Brand Loyalty 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: How much would you suffer for your art?Previous thread: >>4511253
>>4516071>Thread Question: How much would you suffer for your art?I suffer daily through Nikon AI's shitty fuckin aperture window
>>4516071>How much would you suffer for your art?I mean, analog photography is more of a side hobby, it helps me think differently to assist my real art which is plein air painting. And that art is something I already suffer a lot for.Doing analog photography helps me think of composition in a more abstract way which in turn helps me with painting, choosing and composing subject matters with light and textures.
>>4516071The F is pretty cool. I wish they were easier to field disassemble. They're not just held together with flat head screws like most other cameras of the era. You need a specific kind of little wrench to get the shutter button assembly off. Because of this I prefer the F2, which is also annoying to disassemble but its smaller, nicer to hold and has a few more features.
going traveling with some friends for a few weeksshould I bring the 120 with the 35, or just single cameramaxx and just shoot the 35 for the whole thing?
>>4516102Depends, what are they? Something like a Fujica GA645 isnt really meaningfully bigger than a 35mm, but if you're using some shit you need to put on a tripod just take the 35.
>>4516091I've used an FM for a few rolls but I've only seen the aperture window like a handful of times. It's like the entire window is too big to see all at once.
>>4516109They also had to cut holes in the rabbit ears so light could reach the f/4 and f/8 markings, which doesn't work at all and the rabbit ears just completely block it. I have an F2a, F2 photomic, and FM, and I can confirm the window in the F2a is no better than on the FM. In fact, I like the non AI DP1 finder much more because that actually has a full features display, like the F5, albeit an analogue one.
I got two rolls of Santacolor 100 and two rolls of Kodak Colorplus 200 developed and finally understood how to process my negatives.
>>4516151I'll post a few of the best snapshits.
Fuji C200 - Canonet QL19
>>4516152
Across 100 ii
>>4516154The first two were taken with a Konica C35 automatic and the latter two with Olympus XA2
>>4516152>>4516157Better than a snapshit for sure, don't sell yourself short anon
>>4516162Thanks! They really are just things that I've come by and taken a shot without a careful thought.
sardines on toast
>>4516178Montano?
>>4516071Is film dead? I used to post with ultramax hashtags and get a hundred likes but now its like 10 or less. Feels like no one cares about film anymore.
Tried out Kodacolor 100, got the roll back today.
>>4516197Do people use search tags on instagram still? Couldn't tell you the last time I made a search, I let my feed come to me as is.I never edit my scans from the shop, but thinking of starting so I can pull more color out of shots like these
Still shooting my Olympus Zoom 80. Waiting til after my vacation to learn real analog so as not to waste or lose shots I can't get again>>4516152
>>4516152this is lovely sir
>>4516011another kodak scan
>>4516201cool aesthetic
>How much would you suffer for your art?It's not art, it's a hobby. I'll do what I feel like in the moment if there's a photo I'm excited about. Photography is one of the least serious things in my life and that's where I'd like it to stay.
Filmcuks will never reach digiCHAD's level. While filmcuck overpays per photo and waits in a red cuck room till his "negative" fully develops, the digiCHAD bangs his gf and snaps hundreds of photos durring that time.
>>4516231You don't even know what you're talking about. Negatives aren't processed under a safelight
>>4516232>Uhm ackschually...Filmcucks BTFO'd
>>4516230is this yours? this is cool
>>4516095>easier to field disassembleFor what purpose, though? I agree that the back lid isn't optimal, but why would you ever want to subject your camera's insides to the outside world? Even then, it's easy to change the lens, prism and focusing screen.Is it possible to find just the film pressure plate for sale? I have another F-body which is more akin to the one in the OP.>>4516151>>4516152I love Santacolor 100, but the light piping on the first shots of a roll sucks. If only they could sell the film in black canisters.
>>4516190pinhais from porto
>>4516230That's a great take on it. I've started thinking recently about it that way rather than tryharding and being frustrated when the photos wouldn't look perfect to me.
>>4516265Yea, I went to Mexico and just took my Stylus Epic. 10/10 decision. Thanks anon
>>4516266By field disassemble I mean actually taking off the top cover and unjamming the winder. >but why would you ever want to subject your camera's insides to the outside worldYou wouldn't but sometimes you're on a trip and you can't bring a toolbox full of nikons stupid special wrenches. It's one of the reasons I I trust my FM more than any of the flagship models. The most of the winding mechanism is on the bottom and with just 3 JIS screws you can take the bottom plate off to clear a jam or run some contact cleaner through if there is debris inside.
The focus point D-pad on my F100 failed right at the start of my 4 week trip, I'm really pissed off. It was stuck on the left point which was extremely irritating. After a lot of blowing, pushing and kneading it did move to the center one so I at least could lock it there.Apparently it can be caused by dirty contacts between the back door and the camera body. I hope that's just that, but I won't know until I have finished the current roll. But if it's not that, then looking at the replacement prices I may as well just buy a whole new fucking camera instead. I want to strangle every fucking scalper on Earth right now.
>>4516273Could also be the contacts on the dpad itself. Use some WD40 brand contact cleaner. Pretty sure U can take the film door completely off on the f100, so do that because the contact cleaner is an extremely thin, penetrating liquid, and use it well away from the body of the camera when u spray the door. Try to get some under the dpad and some under the contacts with the tube extension on the can. you dont need to flood it. Worst case scenario you can get a replacement door. wait for any residue to drip out before putting it back on the camera. if any residue gets on the pressure plate, wipe it off with an alcohol wipe or a baby wipe, then with a microfibre cloth. they say the contact cleaner leaves zero residue, but in reality it does leave a little bit, and you dont want that getting on your shutter blades or onto your film.
