4511692Cool photo.Thanks, I ask because I bought a Sears TLS (actually a Ricoh Singlex TLS) on a lark, but I'm worried about it being toxic. I'm worried about the mercury battery it used to have (no corrosion though) and the paint on the body seems to have lead in it, so I was buying a Canon AE-1 or a medium format camera to replace it.
>>4511711Eh, I wouldnt worry too much unless you ever have the temptation to eat your camera.The egg + bone shot took me around 4 hours to set up and shoot. I think that spending active time refining and practicing your photography is extremely beneficial for anyone that wants to git gud. You can do that with any camera, BUT... If you think a slower camera may help you get better than medium format may be something to consider. The bigger the film the more technically demanding it is to get pictures to the standard of the format. The cameras are almost always bulky and a tripod is highly encouraged. The other reason to get medium format is if you want less grain/better tonality than 35mm, but you may be fine with 35mm quality.On the other hand if you just want something for more casual use go for 35mm. 35mm is a lot more beginner friendly and cheaper to start off with. A fast camera can also take pictures that a slower one would struggle or be unable to reasonably photograph. 35mm can make great looking 8x10 and 11x14 prints.
>>4511674>Like when I know each photo costs me about $1, I keep my finger off the shutter longer waiting for that perfect shotSame. It's meant I end up with unfinished rolls sitting in my camera a lot since I really wait for good occasions to take it with me and still take caution on the photo.
>>4511717Huge benefit of shooting sheet film is that you can easily develop one shot at a time. There are some fairly compact 4x5 cameras if the size is your main concern, but tripod is basically a must for the format.
>>4511715Thanks. Well, the shot looks cool. I don't know enough about photography or philosophy to say why, but I would use it as a wallpaper.
>>4511722Thank you. I was very hopeful for how this one would turn out. Getting the bone positioned just right was tedious.My favorite part is the edge glow on the bone/egg, how the bone gently illuminates the egg behind it, and the low contrast look of the subject. I also think the shadow cast forwards from the backlighting is really nice. I think the image has lovely symbolism as well, but I'll spare you from that aside from saying that the bone I used is from a chicken.
Is there any downside to using a lens hood other than a slight bit of extra bulk?
>>4511737if you use a rangefinder, it might block the viewif you don't, make sure to get the right lens hood for the right focal length as a smaller hood wont do anything but a bigger hood will vignette.
>>4511726Oh yeah, that was apparent - chicken egg with skull. It's a small skull, and you're probably making a "birth and death" reference, so it has to be a chicken skull. The contrast is visually interesting. Show some more.I'm going to get a lead test kit for my camera just in case. I won't be eating my camera, but there are kids in the house who may lick the camera for fun. I already have an OK digital camera to use for scanning if I want. I'm more interested in the craft of photography and the possibility of getting very detailed photos.
>>4511737Yeah, the aesthetics are lacking.
>>4511753It's a broken piece of the pelvic bone, but it definitely has that skull like look to it. I have some other bone + egg pics, but I'll share this one, which is quite different in style, but is also part of the series I've been working on for the past few months. Egg + farm found object + geometric shape. Very simple idea, but the focus an idea I'm excited about exploring has unlocked so much creativity within me. Even moreso than spending an entire year only doing egg based still lifes. It's crazy.
>>4511753You may want to skip medium format altogether and just get a little 4x5 view camera. You can get monorail view cameras for very little money. You're stuck on a tripod, but it provides much finer results than most medium format, and you get to use camera movements. You could watch some videos of either a field camera or a monorail 4x5 camera online to see if it's something you would be okay dealing with/operating. Aside from the camera movements you also get the ability to develop single sheets, which lets you do push/pull processing on single images rather than whole rolls.View cameras are great for portraiture/studio work, still life/product, landscape, and arguably macro photography as well.
>>4511688if you store your film in a consistently cool, dark place in acid free sleeves then it will last well beyond your lifetime. my gf works at a museum and regularly rescans 120 and 135 negatives from the 30s-50s that are still good quality, and I have to imagine film production hasn't changed the formula so much that the longevity is reduced.as for quality, its really a question of how autistic you want to get. a 60mp digital camera creates an image with 60 million pixels. one source I found lists the number of silver halide crystals on a 35mm frame at 84 billion. now, does that mean the 35mm frame is 8400mp? no, because the crystals are imperfect and reduce and combine with other silver halide molecules to become pure silver, and then with c-41 or e-6 you're taking that silver and combining it with dyes as well. many people will throw out something like 15-20mp as the upper limit of useful detail in 35mm film, but with good equipment (sharp, clear lens in camera and a very high quality scanner) I believe you can squeeze much more information out of your 35mm frame. the only question is how much of it is useful detail.
>>4511764NTA but how is storage for exposed but undeveloped film? Would storing it in the same cool conditions help against deterioration for when I finally develop it?
>>4511764It’s been long since confirmed to be over 200mp, assuming no skill issues. And film is prone to skill issues. No IBIS, no autofocus, limited shutter speed ranges, and most people shoot to the 8mp lab scan not the 200mp GFX pixel shift scan which would require a minimum shutter speed over 1/500 to eliminate hand shake at max pixel peep.
>>4511767yes, generally film should be kept cool, dry, and in the dark whether developed or undeveloped to maximize its longevity and quality.>>4511769sure, you can make a scan so detailed you get down individual grains if you really wanted to but imo that's not the same as actually extracting more useful information from the frame. in terms of discernable quality I can definitely see an improvement from my ~35mp home scans compared with the 8 mp lab scans, but I don't scan my negatives at my scanner's max of 10,000 dpi because 1. it takes for fucking ever, but 2. to my eyes there's no discernable improvement between that and a 5,000 dpi scan which takes less than half as long and spits out a much smaller file. I'm sure with a more professional scanner or a medium format digital on a stand or something I could get more detail than I do now, but until image fidelity in my scans starts holding me back somehow I just don't see the point.
>>4511688>Is it worth itno. if you value any semblance of convenience. however, its unfortunately really fun and lets you engage with the medium in a way thats more physical and tactile. think of it like driving a manual car.>>4511707skill issue is the best issue since its free to fix lol >>4511691as someone who scans their film with a gfx100s, id say it really depends on a lot of factors. i tend not to get more than 16mp of real usable detail in 35mm film. 4x5 however, blows gfx to pieces in terms of detail. picrel gfx hitting the upper limit of 35mm grain detail
>>4511775>however, its unfortunately really fun and lets you engage with the medium in a way thats more physical and tactile. think of it like driving a manual car.I like it since you get the look you want straight out of the box. I never edit any of my film photos after and strive to make the composition and framing absolutely perfect, which is somewhat of a change from using digital and cropping if I'm lazy.
