File: file.png (3.75 MB, 2435x1038)

3.75 MB PNG

Shamelessly copying my 800T question from last thread
>>4520871
>Speaking of shooting expensive film, I got a noob question.
>I kinda like the look of CineStil 800T, that iconic blue/red with the halation on the lights, I would like to get myself a roll as a treat. How much of that is actually achieved in post when scanning? Because I've seen a very wide range of looks all supposedly from this film, so I'm assuming it depends a lot on how you scan it, right?
>Should I speak with my labtech about it?

>>4520924
maybe, though I'd assume total newbies would submit their film for development at the drugstore (it's what I did at the beginning). The lab is pretty damn expensive compared to that and I only do it because it's way faster and I like supporting local businesses. Or at least it's my cope for spending so much money on this hobby, I really should learn to develop myself soon-ish

File: development prices.png (18 KB, 320x396)

18 KB PNG

>>4520926
>The lab is pretty damn expensive compared to that and I only do it because it's way faster and I like supporting local businesses.
my local lab is way cheaper than drugstores, especially considering you can actually get your negatives back which isn't an option for the drugstore/walmart option

>>4520925
It is how you expose it as well as how you edit it. Less exposure = more contrast, more exposure = less contrast.

The film is rebranded vision3 500T with the remjet coating removed.

>>4520928
Drugstore here is like 15 Eurobucks for development, scanning and prints and they give you your negatives back.
I always forget the lab prices but I think it's in the ballpark of 15 for just the development and if I'm being completely honest, I'm not sure I see the difference in quality. So the only advantage is that you get your scans per e-mail after a couple of days vs the drugstore that can take up to a month and the order tracking on their website doesn't always work so sometimes you don't even know when you can come and pick them up.

>>4520925
>CineStil 800T
Some people still process it as ECN-2 even though it doesn't have the remjet which is part of why you probably get the differing range of looks. You can get similar films from other companies as well.

>>4520925
Halation is on film, color balance is (mostly) on film. You'll get the dramatic effect you're after (like in your screenshot) mostly when shooting dark contrasty scenes in artificial light. When exposed well, you'll need little more than a slight luminance S-curve.
It's an all right film, I shot some concerts on it at 6400 and it was.. interesting. Acquired taste and very gritty look. When shot at 800 (or 500 which it really is) you'll get normal looking shots.
I just don't like giving money to Cineshill, they are full of shit, hot air, trademark trolling and lawfare, and have tried (dunno if still trying) to bully smaller respoolers of Vision3 because they are in bed with Kodak.

>>4520928
I have two local labs
>dev only
$7 to $10
>dev and scan, 5mp up to 28mp
$17 to $28
Your pricing was like 10 years ago for my area

>>4520934
I have about 6 local labs. Dev only is $5-10 and standard scanning is $10-$15.

>>4520928
You don't get negs back??
What the actual fuck.

>>4520937
At CVS/Walgreens you don't typically get negs, just prints.

>>4520938
Literal theft and possibly destruction of property. How have they not been sued into oblivion?

>>4520939
Because that's what you agree to when you use their service?

>>4520940
The only reason why anyone would agree to throw away their negatives is either deception or ignorance. The only reason to do it is to ensure you can't get them scanned somewhere else, which reeks of anti-trust. I believe Kodak (or some other film mfr) got sued for something similar when they tried to make it so that only they could develop your film.

>>4520941
When film was actually popular people only cared about getting the prints or slides back. People in 1960 didn't have a PC to edit their negatives.

File: 1784266983505151.jpg (3.57 MB, 3856x2566)

3.57 MB JPG

>>4520925
That's just how the film is. I convert mine manually on Lightroom using the curves/histogram

>>4520942
Funny. Back in 80-00s UK we never gave our negs up you always got them and images in either colour or B&W. Never scanned or edited digitally. Only later. Much later with flatbeds in the home and they were crap.

I still have all my negs. Not getting them back is a weird aberration, possibly a weird American thing.

>>4520948
I think they stopped giving negs back when they started developing at a central lab as opposed to in store and the logistics made it more difficult. Normies have never ever cared about the negs anyway, they would get the prints and move on.