>>4516275Yes, the door is removable by design, there is an alternative data back you can put on it. If cleaning the door contacts won't help then the dpad contacts were my next thought too, but that will need to wait until I'm back home. Add for replacement door, like I said, fuck the current scalper prices. It's about $150 for regular and $250 for data back version (which I don't care about, but it's an option), and you can get a whole body in very good condition for about $300.
>>4516273> I want to strangle every fucking scalper on Earth right now.me trying to build out a gx680 kitGod bless roberts camera and their actually reasonable prices
>>4516280… that said I may have bumped up the market price on gxm50s, since I bought one for $999to be fair it was in absolute mint condition, including the flocking
Scalpers are based. If you have a bronica SQ-A, sell it for as much as possible.I have five.
>>4516280>gx680 kitYeah those are rare asf man good luck with that. I would be surprised if they sold 3000 of those.
>>4516279Does the dpad move as normal or does it feel weird? Did you take it somewhere especially humid or dusty? My f80 has been to Antarctica and it was fine, but that was during the summer so I think they handle adverse conditions ok for an electronic camera.
>>4516285It was in the middle of the heatwave in Europe, and I guess it felt fairly humid where I was but I couldn't tell you how humid in % or anything. I was out hiking in the mountains. And then there was a light drizzle, but I don't think any drops fell on the camera back, and it wasn't its first light drizzle anyway. The dpad feels normal, or rather just how it was before - which is kind of mushy and not great as far as dpads go, but it was always reliable until now.
>>4516286Probably just some rainwater carried some muck onto a contact then. Contact cleaner should fix it.
Took Pentax SP1000 + Vivitar 28mm for a test roll of Ilford PAN 400. Developed it with Rodinal 1+50. Seems body is working ok. I need to make my bathroom light sealed eventually because working with the bag is annoying. Anyway, here's some snapshots
>>4516318
>>4516319
>>4516321
>>4516318>>4516319good stuff
>>4516322And last one.
>>4516323Thanks!
Ran 2 sheets of provia3 through the jobo before 3 rolls of 35mm e6. What a joy, everything came out looking great. Here is one the test shots. Turns out the super warm light I used with my first test gave it that really strong yellow tint. The film looks quite good in neutral lighting. For 2 bucks a sheet I cannot complain.>>4516318Ilford darkroom tent and you can start making prints. :D Nice shots btw.
how do you guys convert your negatives?
>>4516394I just use capture one
I had to stay home because my cow got injured, so I spent the day working on 35mm wetplate.I purchased 1mm thick microscope slides that I can cut down into plates. This allowed me to use my 35mm film to sinar adapter. The plates must be cut very precisely or they slide and ruin the colloidion.I used my 25mm zeiss luminar at 7x magnification, 6 stops of bellows compensation, to capture this.20s exposure at f7. Promising result for such an absurdly challenging setup.More to come.
Better in some ways worse in others.
Last one for today. Gotta troubleshoot some things.
Shot a roll of fomopan 200 and they mostly all came out like shit. Did I develop wrong? Couldn't find much so I cooked it around 4.5 minutes in slightly off color Ifosol 3...The other 3 films I developed in the same stuff came out fine
>>4516530Probably too short of dev, I would have gone with 6 minutes at least.
I feel like i'm spending a lot of money shooting nothing.
My first time ever posting here. Got a Minolta X370 from Goodwill and tried to shoot film for the first time since high school. Someone want to tell me how I could have made these better? Is underexposure my only problem?
>>4516564
>>4516567
>>45165641. Open in PS, Gimp or whatever2. Adjust levels/curves3. Drag the highlights and shadows to the ends of the RGB histogram4. Drag the midtones to the median of the histogram values or wherever you preferThey're all good photos, Bront
>>4516564Do you plan to print them or just scan? If just scan then >>4516573 is correct, those are good photos that just need some edits. If you want to print them then you need to work with exposure better, look up zone system and meter for shadows.
gonna shoot a fair bit tri-x on holiday, never used a colour filter, should I get one?
Some shots from my last roll of Ultramax I think. Canon AE-1
>>4516580Also I bought a Yashica T4 that I’m excited to try, will be nice to have a point and shoot
great fucking success anonsI have FINALLY figured out how to pass through my firewire PCIe card to a VMfinally I may use Nikon Scan
>>4516608here is a picture scanned using Nikon Scan, straight from the scanner
>>4516609here is the same negative using VueScan
>>4516609>>4516609Big difference, congrats. What was the solve?
>>4516617disabling the kernel DMA protection in the BIOS was the final solution
>>4516621will post instructions for anyone else in a similar situation
>>4516622Please do, you never know
>>4516557Copenhagen is beautiful, go to the lakes and shoot people passing by, go to the parks and the canals.
>>4516609>>4516610did you do negative conversion in scan software for both of those, or after?
unfortunately the composites for this trichrome were all underexposed by about 1.5 stops so it's pretty rough
>>4516650I wonder if you did long exposure to make the water really smooth it would work better for a trichrome.