>>4511770Scanners have always promised higher dpi figures than they actually deliver res on film from the lowliest shatbed to the greatest hassleblyat flextight. It’s a large part of why boomers thought film was lower resolution. The other part is considering any grain and softness useless detail. It is also hard to shoot 35mm well enough to actually get the promised 200+mp, let alone find a lens that will do that well. The average boomer shot 4x5 sheet film to enlarge it no more than 8x10. 16x20 was pushing it. They just wanted the grain gone and the sharpness maxed out. Hence, digital.
>>4511778>Scanners have always promised higher dpi figures than they actually deliver res on film from the lowliest shatbed to the greatest hassleblyat flextight.tfw coolscan master race
>>4511775Whatever your camera is doing to the grain here it looks fucking awful.
>>4511688>Is it worth it to fuck around with film cameras beyond a love for the aesthetic and physical use?Yes and no. 35mm vs APS-C for dicking around casually? God no. However, if you want to go bigger on a budget then film is absolutely the way to do it.Think of it like this: for <$300 you can get a clean Mamiyaflex and some basic development supplies. If you shoot cheap stock and develop and scan it yourself, you're looking at $10 per roll or $0.66/exposure. For $1000 you could get a professional-tier MF film camera in excellent condition plus at least two lenses and accessories. If you shoot expensive film stock that you can't DIY it's ~$40/roll or $2.66/exposure.The "entry-level" option for digital MF is probably a Pentax 645D for $2200 with one lens. "Professional" digital MF cameras are anywhere between $5000 and $8000 plus lenses that are $1500+ each.>Does film last longer than digital storage media?That question can't really be answered but I would say that with archival-tier care digital will probably last longer because developed film tops out at ~70 years under archival conditions before degrading noticeably while digital storage is theoretically indefinite. However, "permanent" digital storage is insanely expensive. Either way, both will outlive you with even moderate care.>Is the theoretical maximum quality of film greater than digital cameras nowadays?Always has been - but it's getting to that level of quality that's the tricky part. If you fuck up an exposure with a $15,000 digital camera then just snap another one lmao but if you fuck up an exposure with an 8x10 sheet of portra then you just wasted $35.>I have a good digital mirrorless camera and I am considering getting a good old film SLR.A 35mm SLR isn't going to produce higher-quality images than a modern digital camera, from a technical perspective. Especially not without really gud glass.Get a 35mm SLR though. They're great fun.
Just a heads up for everyone... B&H has glycin in stock. I've been waiting for weeks for photographers formulary to restock it, and apparently b&h has it. Glycin is used to make some really cool developers for both film and paper. Ansco 130 is one of the most highly regarded paper developers.
reminder to self: mirror down before changing lenses
Here is the scan of the azo + amidol proof print of egg + bone I made today. Scan came out pretty close to what the print looks like. The print is more of a subtle cold tone.Pretty happy with how it came out.Dry mounting and framing later today. >>4512190Only a mistake you make about 20 times before getting a camera with a lockout that stops you from accidentally wasting film lol
>>4512200Aaaand the last pic of this. Promise. Mounted and framed. I think it's interesting to showcase the difference between the edited scan of the negative, the scanned print, and then finally the framed print. Totally different vibes from each presentation.For the final versions of these I will be using 8-ply off white museum grade matt boards and cutting the matts myself. The pure white ones that come with these frames look like absolute shit.
The Kodak 35 RF has a polished chrome pressure plate, which means really strong halations.
>>4512222Mugshot for crimes against humanity.
>>4511688I went full retard and bought an AE-1 because it has a battery that doesn't contain mercury. Gonna take it on some trips and compare it to our FujiFilm X-T30.
I'm getting the urge to build my own 11x14 camera. This is not good.
>still have an unfinished roll in my camera from 2 months agoI wish there was more interesting shit around me
>>4512321There are cathedrals everywhere for those with eyes to see anon.
>>4512323Done that already and it's also a little cliche anyway.
>>4512324Damn my bad I thought you were saying you were feeling uninspired but I see now you were just announcing that you don't enjoy photography anymore. Sorry to hear man.
>>4512328>I see now you were just announcing that you don't enjoy photography anymoreNot lately, I don't know why.
>>4512329Eh, it happens. Just let the camera sit, the film won't go bad unless it's getting cooked in the sun or something. Maybe spend some time on other hobbies. Also, what made you want to get into photography anyway?
>>4512331>Maybe spend some time on other hobbies. I'm trying, costs for everything I enjoy have been going up in extremes though. Lately I've just been playing old video games or reading books.>Also, what made you want to get into photography anyway?I really like cars and had a classic Mercedes I restored myself, and my friend bought a camera to take photos of cars and start YouTubing. I hadn't thought about a camera before so I bought one for photos of my own car, but then realized how much fun taking photos of things like architecture, portraits, textures etc was and I ended up enjoying all that more than cars, which got me a job eventually too. And then these last few months, I'm just struggling to find anything interesting to photograph. Like everything I try is just too standard/uncreative or just snapshit, like I've lost being able to view things in a more creative way.
>>4512333>had a classic Mercedes I restored myselfbased
>>4512333Take your car to sweet spots at sweet times and photograph it. You could do a little mini series and make a calender or something.
>>4512222Do you ever get passerby's showing interest in what you are doing?
>>4511253I just started developing, bought the CineStill 2 bath kit, seemed simple enough. I did mess up a couple of steps, but overall the final results came out ok.I'm still unclear what has happened here, has the image been overdeveloped on the right side?
>>4512604Weird. Do all your images look like that?
>>4512609Nah, just these two. The rest were shot in low light/night time and are fucked, but I think that's the camera's fault. The only thing that comes to mind is that I didn't pre-rinse with some distilled water first, I just poured the developer directly.
>>4512333Damn that's so based anon. Can I ask what model did you restore and how much it cost approximately? I have an old C Class '99 that I'd like to restore, but I know fuck all about cars, and the mechanics where I live are all lying fucks.