>>4520933
cinestill is an under-the-table kodak subsidiary to get around alaris
now that’s not a problem anymore, cinestill will probably go away
>>4520926
idk I started out developing my own film

>>4520948
>Not getting them back is a weird aberration, possibly a weird American thing.
Not really. It's just that for many places, you drop off and they ship the film to an actual lab who scans and emails the photos back to the store to print out. Getting negs back means that outlab would have to ship the negs back to the store, and they just opt not to instead.

Also, as someone that works at a film lab (and devolops in house and gives negs back), you'd be surprised how many people don't give a shit about the negs and just want us to toss them. For a lot of people they drop off, we scan and email them the digital scans, and then just toss. Even people that say they want to keep the negs just never come back for them.

>>4520941
Most people shooting film are just doing snapshots and don't actually really give a shit, they just want some "film looking" photos

>>4521032
>cinestill is an under-the-table kodak subsidiary to get around alaris
I don't know if that's true, and even if it is I don't think they started that way. But once Kodak started coating Vision3 without ECN backing (as opposed to them washing it off) and with custom rebate markings for them, it was obvious they were something more than just any other bulk purchaser and respooler.

File: images.jpg (28 KB, 560x548)

28 KB JPG

Is this guy's YouTube channel some elaborate troll?

>>4521081
idk who he is but most YouTubers are not trustworthy. Being a YouTuber kind of implies a certain level of vanity, it's not a hard requirement but it's attractive to that kind of person. Vain people are inherently untrustworthy because they care more about their own image than the camera's images. They'll just say whatever they think makes them look or sound cool regardless of whether it's true or not, that's just the kind of personality they have.

>>4521041
That blows my mind.
In my head:
Negs == original.
Prints == just some shit you end up with.

>>4521090
The print is the final result of photography and what's to be displayed. The negs are only valuable for further printing or for archival purposes. Normalfags don't plan on re-printing their family snaps and don't see them as archival-worthy so they don't care about getting the negs.

>>4521090
That's the digital era talking. People used to really give a shit about their print quality. Rip to the dye transfer method of printmaking and saturation without rockwellianism

>>4521099
>>4521091
This. Negative only has value if you intend to print it, otherwise it's just unfinished photo.

File: Untitled (2) (9)_1 (1).jpg (2.03 MB, 1903x2309)

2.03 MB JPG

Check out this lovely example of orthochromatic film's spectral sensitivity. Small egg is dark brown and the cracked egg is light blue. Pan film would have rendered the two eggs much closer in value.
Taken on ektavision G dental xray film. Not a great film if you don't have a deep tank. It is a double-sided emulsion that is by far the most fragile emulsion I have ever come across. Looking at it wrong scratches the film.
I used super gentle agitation while tray developing to avoid scratching, and got very uneven development in return.

>>4520917
Fiber paper all day, but RC is great for making contact sheets because it is faster to wash and dry. It's also a good choice for a beginner to learn on because it is much cheaper than fiber paper.

>>4521135
I like RC for proof printing and postcard sized prints that I just hand out to friends or use as actual postcard. Fiber is best for something you want to frame and put on wall but I don't feel like washing, drying and ironing every print for hour.

I accidentally r/analog.

God it's shit-tier.

>>4521148
I love how they don't allow comment anymore kek
any subreddit you can post boobs on ends up as a porn sub

>I just tried to get back into digital.
>Last digital I shot on was Nikon D70. It was okay. Baby photos, interiors, family stuff. >previously shot exclusively on Minolta STR101B.
>Time passes and we go through crappy phone cams.

>look into digital. EVF... Screen.... Histogram... ISO a bajillion... Bells, whistles everything!!1!

>try an Olympus
>inb4 first mistake
>Nope dot jay peg
>fucking all my what
I just want a thing, that does TTL, has a basic light metre I can see, I can pick up and fire.

Oh... A film camera then!

>inb4 not a gear thread
>inb4 go be oldfag somewhere else

It's like I'm on another planet!

>>4521261
Incomprehensible. May God have mercy on your soul.