>>4516628both in scan software, neither is perfect but ive spent hours configuring VueScanin Nikon Scan i only enabled the digital ICEi am optimistic that the results can yet be improved
>>4516579Yellow and green take care of 99% of situations where you might even bother with filter.
How much worse is an old flatbed scanner for negatives than a drum scanner?Would it be worth to upgrade?
>>4516707nigga there is a world of scanners that fit between those two options, at least for 35mmfor mf you have at least the two coolscans 8000 and 9000if its sheet film then your out of luck
>>4516719>coolscan 8000>coolscan 9000These are even lower resolutionI'm using 35 mm film, but my scanner can take 4 strips of 35 mm negatives or medium and some sizes of sheets.And that at 4800 DPI native resolution with digitalICE, but I was looking for something that can resolve high resolution film properly.It has only 4800 DPI native resolution and already struggles with 280 lp/mm film and I wanted to try 800 lp/mm high resolution film.So, I need something with a native resolution of ~20 000 DPI.But it seems I'll need to bite the bullet and go with chemical printing then.
>>4516283what about sq-b?>>4516394darktable>>4516582>corgi, someone's backrpt would lose their minds
>>4516726rpt?
>>4516727the recent photo thread sometimes malds at those because they’re the pet subject of /p/‘s current worst gearfag, some literal homo who left /p/ for reddit a long time ago, got banned from r/leica for being a libtard and came right back here
>>4516394My scanner's (Primefilm XA+) native conversion software for most daytime shots, darktable for shots that the scanner does a bad job of as well as most night shots.
>>4516622>>4516624fuck manually writing instructionsenjoy the ai slop with some manual additionshttps://pastebin.fi/p/3u6M4RN
old film that got messed up
>>4516658Yeah probably. Unfortunately I didn't have (and still don't have) ND filters.>>4516754What even happened here that would cause these issues
>>4516672oh okayI just scan negatives with vuescan and convert in darktable, so the difference is probably less noticeableI tried to get Nikon Scan working but gave up and just extracted the ICC profiles to use with vuescan or darktablebut also I think I stopped using those too because it didn't make much difference in the inverted result>>4516720>4800 DPI native resolution and already struggles with 280 lp/mm filmwell yeah 4800 dpi is 189 dpmm, and you'd need at least 560 dpmm to resolve 280 lpmm as per nyquistwhat are you scanning though, microfilm documents?I'd expect you to be hard pressed to get that kind of resolution out of most film-era camera lenses
>>4516772something happened where the film became very sticky and it scratched when loading onto the spool
>>4516739Thanks bby ;)
>>4516753Spoopy >>4516735Sounds like a fag
>>4516707If we're talking 35mm...Camera scanning > dedicated film scanner and I'll die on that hill. Flatbeds won't even be in focus, pakons are 6mp, Nikon super coolscans takes an hour to scan a roll of 36exp, blah blah blah.
>>4516788> Nikon super coolscans takes an hour to scan a roll of 36exphow generousit’s more like 3h for me because stephan decided to make his 35mm insert only do one frame at a time
>>4516791Sell the scanner and buy darkroom stuff. In 3 hours youll get to see your pics and have a few nice prints in hand.
>>4516807nofilm is just an intermediate for digital photos for me
>>4516773never considered converting outside of the scanneri convinced myself that it doesn't fit my lazy workflowit's probably worth exploring, and just "one more step" in darktablei've also convinced myself that the digital ICE is better in Nikon Scan
>>4516394NLP all the way. Can't wait for the standalone version.
>>4516809But why? The prints are the best part of using film.
Only 3 more sheets and my e6 chemistry won't be wasted! Going to retake this one with e100VS and refine it. The detail on the slide/full res scan is amazing.
No.2 I have this cool modular spotlight thing that I had a lot of fun using for both of these. Sorry they're both so extremely dirty. I forgot to rinse out my stabilizer tray.
Bought bunch of GP3 in 220 because that's the only 220 you can get and I quickly remembered why I hate GP3. It's 50 speed that you have to develop like 100 and it's picky about developer you use, basically 1:3 D76 or nothing unless you really like agitating every 30 seconds for 30 minutes in rodinal. But hey, 24 shots on a roll.
What mail order film lab is good at least in the USA? I want 4x6 prints + scans for just 2 regular 35mm rolls (Kodak 200 Gold that went through a X Ray 2x + TriX B&W 400 that's 15+ years old and was already half used in a camera I bought)I'm in NYC if there's something local too.
For a lit scene like this, I have to crank the white clipping by 50 in LR, else the skies look muddy. The highlights in general have piss in the color tone. Is this just a quirk of scanning slides I have to deal with? I think the lab uses some fuji frontier scanner.Even if the whole slide is btfo (user error ofc), the RGB-values cap out at 72%.
>>4516810I really like using darktable's negadoctor, the controls it exposes make sense to meeach roll I do a low-res scan of an unexposed leader and use that for the base color in negadoctor for the whole roll, rather than having the software try to guess from each framegives me a consistent baseline across each roll I can tweak from>>4516826this is rad
>>4516858interesting. alright.ill make sure to try that at some pointthen maybe the only benefit of using Nikon Scan would be better(?) digital ICE.. plus the fact that it is freethe VM and VFIO also enables the use of pirated VueScan too, nigga stopped selling lifetime license that includes updates
>>4516858Negadoctor itself is pretty intuitive but for some reason they put it after basic tone mapping tools like Levels or Tone Equalizer in the default module order so you have to manually swap them every time you start working on negatives from scratch. It's no big deal once you know it but it's the kind of GIMP-esque UX issue that easily fucks with beginners.