I'm actually doing it. I think. Hopefully I can get all the parts for less than four-five thousand dollars, which is how much comparable 11x14 cameras sell for.Aiming for an ultralight design using as much carbon fiber as possible.I'll do most of the simpler machining myself and hire out one of those small batch cnc places online for the trickier pieces and metal bending jobs if it isn't too expensive. I highly doubt anyone would be interested in making one of these for themselves, but I will see if I can share the files once they're done and verified working.
>>4512190>>4512200>before getting a camera with a lockoutI have one, and upgraded to this lolover all worthit's kind of fun seeing what information I can extract from hopelessly over-/under-exposed photos
>>4512640the GX M50 has a tiny bit of field curvature, like the 65>>4512220>polished chrome pressure platethat's fucking hilariousmaybe you're only supposed to shoot cine film, with remjet
>>4512641>>4512612what film stock?I don't think Kodak recommends pre-rinse for any of their C-41 films
>>4512642this was incidence metered, and I didn't think to compensate for all the white paint
>>4512645>>4512633God speed anon
>>4512647I took most of the shots on this roll with the 50, and unfortunately most of the ones not with the 50 were ruinedused a 6x4.5 mask btw
>>4512617>Can I ask what model did you restore and how much it cost approximately?1989 E Class, which I at least consider classic since they're now almost 40 years old. > I have an old C Class '99 that I'd like to restore, but I know fuck all about cars, and the mechanics where I live are all lying fucks.You can really get a lot done through YouTube tutorials, that's how I learned a whole lot doing my cars (as I've had a few old cars over the last 10 years). Costs are hard to estimate, I got some really good used parts from wreckers I went to myself and then also I bought some parts online from wreckers in other states that came with warranties. I also picked up new parts at reasonable enough costs when it was items I didn't trust buying used, so that included things like the cabin blower fan or things like resistors and various electrical bits. The main issue becomes parts that are no longer made where you're at the mercy of used or aftermarket, with both being a mixed bag depending on the piece. Probably the most expensive part I dealt with was the AC compressor, I found a good used unit but it still cost a shitload and I had a shop do the regas since that requires equipment I'd realistically only use once and have no further use for.Car restoration and mechanic work is easily doable since pretty much every car has a YouTube guide out there, you just have to be willing to do it and to take your time. Rushing something can strip a bolt or some shit and then you're going to be really annoyed. Do you know what work is needed on the car? Having the car looked at and getting a job list is a good way to find out, even if you take it to a shitty mechanic you can just use that list as a rough guide for your repairs and can take it with a grain of salt since some parts probably won't even need replacing.
>buy "refurbished" x-700>get it home, put batteries in, A & P don't work and the meter is clearly fucked>get back to store, they're chill about it>have another refurb x-700 I can test and exchange for if I want >test it in store with batteries, meter seems accurate to my phone app at least and the A & P modes fire the shutter, B holds it open as it should.>get home, blast a roll through it in a couple of days, get roll developed>mostly blank and a few frames that look like half frames>shot another roll on my patio that afternoon, won't be able to dev and check on it until the weekend but I wanted to test what settings actually worked and what didn't, at least so I can describe the issue accurately when I return itthis is a cautionary tale against impulse buys in hipster shops I guess
>>4512642A very old roll of Ultramax 400. Could that be it? I have a bunch of expired rolls, Konica & Kodak mostly, and I've had weird funny results when shooting.
>>4512650Ah I love that model, my dad used to have one as well. Thanks for the thorough explanation anon.>Do you know what work is needed on the car?I'm pretty it needs a new chassis, tires & maybe some work on the hydraulics. A new coat of paint and full restoration on the inside. At least the engine is in great condition so I got that going for me.
Haven't posted in a hot minute
And a 120 one. Guess the film stock!
Great news! I found a sous vide cooker in the trash with the power cord cut off
Snagged a couple rolls of RVP50 at $36.45 each. Provia in 135 disappeared fast.
>>4512715Nice flex bro.I burned through all my remaining slide stock last year and unironically think I may never shoot any again unless it comes down to no more than $15/roll. Shit is ridiculous, upsetting and unsustainable.
Picked this up today along with some plasticky telephotos for $50. What do you think?
>>4512697A lot of that is outside my wheelhouse unfortunately, I had some bad experiences getting under cars on lifts so I don't tend to do any underbody work these days. Chassis stuff isn't very DIY friendly so you'll probably need a pro shop for that, and hydraulics can be a fiddly depending on what sort of setup it has. Interior restoration is very doable with DIY and painting can also be DIY, but you really need a lot of good gear and a very isolated space for it (one speck of dust on the wet paint and you'll never unsee it, so you want some place airtight and very clean, something like plastic sheets covering every wall and the ceiling sealed airtight with tape).I personally had a lot of fun with the interior restoration. I was still able to source some brand new trim pieces from the dealer at really reasonable prices, while for stuff like the seats I just did repairs and deep cleaning which made them look brand new, same with the steering wheel and dashboard. I also sanded and repainted some plastic parts that had scratches in them or had faded in the sun. Also if you want a modern head unit that has bluetooth streaming and USB input, you can get extremely good OEM looking units from Blaupunkt. Restoration is long and can be expensive, but you end up with a really nice car at the end.
>>4512479Yeah, maybe about one in ten people will comment if they pass by in close proximity. One of four things typically. They ask if they can pass by without ruining a shot, ask about the dolls, ask about the camera, ask if I have a twitter/insta/etc.Most people just walk by and might look, but keep on going by.
>>4512776Love this one. The blurred flying pelly makes it something special.
>>4512772That's what I was thinking, most of the heavy work I'll leave to a decent mechanic if I can find him, and the rest I'll try to do myself. Mostly I just wanna have a hobby on the side. I feel like fiddling with a car could be a very fun way to spend the time, and like you said, you end up with a really nice car at the end.Have a good one anon.
bought 7 rolls of 135 film for €1102x ektar, 3x gold, 2x tri-xoh well
>>4511253does anyone else find the reviews and articles on 35mmc just mediocre, ignorant, and incompetent? One of my occasional pastimes is reading old issues of photography magazines at the library. Even the most basic articles there were less vague and more knowledgable than nearly anything I see online these days from the film "community". Maybe it's just that s o ys are the ones who write articles online?I'm considering contributing to sites like these just because some of the shit people put there is so dumb that I feel I need to dilute the crap somehow.
>>4512877What will you be photographing with your film?>>4512908Film is less about technical and more about vibes these days, maybe. Sad!