File: 1785913222143.jpg (1.88 MB, 2418x2418)

1.88 MB JPG

>>4521272
The slut that I am

>>4521261
Anon we're sentient here, you don't need to greentext and redditspace everything.
I had D600 that did everything I needed in digital, even though in the last decade I shoot 9 in 10 in favor of film. However I scraped up and bought a D780 last year when it was beyond obvious that it was all ogre. The peak of DSLR technology and ergonomy. There will not be a better one, or another one for that matter.
I will sooner coat my own paper and shoot with shoebox pinhole than buy and use mirrorless.
The D780 is fantastic and it feels seamless when I switch between it and my F100 (especially when using the same lens), though it spends most of the time mounted to a copy stand as a dedicated scanning machine for the weird stuff that throws the Coolscan off too much.

File: 100S9271_web.jpg (2.48 MB, 3000x4000)

2.48 MB JPG

>>4521261
u wot m8?
>>4520917
i got fiber when i switched to at&t but i don't think it really matters since i still use a relatively low speed

>>4520856
Put my first roll of film through this bad boy, gonna get them to the lab tomorrow and hope that the camera works, would be great if it does.
Also holy shit the 70-200mm lens I have for it is so much fun, especially since it can function as a macro lens at 70mm. I think I managed to get some decent shots of a few insects.

>>4521082
I think another problem is the perceived legitimacy of people with YouTube channels. Because at the end of the day they're still just some dudes with opinions like you and me. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I suppose if some guy on YoTube tells you a camera, film or whatever else is good or bad it's basically the same as if some rando like me told you the same thing.
I guess the only difference is that you can at least check out their work, to see if they know their shit.

Kodak Gold 200 is the best film for your money.

File: 35E0CF38-BB47-49D7-A822-6(...).jpg (3.49 MB, 3461x2311)

3.49 MB JPG

>>4521448
I don't like how Kodak and Fuji are making non conflict agreements for 35mm and Instax insta, driving up prices with less competion

>>4521480
Only buy secondhand/expired film.

>>4521448
It's what a friend recommended when I just got into film photography and it's my go to since.

>>4521480
Because they don't really have any competition in colour 35mm. Lucky only offers ISO200 and it's very limited availability outside Asia, Phoenix is not even worth mentioning and everything else is just repackaged shit at hipster markup.

>>4521448
or OPTIK OLDSCHOOL OptiColour 200
new Wolfen NC200 emulsion

>>4521448
For me, it's pro image 100

There's slightly expired Velvia in 4x5 available from my local store for cheap and I'm super tempted to get it but my concern is what do I do with large format colour slides? With negatives I just contact print them but I don't have scanner that could take 4x5 and I don't think there are any readily available slide projectors for large format.

>>4521528
You convert your 4x5 camera into a projector if you want to project them. The other option is to get high quality scans and have them digitally printed. You can also make a light box and mount them for display, but 4x5 is kinda small for that.

>>4521544
I guess getting some strong bulb and extra fresnel lens in the back behind the slide would work, just not sure if normal lens won't vignette too much. If I had 5x7 or 8x10 slides I would definitely go with the lightbox.

File: _DSC5420-positive.jpg (3.53 MB, 5013x3760)

3.53 MB JPG

>>4520917
FB for framing, looks better and tones better. RC for test prints, or large amount of prints for an album or postcards
>>4521140
>don't feel like washing, drying and ironing every print for hour.
I either use alkaline fixer or hypo clear (sodium sulfite) so it's 30minutes tops, or agitation in water for 20minutes with water change every 2min (more eco way, to safe water). Then I just throw it on cheap sweater dryer rack, after a day I put it for another day in a press I made from 2 mdf boards with woodworking clamps, voilà.
I think many boomers in the internet really complicate this shit with insane washing times like 2 or 4 fucking hours for no reason, using hot presses, weird drying techniques or other expensive rare equipment, while you can achieve archival level prints with methods I described.
Anyway, I have so much frames I want to print and no time at all to do it fuck me

File: suszarka-fotograficzna-li(...).jpg (40 KB, 960x720)

40 KB JPG

>>4521564
I used to have this exact dryer ages ago, the fabric is on a spring loaded clamp and presses the print down to the polished plate, and the whole thing is heated. I think it could fit up to two 11x14 prints (it was two sided).
This was long before I started printing so I ended up donating it. I wish I had it now, though it would have not made sense for me to lug it around through the many house moves I had in the last 20 years.