>>4516864they probably assume most people would be camera scanning and just slapping their usual profile on their imported scans before inverting
What's you guys approach to post processing? For me, I digitally scan and try to stick to dust removal, tone curves, dodge/burn and slight perspective fixes.
>>4516882For digital, ICE during scan and then adjust curves and exposure if needed.For print, hard contrast multigrade and usually burn sky and dodge the main subject as needed.
>>4516871I don't think so, they even recommend to modify the order in the documentation. I assume it's because their intended optimal order for regular raw processing has tone mapping be performed much earlier than Negadoctor can fit for a clean input.
>>4516751Is that the House Leader or something?
>>4516843Probably gonna try LTI or Thackers depending how I feel about going into the city and spending $6 on a round trip Metrocard fare or not.
>>4516951kevin mccarthy
>>4516843Blue Moon Camera in Portland, if you don't mind sending all the way across.
any love for a man's corn despite his light leaks? also reducing file size to post here is a bihh
>>4517030obviously unedited. Picked up an A-1 for $30 today, excited to relearn analog and also be rid of my Zoom's leaks
>>4517032
>>4516850You're usually better scanning slides yourself either a desktop scanner or camera scanning. Lab scanners do alot of colour balancing and black/white point automatically which can seriously fuck up slides with unusual lighting or if the exposure is off.
oh man did i mistreat this roll, both at exposure and during developmentpic related is the only one that looks ok
>>4516277>>4516278These are really interesting to look at. They look like abstract pieces from a distance>>4516854I really have to visit Norway, absolutely unreal sceneries. Did these use hyperfocal distance or just a tight aperture to keep everything in focus?>>4517035Lovely colours and composition
Anyone have any experience using an M7?
Bought a Moscow Olympics labeled Zenit EM from local thrift store for 15 eurodollars. It was sold as "broken camera for parts". It came with pretty clean Helios 44 which was my rationale for buying it really. To my surprise mechanically the camera seemed to function just fine after I played a little with the dials. Cleaned it with some isopropyl alcohol, loaded with a cheap roll of agfaphoto 100 (kentmere100), quickly shot some shit in my backyard with no idea how to use the shutter speed selector dial (none of the indexes seem to hit the speed value markings? what do the X and MF mean?), or if the shutter speeds are even in the ballpark of what they should be. Did dev in 1+25 rodinal 5:30min and to my surprise the results are pretty useable, although everything seems to be underexposed. But easily fixed in Lightroom so not too bad. Could be the shutter speeds or my shitty manual exposing without proper light meter.Here, enjoy a picture of a bumblebee in my backyard
>>4517166X and MF are for your flash sync. Keep it on X and never think about it again unless you're using flashbulbs for some weird reason.
i'm going to take 10 rolls through tsa night. wish me luck>>4516826ween cover :pactually very majestic
Good evening anons, any thoughts/feedback on these?
>>4517198
>>4517199
>>4517199Looks cute, do they get in a car next?
>>4517200why bother man. jesus
>>4517203>>4517210Any other anons with some intelligible pointers aside from miserable bitching?
>>4516843www.memphisfilmlab.org
>>4517261Not in love with them. I think the pictures lack enough context to really make them strong enough to stand alone. Compositionally they're a little busy for my tastes and the colors/edit on the two people one kind of bothers me. Too bright and slightly off color, maybe.I think the two people one is the strongest because it at least captures some sort of vibe/emotion, but again it falls flat because there isn't more to it than that. That's my opinion on them in a vacuum. Did you have any sort of intent or goal when taking the pictures?
>>4517239>>4517240>>4517241>>4517243what filmstock?looks pretty high-contrast
>>4517198This would be better in b&w (something I'm loathe to ever say) but the geometry and colors and everything just aren't that exciting. >>4517199Photos from behind aren't always bad, this one is just okay. They look happy but it's not much of a story.>>4517200Would be better without people in it imo, the tablesetting feels really let down by the out of focus head cut off guy. Maybe the two randos in the corner would be okay to stay in. Sorry if my criticisms are "you should have taken different photos" and you wanted "did I edit these photos well," which yeah the technical side of things seems fine to me.
Feel like a dope, been stretching out a jar of Ifosol3 this Spring and Summer now it's toast. Should have known to switch new developers as its red /brown but the last batch came out ok. Kentmere 400 at 6.5 minutes... muddy garbage. At least it was just random photos around town.Anyone else wreck a roll of film like that?
>>4516394Check out NegPy.
>>4516609This kinda reminds me of those photos from the 80s. I don't even know how to describe them, but i know them when i see them.