>>4511688I've seen slides from over 60 years ago that still look good. They have to be stored correctly. A hard drive doesn't have the same storage requirements, but I also have a feeling it's less likely you'll find it working just fine in 60 years.Depends on your film too. Some specialty films especially in larger sizes can give you pretty high resolution scans.>>4511764>I have to imagine film production hasn't changed the formula so much that the longevity is reduced.new film from Kodak has better longevity than it did before. E100 is claimed by Kodak to have an 80+ year life in the datasheet.>>4511769I don't think most film in 35mm is going to get anywhere close to a 200MP scan equivalent. Maybe 50, and definitely not from a cheap consumer film. I could always be wrong but I don't think so.>>4511776> I never edit any of my film photos after do you only shoot slides?
>>4512910Yeah, seems like it. Which is fine but most of the nerds writing shit up take the most awful underexposed photos and know absolutely nothing about film and will compare films scanned with wildly different scanner settings, it's retarded. I really think I am going to run a couple rolls of this or that soonish and write my own review when I'm less busy with work. Which might be never, idk.
>>4512912Film testing is boring and is almost useless without photographing step wedges and creating spreadsheets using a densitometer. It's exceptionally annoying when looking at developer and film testing because no one really photographs a scene that can demonstrate the entire gamut of what may make a developer/film good.
>>4512912Also scanning film. Scanning film removes like 80% of the technical demand of shooting film, and you can basically make any film look like any other within reason. It's actually better to shoot b&w film low contrast/thin if you intend to only scan it. Exact opposite for making prints. Ree.
>>4512913I think you can still do somewhat useful testing with photographing scenes in real life but when I see it done most of the time it's in different lighting, from different angles, with different cameras, with different settings, and maybe not even developed at the same lab which makes it almost completely useless
>>4512912>>4512913yeah, average film "photographer" pushes shitty foma films or anything other 2-3 stops and gets garbage underexposed mess with transparent shadows on negatives and says he gets "great results". These days "great results" means that anything appeared on negative. These people watch infl*encers who has no idea about film and just copycat them and they just set garbage standards for themselves.
>>4512915Yeah. With the right scene and settings. It gets tricky because some developers are good at certain things and not as good at other things, so you may not understand why a developer is good aside from the obvious stuff like speed and accutance if your images don't contain those things. Other developers like staining devs don't even show off a big part of why they're so good until you actually make prints with them.>>4512916Some people will be in for a very rude awakening if they ever decide to give the darkroom a shot.
>>4511253The cover and title of this book made it sound really dangerous and ominous to me for some reason
>>4512925I brought one of my framed egg prints(pic) to the farmers market and the people that took the time to actually look at it were really impressed and wanted to see more of my prints even though no one had any clue what 8x10 film was or anything related to my incredibly autistic print process. It wasn't even developed with amidol!Next week I will bring a different one to share. Probably my bone + egg shot.Make prints and share your work IRL guys. It's pretty fun.Ty for reading the eggblog.
>>4512657this has now become a learning project. the issue is that the x-700 sometimes, for reasons known only to long dead minolta engineers, loses its shutter alignment. the problem is easy enough to fix, just unscrew the baseplate, spin some gears, et voila. in fact, the people who sold me this camera must have known about the issue and fixed or attempted to fix it in the past, because two of the screws in the baseplate are stripped and jammed in there fucking good. I used my tiniest screwdriver but alas I can't get any movement. they probably used a philips head when these screws (i'm pretty sure) actually need one of the japanese screwdriver heads (jjt or jt or something? idk)anyway, anyone have any thoughts on how to get these two tiny stripped screws out?
>>4512967No, but the problem sounds like mechanical slop from wear.
>>4512910>What will you be photographing with your film?might go to iceland for the solar eclipse in augustgassing for a medium format camera though
>>4512958>Eggboy, the last remaining (in spirit) /P/ namefag is left single-handedly adding actual content to the board>This angers the gearfag
>>4512995Please dont reply to yourself for attention. You’ve reposted that photo four times since february also. https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/U6S_ur85pwMhcWCrzguiLw/
kodacolor 100 is now my main for color
>>4513003What a creepy and wrong photo to take
>>4513004what makes yhou say that?
>>4513022underexposed foma, a classic
Shot Foma for the first time in a long time to remind myself why I don't. Why is this irredeemable garbage still being manufactured and sold in 2026 even.
>>4513098>Why is this irredeemable garbage still being manufacturedFear of missing analog
I dropped my Paterson thermometer 1 cm on to the countertop and it shattered >>4513024Spain?>>4513098Looks ok
>>4512995I'm here to inspire the youth with pictures of eggs! I just wish more people came here for technical questions, critiques, and more art type discussions.Maybe one day eggs will heal the world. We can always remain hopeful of such things.>>4513001I've seen you say people are talking to themselves about 10 times in various threads this past week lol. Change up the cope maybe?>Reposted image With a little contextualizing you would understand why I reposted it. I suppose I could have shared the actual print I brought to market instead of the scan. I was a little tipsy last night and wanted to make a motivational post.I may be working on a new shot soon that uses sheep's wool and an egg in a way that attempts to avoid landing on cliche themes. A little doubtful of the idea, but I am going to give it a shot. Stay tuned. :D
>>4513098looks goodhave you considered the fact you're retarded?
>>4513107I use a sous vide to preheat my water. It's incredibly convenient. I put it in a 4L pitcher with around 2L of water and it heats it up in like 3 minutes.
>>4513108>le dog avatarit really is tiresome ngli miss old 4chan when these people used tripcodes instead of quirks
>>4513120Wrong again. That's just a cute picture of my dog I took with very grainy film. All you do is whine and post essays in the gear thread. Why are you even here?
>>4512911>do you only shoot slides?Regular negatives. I get them scanned and leave them as they are.
>>4513123its not more authentic to not edit your scans. the noritsu or frontier at the lab (or worse, the guy with a dslr and macro lens) generally comes out flat and some labs don't bother to correct the green/yellow casts that come from the machines. negative film was meant for printing, which means it was meant for editing.
>>4513125They're usually Noritsu scans. I always go for the JPG though since TIFF files are always massive and really not worth it for my snapshit quality photos, and editing JPG doesn't seem all that possible considering the limitations of the format.
>>4513098Only foma film I've liked was their ortho 400. Everything else has been pretty lackluster.
>>4513131Youre like the anime version of gorsky. One day I would like to try gum over platinum prints using a trichrome seperation. The prints look insanely nice.