>>4520925
What do you mean? If you scan your film you'll always adjust the colours of it digitally. And you should do if you get it developed and scanned at a lab as well. Don't fall for the "don't edit your scans" meme.

The halation on the lights comes from the remjet layer of the film having been washed off. The remjet layer is a backing layer on motion picture film that prevents halation. Motion picture film is developed in ECN-2 instead of C-41 and the ECN-2 process starts with a remjet layer removal liquid. After that you can use the C-41 process just as well, so what Cinestill and a lot of other companies do is that they remove the remjet layer and then sell the film as C-41 colour negative film.

File: 100S9037_web.jpg (1.67 MB, 2400x1600)

1.67 MB JPG

>>4521516
i'm told pro image is the same as kodacolor 100. i love pro image and i've shot a lot of kodacolor 100. but it doesn't come in 120
>>4521505
i'll mention it anyways. phoenix is cool

>>4521990
It's cool that they're trying to do a thing. But it's not great emulsion by any means.

>>4521990
Original Phoenix is dead. Phoenix II is very mid - not a good mainstream color film yet, and not a good fuck you to everything the mankind has learned about color science film like the original Phoenix any more.
Red is a meme from Phoenix QA rejects that would be a waste not to sell.
Azure is Phoenix II run that an intern coated incorrectly that would also be a waste not to sell.
I'm ok with that though, I still love Ilford/Harman and wish them well, and I hope all their color R&D won't bring them under but actually result in a decent everyday color stock to have a real alternative to Kodak, more Kodak, and some rebranded Kodak.

does /p/ no longer have an /sqt/ or is it just down?

File: JUN26_KC_80.jpg (923 KB, 2400x1634)

923 KB JPG

Shot some Kodacolor 100 and most of the images turned out dark and blue after scanning. I can do PP but it really looks gritty after that.
Too underexposed? I tried to shoot only exterior in daylight

File: mannequin - chains.jpg (3.46 MB, 2370x3571)

3.46 MB JPG

>>4522062
just make one if you want. or ask here

>>4522079
Looks more underdeveloped than underexposed to me. But if you say "most", are there any actually good ones? How do they compare on film, are some significantly denser (darker) than others? Then it would likely be underexposed after all, that's just not what I'm used to seeing with underexposed color film. Maybe it's the scanner compensating for it weirdly.

>>4522079
Do you have a pic of the negative with the edge markings included? That's the easiest way to know if the film was developed wrong, if those look fine then you can at least rule out bad processing.

File: SDC12561.jpg (3.41 MB, 3984x2656)

3.41 MB JPG

>>4522089
Out of the 36 exp maybe 5 turned okay, the rest needed heavy PP color correction and levels adjustment, and they turned out looking faded and grainy despite being ISO100

>>4522091

File: SDC12562.jpg (3.51 MB, 3984x2656)

3.51 MB JPG

>>4522095
>>4522079
These were shot with a Pentax ZX-7. I was using a kit lens which metered automatically as well as a manual 80s tele lens which i set to manual settings, the light meter was in the midpoint for all of these shots so If they are under exposed then the light meter didnt read the lens fstop correctly

>>4522095
>>4522097
Dev looks ok. Frame 7 (the one cut off in >>4522095) is definitely overexposed. But frame 8 (the one you posted earlier) looks generally fine.
Did you scan then yourself, and how?

File: file.png (422 KB, 612x503)

422 KB PNG

>>4521448
I'm thinking that'll be my go-to soon. I started with Ultramax, then I started getting Fuji 400 (then found out it's literally just Ultramax) so I might just go with Kodak Gold since it has a the look I want.

Speaking of looks too, anyone able to recommend some film that has a distinct late 90s business vibe? Or would Kodak Gold maybe scratch that itch?

>>4522168
Kodak Gold or ProImage would probably scratch that itch

>>4522170
Based, I'll pick up some Kodak Gold. I have some expired ProImage but I've no idea how that'll look once I start using it, I think it's about 5 years out of date.

>>4522171
>I think it's about 5 years out of date.
you probably wouldn't even notice, I shot a bunch of film that was about that age recently and it looked normal

>>4522172
I'll see how it goes. I had some Ultramax that was about the same time out of date and the shadows were a dark grainy mess, I couldn't see shit in the details.