>>4517267i actually like this lab and bookmarked them. $15 is disgustingly cheap for dev/scan(basic)/print. it makes me want to shoot more film. even with the $6-8 it costs to mail the rolls its still cheaper than most of my local labs. i think the cheapest locally is photo life. they're $8 a roll with basic scans ($10 with 18mb tiffs) and i think $6 extra for prints. but they're like a hour away from me one way by car within nyc in crown heights brooklyn. i guess i can always mail stuff in. at this point the gas costs as much as just putting it into a mailer at the post office.i might just go drop my rolls off at lti lightside since they're a 10 min detour from my gfs commute on monday (free courier service with her she can pick up my prints/negatives too) and they're reasonably priced at $29/roll for 35mm c41 dev + 18mb tiffs + 4x6 prints. if not its going to memphis or photolife. other labs in the nyc area are a little rapey. $40/roll for some of these places in brooklyn. thackers seems pretty good and was going to be my next choice after memphis; shipping from nyc -> florida is nearly always 2-3 business days at most from all the trucks/flights going between the 2 regions. their dev/scan/print was $24-27. i think if i can pay $10-15 for dev/scan i will shoot a lot more film, instead of leaving it for vacations. im realizing how much i hate editing digital pics
Some photos from a lake trip. Fomapan 200@160 developed in Fomadon LQN for 7 minutes. Finally I've darkened my laundry room in the basement enough so I don't have to transfer the film in the bag. Much more pleasant experience. First time doing Fomadon, but it turned out just fine.Pentax SP1000 + Super Takumar 35mm
>>4517462
>>4517463
>>4517464
>>4517465
And last one
>>4517013They also do prints the old-fashioned way. Haven't used them as a lab, but the retail side is very good. A younger, stupider me ordered some JCH Streetpan from them, and they were out. Instead of just canceling the order and refunding me, they sent me a roll of Rollei 400S and refunded me the difference, since it's the exact same film.
>>4517313I'm not thrilled with the lab scans but they're close enough that I may not rescan.Ektacolor Pro 160(Portra 160)
>>4517152I mostly use f/8 where I am. Do go, but prepare for either getting 9°C and pouring rain or 25°C and sun. There's little inbetween. You have hundreds of km of coastline just looking like this.>>4517137It would make so much sense for me to just do it myself.
>>4517434so i went to photolife and my shots came out insanely overexposed. the film stock used was kodak gold 200. im glad i asked for the tiffs so theyre savable with some editing...but theyre bad enough that if theyre printing off the scans i dont want them how can i prevent something like this in the future? talking to friends its either a combination of the process (didnt dunk it long enough) or their scanner. pros: they were very cheap ($17 for 2 rolls scan/dev); same day development (dropped off 8am got scans 6pm); somewhat local (40 mins drive there 45 mins back home but didnt need to pay a congestion charge/metrocard or shipping label)i think next time im gonna try memphis/thackersalso a fun story: i came out to the owner of that M3 taking pictures, was an old Spanish guy who was the original owner told him I was mirin his e46m, was a 6mt car too
>>4517690i think theyre salvagable with editing, thankfully the 18mb tiff option was a extra $2 over the same size jpegs
First roll ever
>>4517692after some editing, everything was overexposed by one stop. added a lot on the dehaze/contrast sliders too
Are there any good free basic image enhancement tools for windows? I use Snapseed, pics art, and the default apple edits on my ipad but want a decent app for my netbook where I upload the photos...
Got this kodak ektavision G dental film for like 1.25 a sheet. Shot at 25 ISO and Developed it by inspection in dilute pyrocat MC for around 7 minutes. Funky ass negative. The film has an extremely delicate emulsion on both sides of the film.Definitely needs more testing.
>>4517861Had to do another test. Changed the lighting to a nicer setup, but I also made my main led light as blue/cold as possible. The film is green sensitive with some blue, so I figured that would help. Dropped dev by 1 minute as well.Much, much happier with this result. Editing it was as simple as normal pictorial film. Overall tonality is still worse than standard film, but not so terrible I wouldn't use it for experiments and leisurely shooting.
Do you shoot your B&W with filters? I've found that my Kentmere has basically no contrast and that adding it in post doesn't feel natural. I've just ordered a red filter and a few more rolls to test. Thoughts?
>>4518144Yeah, filters should be a part of any serious b&w photographers kit. Red, green, and yellow are good to start off with and usually the only ones you really need.
>>4518145Greens the only I don't have. What are you using it for?
>>4518146Lighten green, darken red and blue. It can be nice for pictures with trees or other green stuff.
>>4518146Here is an example of green filter. I forget how dark, but I remember it was a green filter.
>>4518145Do I really need a yellow filter to discern between white and blue in the sky? The chart for Foma reads lower sensitivity in the blue spectrum.
>>4518161Yellow is kind of like red, but it doesn't darken the skies so much. It's a classic choice for street photography type scenes.
The eternal question: color filter or CPL to make the sky more punchy?
>>4518171CPLs on my UWA give sky banding so my orange filter stays glued to it.
>>4518171Both.
>>4518171I use a rangefinder, so yellow 15 for me.
driving across the country next week. i want to take my nikon f100 with one lens. is 35mm f/2 D enough to do everything? although i hate zooms im thinking about a 24-85 vr zoom bc im sick of inconvenient composition with primes.
>>4518724Just make sure it's a good one, some of these zooms can be pretty bad in my experience. I'd take 28-70 f/3.5-4.5, but I can't tell you whether they're consistently good or whether I just good lucky. Either way, sharp, 8/7 elements, 0.20x close up, good size.
>>4517462that looks amazing I'll have to try fomadonget a yellow filter it will make the skies look much better
just sent my m4 to my local camera store to get the focus fixed. they said around 125 and 2 weeks latest. i was too nervous to ask for tightening of the advance spring or whatever, since my film slips unless i put a bend in the leader. isnt a huge deal but i wanted that fixed. whatever. the focus is the real issue anyways.
>>4519101Cla may have been nice since youve already got it in shop
>>4519102that probably would've been better but idk what i should've asked for in all honesty.
>>4519103Literally just tell them you want a cla.