>>4513107Sevilla yes
Anyone know good forums or sub-reddits for film photography? This place is clearly dead. TIA
>>4513144You can post in the general photography subs and I think there's one just for film. At the very least there's a sub to discuss film cameras, so there's probably a dedicated sub that I don't know the name of. Good luck anon, I'll probably join you once I start getting some rolls back.
>>4513098I despise 400 but actually like 200. Haven’t tried 100 yet.
>>4513144>Anyone know good forums or sub-reddits for film photography?u don't wike us?
>>4513123To be honest, I knew this is what you meant and I was just being a bit of a dick. But anyway, what you're really telling us is that is that you let the automatic settings of a minilab machine edit your scan for you, which doesn't actually make you some sort of raw unedited analog photographer. It just means you're letting someone else decide how your photo looks. Before scanning, this would be equivalent to having no input on the color filtration used when printing. Which is totally fine, if you're getting the results you want. But printing negatives requires the printer to make decisions about what looks right and ideally you as the photographer would adjust in order to match what you wanted the scene to look like when you took the photo. So you should edit them as you see fit.>>4513126you can edit jpegs, I do all the time. Even for my cheap scans for photos taken on my focus-free point-and-shoot I color correct jpegs. Takes like a minute or two per photo at most.
>>4513144>sub-redditsnone, the moderation is TERRIBLE and the people are retards. They're redditors after all./p/ is actually better than plebbit's "analog" forums once you get past some of the shitposters. At least they're just trolling, even the non-trolls on reddit are mostly retarded.If you actually want a somewhat active forum with people who actually know what they're talking about, then join photrio.com. I know everything I know about film from guys on that site and it's also not a dead forum. I can't recommend it enough but be warned you shouldn't go there and talk like a retard as you would on other sites, it's a forum with good moderation and shitposts usually get deleted and the posters are warned.
>>4513098Gotta side with the others here and say it looks ok. I'll come back tomorrow with a test roll of 100. Since B/W development is a couple of bucks more expensive than C41, it's nice to have some cheap options for the film itself.
>>4513215The prints/scans are usually pretty close to what I had in mind, depending on how well I exposed the photo. I used DSLRs for a long time but still relied a little on image review if I was uncertain on high contrast scenes to get exposure right, which is something I can't do with film.>you can edit jpegs, I do all the time. Even for my cheap scans for photos taken on my focus-free point-and-shoot I color correct jpegs. Takes like a minute or two per photo at most.Is there much range to do so though? I'd have to think highlights are a total loss and only really shadows can be brought up, with only a slight adjustment of color before it all falls apart.
>>4513226>>4513109>>4513101I appreciate the sentiment, but it's a polished turd at best. This was the most usable frame from the roll.>>4513131I still haven't tried it, it's always out of stock when I buy other stuff and I won't make a separate order just for that. >>4513164Well this was the 400 (shot at around 320 tho).
>>4512958Splendid photo, markets are fun, I am preparing myself for an art market and a market at a historic festival. Not with photos but with paintings. I will have a stall and will be there to talk to the people directly which is nice. It's always a little intimidating to present your work to the public but it's very rewarding usually.>>4513131Lovely colours, did you take this shot on 120 film with 3 exposures?
>>4513265Did you scan it yourself? It came alive with some adjustments.I just got my testroll back. Based on previous experience with untested cameras, I ran a roll of Fomapan 100 through my newly acquired F5. So far I quite like the tones much more than Tmax 100, which might be the most boring B/W out there. I do not shoot a lot of B/W, but at 10 € less than the Kodak alternative it has certainly an appeal for just snapshitting away. With home development the value proposition gets even greater. I do however have some concerns about the QA of the film, as I'll expand on later.
A lot of the images came back with streaks across the upper part of the frame. In addition there are blemishes in the lower part of the frame. These are issues I've seen other comment on as well. Generally it looks very susceptible to scratches.
I really like how the colors turned out on this one
>>4513295>the colorsMay we see them?
>>45127152004 expired provia 100f rdpiii unknown quality. What iso do you suggest starting off at?
>>4513248>Is there much range to do so though?Not very much, but enough for basic color correction. If you're happy with the results you get already, there's really no point doing anything. Minilab scanners sometimes give great results on auto settings, but often they give substandard results because they're meant to scan most negatives (i.e., the average negative) acceptably. Depending on the photo you took you could fall into the sweet spot where the automatic settings just work, or it could just look like shit.In my experience, I've noticed that most lab scans in terms of color and levels come out alright but with some color casts that I usually like to fix with a small adjustment. For example, I often notice shadows going a bit too green, and that's something I can fix easily even with a jpeg.Now, one time I took photos of stars, and these photos were obviously of mostly black space. But the scanner probably tries to scan assuming the average of the photo should read as middle grey or something, so it cranked up the gain on my scan which made it really noisy. I was able to reduce exposure in post but the noise from the scan still remained, so this would be an example of a time when I wasn't able to really do much to the jpeg and I would have been better off with a .tiff or something.Just try out making minor adjustments to your jpegs and see how it works.
>>4513335I shot expired Velvia and I hate to tell you but it's very likely going to be a crapshoot. You can't just overexpose slide film the more expired it is like you do with negative film. If you look it up you'll see this advice often. My advice would be to bracket exposures and hope for the best. I will say that I did get some decent results by overexposing a bit so even the advice of never overexposing it might not always hold, but you still can't just shoot it like 2 or 3 stops over or something and expect anything good. For Velvia 50, I bracketed shots at EI 32, 40, 50 (box speed), 64, and 80.I did actually seem to get better at 64 and 80 but it could have been my camera's meter and the highlights started to blow out a bit.If I did it again I might try bracketing +/- 1 full stop as well.
>>4513362It was really cheap, so it's whatever. Going to start off with bracketed shots and see how it goes after I get those developed. I hear provia holds up fairly well with age. TY.
>>4513335>>4513363Overexpose +2 and pull -2. A bit tricky, but that modification of the old 1-stop/decade method gets the best results for expired slide.
>>4513363Yeah, good luck. Hope it turns out okay>>4513370I've heard of this too. How well has it worked for you?
>>4513374Pretty well. There will still be some color shifts due to aging dye couplers, but it's much better than box speed. Picrel is from a roll of old Agfa RSX I shot at 80 and pulled 1/3. Probably should have gone for a full stop, but most of the frames came out fine.
>>4513362I shot 3 2-years-expired rolls of Velvia 100 last month in 85F for a week. It all came out fine just at box speed.
>>45133762 years is nothing for film. Expiration dates are always a few years before you get anything noticeable, especially for 100 and below.
>>4513283Own scan, with a DSLR. I tried on the Epson first and it couldn't cope at all. Previews were all black, and when adjusting manually before scanning there was a tiny sliver of tones taking up about 1/20th of the histogram. After limiting range to just that I'd get a hilariously bad image with maybe 6 tones tops in it. I haven't tried on the Plustek yet but it's currently buried under a bunch of shit in the closet and I feel too lazy to dig it up now.Here's one more. Like I said, polishing a turd. With enough effort it can maybe be sculpted into something passable, but it's just not good and it's extremely unfun to deal with. Could be made better with masking and adjusting each distinct area separately, but God knows I'm not doing that. If I need to put more effort into editing b&w than a basic S-curve, then it's a bad negative. So here it's a choice of which range of tones is important to show something, and which will become muddy flat shit. It's contrasty and hardly panchromatic, but not in a good way like Ferrania P30 which gave you a robust, bold image out of the box. This is thin weak shit, and to not forget the bigger picture, probably completely unprintable. I don't think I'll even try wasting any paper on it so I don't get even more angry.Sorry for ranting, but it's been years since I have dealt with something so bad. (It also curls like a motherfucker and is near impossible to put into the scanner strip holder).Seaparately from all that, I noticed the left and right edges of all scans are darker (in negative). This was the first time I was scanning 120 with a DSLR so I'm not sure if it's the holder, or the backlight, or something else causing it. Gonna have to troubleshoot it later, but I suspect the backlight not being uniform since it's very close to its edge there. I didn't have this issue when scanning 135 with the same setup (different holder obviously, but of the same kind).
>>4513386FOMA is rollercoaster of QA. Their films and papers were good bang for buck in 80s when it was state monopoly for film material, then their films dropped in quality like rock in 90s while their papers improved, then they had short spell where film was getting good again while paper suffered from terrible QA and now they're back to film being meh and paper while good having production issues because of supply chain outages. If you want cheap 120 B&W just go with Lucky SHD or just gamble on getting fresh 220 rolls of Shanghai GP3.
>>4513335>>4513370I'm shooting similar aged provia, metered at 80 and giving +15 seconds in 1st dev (bellini kit). For my stock that's enough to lift the shadows up to where they would be on in-date stock, just have to be a little careful with the highlights. I'm currently metering them no more than +2 vs +2.5 and +3 for white clouds on fresh provia.
>>4513392>If you want cheap 120 B&W just go with Lucky SHD or just gamble on getting fresh 220 rolls of Shanghai GP3.Eh, I didn't buy that roll to save money, just half out of morbid curiosity and half for old times sake. Foma were my first films back when I started shooting (developed in Fomadon R09, too); it was only years later, after getting enough experience with other brands, that I realized that it wasn't me doing anything wrong, only the film stock being crap.Kentmere is actually cheaper than 1st party branded Foma and is a vastly superior material (and well worth the .50 difference from the Arista rebrand).And I've had both Lucky and the GP3 on my "want to shoot" list for a while, it just keeps taking through the cracks (often because they're actually not the cheapest for me). I wanted to try the 220 GP3 particularly, just to check if my Yashica would handle it correctly. And I guess to see how I will feel having so many frames to burn in a medium format roll, too.
>>4513403New Lucky stock is good, the usual "treat 400 as 200" rule still applies but it's reliable, cheap film. Too bad the backing paper is super loose so you have to be careful when changing rolls.GP3 220 works fine in Mamiya so no reason it wouldn't in Yashica.
Shitty lab scan from recent roll, waiting for it to come back from the lab so I can try out mirrorless scanning for the first time.
>>4513320Costs extra
Picked up the camera body a year ago. It came with a 35-70 zoom. Fast forward to today. I drove 2 hrs each way to get the two prime lenses. When I got there he decided that I should take the bag and a few accessories too for a bit more money. There's a speedlite 155a that I'm not quite sure yet how it slides on the shoe mount. There is also a 2x teleconverter. The lenses are a 50mm f1.8 and a 200mm f4. The later of which seems quite chunky. I guess you could say things are getting serious.
>>4513653But anon, where are the photos you've taken with the camera?
Been shooting on my great grandmother's Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 80. Wanting to make the switch to a big boy manual.Am I meme'ing myself by looking into something pricier like a Voigtlander?
>>4513661
>>4513661buy whatever you want anon
>>4513403I just printed one from roll of Lucky SHD400, shot at 200. For some 6 bucks a pop from Aliexpress when bulk ordering it gives nice results, maybe not for super large prints but 8x10 is just right. Pardon the terrible scan quality.
Some recent shots on Portra400 on my Yashica 35CCN
>>4513685
>>4513687
>>4513688
>>4513690
>>4513691
>>4513692
>>4513685Overexposed (shutter speed too slow)>>4513687Alri.>>4513688Could be a light leak on the left. Are other shots like this?>>4513690>>4513691Could use more constrast. Nice soles/10.>>4513692Too slow shutter speed, and not really sure what we're looking at here.>>4513693Cool subject, but find a more interesting perspective to frame it it.
Bros, I've decided to join the dark side and ordered a Zorki 4. Please pray for my financial future. My goal though is to stick to one roll per month for now treating this as a "side project" type thing. Like a visual diary or whatever. While still doing most of my photography with digital. At least until I get a better job. Might experiment with expired films. Should I immediately get into developing at home? I have my late grandfather's enlarger. Thanks for reading my blog post.
>>4513701Develop b&w at home. Scan everything at home if you can. 1 picture a day is a great idea. B&w dev is so cheap at home even 1 or 2 rolls a month will save you money within like a year, especially if you buy used junk to dev with.
>>4513701Developing film at home is cheap, B&W costs peanuts and C-41 is still much cheaper than most labs. Printing is the real money sink unless you only go for small postcard size prints, then it's also cheap.
>>4513714>Developing film at home is cheap, B&W costs peanuts and C-41 is still much cheaper than most labs.I'm too retarded to do it, but I wish I could. I hear black and white is the easiest since temperatures don't matter and only time matters, but I'd probably fuck up loading the film.
>>4513741Temperatures still matter for black and white, just less so. You have to be actually retarded to not be able to develop. If you can follow instructions, you can develop black and white. Don't feign incompetence, just say you don't want to.