One of my local shops started stocking Lucky 200, so I gave it a swing.Haven't had the chance to home-scan them yet, but I'm liking what I'm seeing from the Noritsu scans that the lab sent back.
>>4519135Seems to hold up decently well in low light.
>>4519137Not sure how that one was uploaded rotated but whatever. Last one for now. Going to try to rescan them myself tonight when it gets dark and play around with them.Seems like it'll probably behave pretty similar to Gold/C200, but I guess I'll find out.
>>4519138Lucky has distinct red tint but otherwise it is similar to Gold. I quite like all new Lucky emulsions, both colour and B&W but it really depends if you can get them cheap.
Alright, so I've figured out sunny 16 for the most part. I'm getting pretty okay outdoor exposures with my meterless camera.But I've recently felt tempted to try shooting at night or in the evenings, probably by pushing my film to 800 or 1600. But how do I determine my settings? Or is this the point where I need to just bite the bullet and shell out on a meter?
>>4519135>>4519137>>4519138I guess I'll be buying chinacolor when I find some in stock at a local shop
>>4519162Just get a meter bro
>>4519162For 800 rated film (or pushed to 800 I guess) I'll offer my perspective; I'm assuming a 50mm or wider lens that can open to at least f/2:Well lit scenes with multiple street lights, or where the subject is directly lit by a decently powerful source, or where you want to make sure the light source has detail to it: f/2.8 @ 1/250, maybe f/4 @ 1/60 or 1/125 If it's very bright. I find that even though in theory a higher shutter speed or a tighter aperture produce the same results, a tighter aperture has a more pronounced effect on dark scenes than just raising the ss by a stop. A dark scene where something bright is the focus: f/2 @ 1/60A dark scene where you want nuance to the darkness but there's still a light source of some kind: f/2 @ 1/30A truly dark scene: yeah you need a meter and a tripod probably. You can even just grab a free app for your phone to do it (I use a free one called light meter), many free ones have reciprocity calculators and some other useful bells and whistles too. Other anons may have different thoughts but I've shot a few dozen rolls of 800T and portra 800 at night and these are the settings I'm often using. Picrel was P400 at f/1.7 and 1/30 but the principles are the same.
>>4519165I will eventually, but I'm broke and they look expensive. Cheapest I can find is like 200 bucks, though I remember people in here talking about how they used to be cheaper.>>4519166Thanks a bunch, maybe I'll give it a shot>You can even just grab a free app for your phone to do it (I use a free one called light meter)I have that actually, just never needed it much, because my SLR has a built in light meter and my rangefinder doesn't, but I used it to learn estimating the correct settings by eye. Also heard conflicting stories about how accurate those apps are.Maybe I should try a little test run, do some low light photography with the app and a DSLR to quickly check the results.Cool flower thingy btw, shot something similar a while ago and had the exact thought that it would probably look cool at night
>>4519167Minolta auto meter 3. I see them for under 60 usd on ebay. Or you can borrow a lightmeter to calibrate a free or very inexpensive phone app light meter.
>>4519167Yeah I tend to rely on my SLR's internal meter most of the time, the om-2n is pretty godly for night shooting imo (at least for a camera from 1980). I mostly use the metering app with my older Minolta SRT-201 because the meter is busted, but for something free I've never had an issue with it that merits complaining about. It usually agrees with my two functional camera meters (om-2n and an x-700) or is within a stop which is good enough for 98% of scenes and photos. I look forward to seeing some of your night scenes anon, unless they turn out poorly. In that case it wasn't me who gave you the bad advice.
>>4519167strange how 4chan keeps rotating my vertical shots, even though I saved them in the correct orientation>>4519168>Minolta auto meter 3. I see them for under 60 usd on ebay.oh hell yeah, that's much closer to being affordable. I'll check it out>>4519169>Minolta SRT-201neat, I have an SRT-101 which was my first film camera and the meter on that is still working fine, though I use it less and less these days, at least in daylight.Thanks for the advice looking forward to when I find the time to shoot, unless they turn out poorly in that case what the fuck, dude?
>>4516071What is the point of using film larger than 35mm?
>shoot fomapan 400 at 400>it's irredeemable garbage>shoot fomapan 400 at 250>it's perfectly serviceableIs it really just that? One roll was 120 the other 135, but same process and all.Guess I need to shoot two rolls side by side at 400 and 250 and process them in the same tank to be sure. And add Fomapan 200@250 too as control. I don't want to believe that 400 is just 200 in a different box, but 400 is so pointless is you need to shoot it at +1/3 stop from 200, instead of +1.
>>4519181Medium format is almost as cheap as 35mm.
>>4519181dabbing on digital sensorlets
>>4519181Less grain, better tonality, bigger prints that still look amazing, more cropping potential if you suck. Really big film lets you make contact prints, which open up a huge ass world of alt processes.>>4519182Every time someone asks if foma is good film I always say they lie about the box speed and to shoot it pulled one stop. Only sheet film sized foma is good because it doesn't curl like a son of a bitch.
>>4519135damn son
>>4519182Yeah, Fomapan 400 actually tops out somewhere between 250 and 320 depending on the developer. Foma's very own datasheet says so on the devs charts which is a bit silly. Fomapan 100 and 200 actually achieve their box speed (though just barely for the latter) so they're less dishonest.If you want cheap ASA 400 film you should go with Kentmere instead of Foma.
>>4519181the optics of larger films are betteryou get higher resolution too which for some granier films makes a big difference, like foma 400 looks much bigger in medium format
This is gong to be annoying as fuck to use, isn't it. Found a nice one. >shooting film since 1992>shifting to something not slr>inb4 follow my insta
>>4519349>All caps on the body>First letter capitalization on the lensWhat an awful combination.
>>4519359B-but the classical design...
>>4519182>Irredeemable garbage Are you saying the photos were too dark, muddy?
>>4519135It's not bad from what I've seen. They also just came out with a 400 speed film. I heard they might be developing a slide film as well.>>4519162just use picrel. If you're shooting CN film just try to expose as much as you can when it's really dark, that works most of the time. You can still shoot without a meter at night but you'll have more missed shots
>>4519219Is fomapan 400 any good?
>>4519673Shoot it at 200 and you may be happy with it. They all curl extremely badly.
>>4519673Not really. Just buy kent 400. It's probably cheaper and is actually just HP5 that didn't meet the QC, so you can still get pretty good results at box speed (as oppososed to everyone pushing HP5 at least one stop).
>>4519700Hp5+ has usable range of like 6 iso all the way up to 3200 if you really dial in developer + dev times. It's a truly remarkable emulsion.
>>4519700It's nothing like HP5
>>4519673If you can get Lucky SHD400 for cheap then just use that, prices are the same for me when bulk ordering from Ali. It also behaves more like 200 speed rather than 400, just like Foma, but it doesn't curl, results at 400 are better than Foma and it doesn't need prewash. I honestly suspect it's just old ORWO/AGFA emulsion made in China.
>>4517168Shiiiit
My camera has light leaks, how do I fix it?I've seen there is this special type of foam you can use to try and fix up the seals, what's that called?
>>4516651How do you deal with the stares and comments from others when you play with your dolls in public
>>4519673No, 100 and 200 are good but "400" has no reason to exist since it's actually not much faster than 200 while being grainier and not meaningfully cheaper than Kentmere/APX.
>>4519718Light seals. If it's a common enough camera you can probably find pre-cut kits.
i feel like redscale is a total meme
>>4519728It is. Neat to try it once and realize you don't fucking need it at all, because a tinted b&w will give you 99.9% the same effect.
>>4519619>no iso listed on the chartI guess we always assume 100 as a default iso but it should really be explicit on a chart like that.
>>4519728>>4519734wasn’t redscale originally a way to squeeze a bit more sensitivity out of the film?definitely a meme now>>4519741yeah it’s the EV100 system, was just dealing with it at work funny enoughif the chart had a title it would be more obviousyou can just add or subtract stops to account for ISO (e.g. -2 for 400 ISO)
>>4519745er, +2because higher sensitivity essentially increases the scene level
>>4519728Do you develop at Fotoforma or Relax?
>>4519673it works but it's pretty shit IMO
>>4519869i was visiting, i develop at foto studio centar in zagreb
>>4519952Ah cool. Thought I caught a fellow Warsaw-anon red(scale) handed. Hope you enjoyed the visit! Any other good shots from here?
>>4519970was a nice trip yeah, didn't expect that many skyscrapers honestly. and i wish morrissey hadn't canceled on us which was the whole point of the trip loli've got a couple i kinda like, but i'm basically new at photography in general so can't say whether they're good or not
>>4519979
>>4519981
>>4519982fuck's sake windows is retardedlast one
>>4519712Foma 35mm doesn't need prewash either, it doesn't have the anti-halation layer of their 120 rolls and sheet film. It's also on a different base (triacetate instead of PE).
Just scanned a roll of Kentmere I shot at an abandoned school
>>4519993
How can I get dust off from Olympys XA lens? XA series has a glass between film chamber and shutter so I can't use air blower like with many other cameras. I also tried to took the bottom plate off and tried to blow air from there but with no luck.
>have my first case of lens fungusannoying little bugger. Good thing I got that lens for free from a distant relative, but I guess the payment will have to be for buying the right tools and taking this bugger apart>>4519984neat, what settings/film speed did you shoot on to get such a clean shot in a dark looking place?
>>4520064don't remember but the place was pretty bright, it's a bathroom with fluorescent lights and two mirrors
>>4517692What you doing in my city?
>trying to get back into large format>shoot bunch of 4x5 and 9x12>inside of diffuser box on enlarger was made out of styrofoam and degraded completely after years in storage>all replacements on eBay cost 100+ and look pretty bustedContact printing it is or maybe I'll just get the Interpid conversion kit eventually.
>>4519995Nice shot. Looks like a very cool spot.
>>4520267he's literally me
>>4520308Whoops, meant this one
Wanna get into film. Got a free rebel t1i and a couple lenses free from work a few years back, so I'm thinking to practice on that to remember the basics before buying a film camera. Should I look at a Canon to keep my lenses, and if so which one for a n00b
>>4520401I have a Canon EOS 650, it takes EF-lenses, auto-loads film and has pretty nice autofocus. It's not heavy at all, but kinda large so depending on the use case you might want to get a point & shoot camera instead.
Cool one for you guys today. This is 8x10 kodak electron image film. The emulsion is on a glass plate!This is a stepped test plate to find a good iso. 1 iso, 2 iso, 3 iso, and 4 iso steps. Developed in 1+100 pyrocat MC for 5 minutes. D-19 is the suggested developer. I may do a second test to see how the dev compares to PMC.Detail and grain size are both exceptional. Tonality is also suprisingly decent for scientific film.You can actually view the positive image by placing it on black felt similar to an ambrotype. Really cool stuff and I got 48 plates of it hah.