>>4513742>Don't feign incompetence, just say you don't want to.I'm just an anxious fuck with this kind of thing and have really limited workspace.
>>4513743the anxiety might make it less fun but if you have space for a dark bag you have space to do b&w at home. but ultimately its your hobby, don't let internet goons make you feel like you're doing things you enjoy wrong.
>>4513743Get a roll of kentmere/foma and just take a bunch of fun snapshits for your first roll. You can also sacrifice a roll to practice outside of a darkbag if you wanted. It's really easy and will become second nature in no time.I'm going to try my hand at developing E-6 for the first time soon.
>>4513744>>4513745I'll try it out with some black and white, I hear that's easiest. Should I get one of those all in one kits or source each individual piece instead? I know kits can be a quality gamble and I'd like something that will last/actually work.
>>4513747Paterson daylight tank, rodinal, fixer, photoflo, changing bag, thermometer, two 1L gradauted beakers, and a 10ML syringe or 45ml graduated cylinder.
Itching to shoot some black and white. Last batch was all color.
>>4513747Ilford has a complete dev kit that comes with everything except the changing bag. Their stuff is always great, so you can give that a shot.
>>4513769Based, I might grab that to start with. And probably just use some Ilford black and white since it's pretty cheap.
>>4513772If you're feeling exceptionally lazy you can get a monobath developer.
Little did I know that B/W could be so fun. With the price of development being 12 € (plus scans..), and a Rodinal starter kit with tank being 70 €, the investment pays off quickly. It's a more daunting to exercise to collect a copy stand from fb marketplace. I do have a macro bellow for Nikon. Are any of you scanning with DX cameras?
>>4513807They work fine for social media. If you're trying to make large prints then a larger, better sensor will help.
>>4513772Either get Ilford or ADOX starter set, they're basically the same thing just different chemicals. You'll still need changing bag but if you have completely dark space available it's probably easier to do it there since you will have more space.
B&H just raised their 3 pack price of kodak gold by $2
Egg + sheep woolI sort of dislike this image and have a feeling it doesn't fit well in my series. Visually impressive and it should make a crazy looking print, but it feels like it is just not inline with my series enough to be a part of it.Anyone familiar with my other egg photos have an opinion on it?
>>4512967I fixed my X-700, had to break the baseplate a little because of one stubborn screw but nothing some electrical tape won't cover over. at least now the shutter opens fully and seems to align on higher shutter speeds, so I guess I still need a test roll to verify that the fix actually worked (and that the timing of the shutter speeds aren't totally fucked). please enjoy this beauty shot taken (perhaps ironically) on my SRT-201 that the X-700 will likely be replacing as my most used camera.
>>4513703>>4513714Thanks for the tips, gives me more confidence eventually get into B&W development, thought I'll probably run at least a few rolls through a lab first just to get a feel for the process, and to not sink money into tools and materials before I'm sure I want to keep going.The Zorki will ship Monday, so I'll get it at some point next week, but I conveniently just received a free disposable camera, so can already start working on this month's film photos.What does /fgt/ think of Soviet cameras?
>>4513936>What does /fgt/ think of Soviet cameras?they made cameras?I thought cameras were a japanese thing, which is why a weeb site has a photography board
Saw a fe2 at a flea market with a 35mm lens without cap, light seal still okayish, dude wanted 200 euros lmao
>>4511253Just shot a bunch of 35 color rolls on vacation, I’m very much a know nothing beginner but I’m thinking a few might be worth keeping, up to now I’ve been developing through a local guy who develops and scans in the back of his shop. Should I go for a pro lab to develop these to get the best or would the difference be negligible for someone with my lack of skills? I like supporting the local guy but I guess this would be a good opportunity to get the best possible.
>>4514022idkused to send my rolls to a professional lab, but even their highest resolution scans were just 8MP on some noritsu scannerstill send my color to be developed by the same lab because it is convenient but i scan myself using a duct-taped coolscan ls-4000 instead€10/roll for scanning and the firewire card, cable, and scanner has paid off in just 15 rolls
>>4514022Should not matter for c41 or e6. Most places use some sort of minilab that will produce consistent and high quality results. You could always ask what rig they have for processing and scanning then do research based off that to make your decision.
which one are you taking /fgt/? the minolta maxxum 7000 or the pentax sfx/sf-1?
>>4514036Probably just a canon 1v, bruv.
>>4514036>those edges>those buttons and switches>that "futuristic" lookWorst era of camera design, second only to the mirrorless disaster.
>>4513936>What does /fgt/ think of Soviet cameras?they can be fun, i am living in armenia now so soviet glass and cameras are stupidly cheap, been collecting a few for a while now, got a soviet 60s 8mm i've been needing to usegoing to put a roll through my zenit et with the mir 1v soon
>>4514038Homosexuality is against the rules, anon
does this photo work
>>4514124or this
>>4514124>does this photo work>>4514125>or thisit depends: what was your intent for both? how did you want them to look? and what do you think makes them "not work" as photos to execute your vision?
>>4514036neither, I find this era of film cameras disastrously ugly
Sunday is the day to weird photography stuff. I used a shitty old halfway broken 35mm camera and shoved a tiny little glass wetplate in there to make this negative. Test SUCCESS. Once I get a good one I will try enlarging.
>"cold" tap water is 24°Cman I hate the summers here...
>>4514152The absolute mad man.
>>4514158Here's the print. I only had time for this one. Probably needs lower contrast.Ilford VC fiber + ansco 130. Printed with a contrast filter of 2. The only camera I could do this with was a shitty rangefinder stuck at f1.9, so the focus is kinda doodoo, but it was a fun experiment that produced a pretty unique look.If you tried this with an f1.4 lens you could totally shoot handheld wetplates. I was getting around 1/10-1/30s exposures at f1.9 in direct sunlight.
I took some film photos for the first time in ages last week. Looking forward to posting some here and hearing what you guys have to say. Is this the thread to post the best of the rolls in?
>>4514195Sure. I'll provide some constructive feedback if you want as well.
>>4514126im just loney guy in a big cityso the photos kinda look how i feel
>>4514201How could you be lonely when you have all of us?
>>4513936>What does /fgt/ think of Soviet camerasThe only ones worth attention are Kievs. Maaybe Zorki if you're into rangefinders
>>4514124>I want it to feel lonelyit works: glare superimposing the city on the silhouette of people fading into the highlights and the only distinguished face entirely unreached and unreachable.>>4514125>I want it to feel lonelynot working like that, I feel sick, confused and disoriented, which is a cool effect but not exactly what you say you're aiming for
>>4514234>feel sick, confused and disorientedMaybe that's how he experiences loneliness in the city? Fugue state kinda vibe.