>>4520436The tanning effect of pyrocat has produced a very prominent relief effect that is entirely density dependent. Apparently you can use special oil ink and make prints by gently dabbing ink onto the swelled emulsion. The ink adheres to the dry areas and is repelled/avoids by the wet areas. You press the plate onto paper after applying the ink and it transfers the image. Needs more testing, but it seems promising. The plate showed the relief effect while the gelatin was still swelled as it was drying, which is a good sign.I think I need to run the plate through a hardener and see how the relief acts after.Pic is the best image I could get of the relief effect. It is so prominent you can feel it by running your finger over it.
I got a fleck of dust on the inside my fucking rangefinder patch. Any ideas on how to get it out without disassembling the camera?
This must be X-ray damage, right? These are all over this roll of Ektar. Should have just burned the last five images instead of taking the camera WITH film through the machine.
>>4520473lmao that's just dust matelooks nothing like x-ray damage. You would have to get you ektar scanned 10 times or something on airports to have any visible x-ray damage.
>>4520486Silly me, the spots would be dark in any case. Still, I went to great lengths to avoid X-rays when I went to China. Would have racked up dozens of scans had I not kept the camera on my shoulder going into the subway or train. Same for the film, kept in a clear plastic bag for intercity travel.
>the rodinal is going bad so the negatives were underdeveloped >fomapan 120 manufacturing error dots gg
>>4520494Looks like something out of a Silent Hill or Resident Evil game or SCP article or something, I kinda dig it.
>>4520422Ah yeah that's one I had come across in searching the web. I may go with that one if not a point and shoot. Thanks anon!
>>4520496Fwif the EOS 650 was like the first or second EF mount camera to be relased, and there's likely other models like a 500N you could get for less money and more features, while being about the same size.
>>4520440>It is so prominent you can feel it by running your finger over it.Kodechrome did that, too. Never thought about using that to make prints with ink, sounds brilliant. Obviously only makes sense with LF though.
>>4520498I rehydrated my first plate and dried it. Insane reticulation upon drying. Trying initial slow dry + hardener to see if I can avoid the reticulation. Cut 4x5 plates for testing less wastefully. Ink and brush is arriving Saturday. Hopefully I'll have solved the reticulation problem so I can give ink transfer a shot. The ink prints will be negatives, but if initial testing goes well I may attempt either an internegative process or reversal processing. Quite the rabbit hole.
Any recommendations for a Canon FD-Mount lens roughly in the 50mm range?I got a camera from a distant relative that came with an FD 55 mm 1:1.2 S.S.C, but sadly it looks like it's not only full of fungus, but also the aperture ring is busted and I don't trust my ability to fix it just yet.I have a zoom lens I can use in the meantime to check if the camera even works but if it does I would like to have something wider than 70mm-200mm
Found a Canon ae1 at a garage sale. Bought it for 20 bucks did I get a good price? I know next to nothing about photography and want to start a hobby so I can finally feel something again
>>4520703If it works yeah. What are you interested in shooting?
>>4520710Landscape or wildlife probably
>>4519182>>4519206>>4519676Film newfag here, when you guys say "shoot at X ISO", what does that entail exactly? I was under the impression that film was fixed ISO. Does this just mean you set the ISO on the camera to X ISO and then set shutter speed/aperture accordingly, basically just making the light meter pretend it's a different ISO? Do you need to tell the lab to develop it differently? Help a brother out.
>>4520553Go with the 50mm f1.4, the best 50mm available for the FD mount imo. I have the SSC version. I kinda also like the f1.8 version because it’s super light and cheap, but kinda sucks wider than f4. Skip the f1.2, f1.4 is better and cheaper.
>>4520712Yeah, you just set the iso on your camera to 200 iso, which will change the exposure readings your camera gives you. For fomapan films specifically they "lie" about their film speed. Their definition of correct exposure will generally give you a lower density negative that has high contrast high grain, and kinda shitty shadow detail. Giving the film more exposure helps fix those problems. No need to change dev times.For other films you may want to either push or pull the film and in that case you will need to change dev times, usually. Most good modern films are tolerant to about ±1 stop of exposure without needing to change dev times.
Holy shit. It actually worked. Everything needs to be perfect and the window for proper ink adhesion is tiny but this is 100% proof of concept. Crazy.Just for reference this is a scan of the negative I've been using. >>4520551
The ink transfer does not reverse the image. Here it is inverted so you can see how defined the image actually is. Im going to make an interpositive with one of my 4x5 negatives next so I can get a positive plate to try transferring to paper.
>>4520728>>4520727Very cool! I wonder if it would benefit from using some specific kind of paper - smoother and at the same time more absorbent.Also I'm possibly having a retard moment here, but isn't the print also mirrored in addition to being a negative?
>>4520727>>4520728This is really cool. Where do you get all these weird films and how did you get the know how to do all the development and testing? What’s your set up like?Thanks for sharing
>>4520715To be fair, this is only really true of fomapan 400. Fomapan 100 and 200 both give proper negatives at their box speed.
>>4520440You don't want to oil up the o.g. negative for that, that would yield a negative print.To make the matrix you either treat a positive silver gelatin print with a special tanning solution to make a Bromoil print, or contact print from the negative onto dichromated gelatin paper to make a Rawlins oil print.