>>4514237Honestly, if it were presented to me as a photo titled "Loneliness in the City," or as part of a series with a likewise title, I wouldn't blink an eye. Titles help a lot.
>>4513918I like it, but the pelvic bone has been the best yet imo.
the lab that cut my film put a smudge on it. How do you get rid of it? I once tried using alcohol which just ruined everything.
>>4514278distilled water and hope it dissolvesmaybe add a bit of white vinegar (that's what a stop bath pretty much is so the film can take it)
>>4514278Looks like some dried residue, see if it's on emulsion or base side. If it's on base your can try rubbing it dry with any lint free cloth (like for glasses/lenses). If it's on emulsion side then try what the other anon said.If you're submerging then you should submerge the whole piece so it dries uniformly. So it's better if it's a shorter strip like 6 frames instead of entire roll.
>>4513403If you want black and white cheap, why not bulk load?
>>4514389>bulk loading 120nigga, i...
>>4514425You have to shoot 70mm if you want truly cheap medium format film and it's a huge pain in the ass with very limited film stock. On the upside you can use 15 foot rolls and get like 50-65 shots per roll if you wanted.
>>4513701So the Zorki has arrived. What a beautiful piece of mechanical engineering, even if it was assembled by R*ssian hands. The Jupiter 8 that came with it has seen better days. Aside from some expected scratches, there's two small black spots that appear to be on the internal glass, and I'm guessing they're likely to appear in photos, especially at smaller apertures.Also, the backplate has a tiny amount of give when closed, but I'm hoping that's not anything that would cause a light leak.
>>4514431You're supposed to wait until you have pics to share to make gear posts bro
>>4514433Or at least take some glamour shots like >>4513928
>>4514274Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I feel the same.
What do you guys do with your photos? Like what's the final output? It's fun to go out and take photos and edit but then what? Post them on an imageboard to be ignored? It would be cool to get them in front of people who might care. Or even to get critiques from others. Idk. I'm just collecting snapshots and practice but for what?
>>4514457Gee I don't know, maybe getting 10 likes on instagram?
What's your favorite 400 speed b&w film?
>>4514457Making prints and displaying them is the end goal. I've got a bunch hanging on my walls, and the series I've devoted most of my effort to for months now will hopefully get me into a small local gallery or something.I think the thing a lot of people coming into photography as a hobby miss is that the practice should naturally evolve past simple camera operation and into something more, which includes the print.What do you want to say, express, show, or tell visually that you think is worthwhile? Photography is a visual art, and if you get stuck on the fun of simply operating a camera you may get bored of it, or feel that it is sort of pointless past preserving/documenting important personal moments, people, pets, etc. The camera and darkroom are merely tools that allow the photographer/artist to express themselves.Or you can be a photojournalist hah whatever excites you.Also if you want critique just ask. I've made it a point to offer my own critique because I want to see more of it on /fgt/.
>>4514461XX
Just fucked up loading my film in the most ridiculous way possible and lost like 5 exposures fml lesson learned I guess
>>4514463Sure, would you critique >>4514457 then? I am going for more atmospheric, structural, deadpan look and feel in my photos, that's what I seem to be drawn to. Lewis Baltz type shit. Composition in my opinion feels a bit lopsided but I'm curious what you think. I was thinking of doing a zine or something similar. Something physical. How do you get shit in a gallery?
>>4514469I like the concept of the picture and the tight/claustrophobic framing works well for it, but I think a crop like this where you condense down the important stuff and simplify the image would improve the shot a lot. May need reframing/a new angle if you tried this one again.On the technical side of things I'm not in love with the lack of sharpness, but that may just be from the small file size. I bet the grain would compliment the image nicely when printed. I think the tones/contrast are pretty good overall. Maybe a bit dark on the planter box.>galleriesNo clue, but I'm going to figure it out.
>>4514480Appreciate the feedback, anon. Currently using a flatbed scanner that seems to be pretty soft. Probably have to get things more professionally scanned if I want to do larger prints.
>>4514483Darkroom! Maybe there's a public one in your area. Flatbeds kinda suck for 35mm film unless you get autistic about it.
>>4514457I've made two zines that I distribute for free to local pot shops for people to take and enjoy while they get stoned or whatever, and I've had prints made to give to people or for myself. Feels good on a down day when I'm in my cubicle and I look at the cute picture of my gf that I took. That said, I do want to interrogate your premise a bit. >It's fun to go out and edit but then what?why does there need to be more? If you're enjoying your hobby why isn't that enough? Not a rhetorical question, either: sometimes it's not enough because you want to have your work be seen and appreciated, sometimes it's not enough because you just aren't enjoying the process anymore, and sometimes it isn't enough for reasons completely unrelated to the process and the work. You know the answer, and that suggests the solution.
I found my mum's old camera and thought I'd use it, but damn... Film's so expensive...
shot some weird ass looking dogs last summer, only got to developing the pics now>>4514507only if you're poorbut yeah, the convenience isn't there anymore to justify the price, but it's a fun and rewarding hobby nonetheless
>>4514525
>>4514526an actual attempt at framing.... lmao>amateur hour
>>4514525What drew me to this particular hobby was really the inconvenience and high costs associated with it.
>>4514527>used up all of my rodinal for some snaps
>>4514540
not sure if I'm more annoyed or amused by this marks, but probably the former
>>4514526Composition is good but background is way too busy. The dog's head is so small in the grant that I'm not sure if you could have saved it by shooting wide open desu.
>>4514566>cum tribute on a landscape pic
what should've I done to make the mountains look crisper?
>>45145721. Focus on the mountains instead of the boat. 2. Close down the aperture if not past the diffraction point yet. 3. Use a tripod.4. Wait until after the rain to clear out the pollution.5. Use UV / Skylight / CPL filter.6. Use better film.7. [spoiler]Shoot digital.[/spoiler]
I decided to do a semi-stand dev for these because I didnt want to develop two rolls individually. 2+2+500 pyrocat MC. 50 minutes with 10s agit every 10 minutes. They came out pretty interesting. Fp4 and delta 400.>>4514540Time to mix up some pyrocat variant!
These goat pics are kind of absolute shit, but I also think they have a certain charm to them. Stylized editing. These are all with the delta 400.
Fin.