>>4522168
The vibe is 90% lighting and 10% film.

>>4522174
5 years expired in freezer is gonna be better than 5 days expired in box behind counter (no store is gonna bother putting cheap consumer shit in freezer once it expires).

File: 100S1062_web.jpg (4.28 MB, 4000x4000)

4.28 MB JPG

>>4522010
>>4522014
i am fond of phoenix 1 and i'm sad to see it go. it reminds me of polaroid film, which i would surely shoot if it was more convenient.
anyways, kodacolor 100 is my go-to for color street and gold 200 is my standard for color 120. for me, these are the best value

Shot 800t at 640 like lots of people say to do. Do I need to have it pulled in dev or just have them dev as standard?

File: file.png (1.45 MB, 1395x899)

1.45 MB PNG

>>4522125
I used Vuescan, default settings. It's only this roll that looks weird. I scanned a roll of Ultramax400 (both dev'd from the same shop) using using the same scan settings and they looked fine

File: B3FB2711-5A7E-42D1-9F31-2(...).jpg (2.6 MB, 3461x2311)

2.6 MB JPG

Lucky 400

File: Untitled (2) (11)_1.jpg (2.31 MB, 2545x2054)

2.31 MB JPG

Took a new egg pic. Finally found a piece of some weird plant worthy of an egg photograph.

I used my xray film to do a couple test shots. This first one was taken with my macro sironar at f64.
Please excuse the scratches, uneven development, and horrific tonality of this film. It's so fragile that it gets scratched from moving around in my dev trays.
Overall I think the result is extremely promising for both real pictorial film and contact printing. The soft shadows are going to be stunning with azo+amidol.

File: Untitled (2) (12)_1.jpg (2.23 MB, 2536x2047)

2.23 MB JPG

>>4522359
Second one was taken with my cooke soft portrait lens at roughly f6.5, and set to maximum softness.

Which one do you like better?
I am leaning towards soft focus, but I think a less restrained effect may serve the image even better. I finally got my local machinist to start working on retaining rings for my eidoscope and perscheid lenses, so I will be doing a third test with the perscheid. It has a much stronger and different effect than the cooke, but unlike the eidoscope it does not have that swirly petzval effect that would add too much chaos to a rather tranquil image.

>>4522352
I initially disregarded Lucky as another cheap stock but after shooting it some more I like it quite a lot, better than Foma by orders of magnitude but better price than Ilford.

fiber for gallery or commissioned work
rc for literally anything else (including selling at shows or scanning)

also, i just hand-rolled an ixmoo and i gotta say that was my worst photography experience ever and i've gassed myself in my darkroom more than once. i need to buy another bulk roller for my kentmere 200 roll that i bought without taking out my kentmere 400 roll i still have in my bulk roll. ill probabably just buy another of the same model (alden 74).

>>4522258
What's your scanner tho?

>>4522258
>Vuescan
Never heard of this before, is it pretty good and recommended? I've been wanting something to properly develop my negatives.

>>4522475
OpticFilm 8100

Where do you guys send your film into, if you do? I'm between dark room and Memphis lab, Memphis is local to me but slow apparently

Anyone here ever use 220 rolls?
Availability of expired film stocks seems a little better and a tiny bit cheaper than the same 120 rolls.
Ektachrome is sold out everywhere and I needed my fix. Hopefully it works out okay.

>>4522781
They're usually not cheaper than 120 so it's all about convenience of more exposures between roll swaps. You have no backing paper so you want to load in shade and you need proper frame counter, not just red window. Other than that it behaves like normal 120, just make sure to fully remove the seal before loading since it likes to jam on the spool.

File: IMG_1757.png (1.6 MB, 1536x2048)

1.6 MB PNG

lol look at this shit.
the made in China alternative should be closer to $5/ roll. Why the F would you buy this slop when kodak or fuji is much cheaper and better quality?

>>4522820
I can get it for 8 bucks from Ali and I wouldn't pay more than 10 for roll but Gold 200 24 still costs more around here.

>>4522820
The fuck? I can get it for $9USD in Australia. I can't think of any film that costs $35USD for just one roll, you can get a 3 pack of Ultramax for $40USD here.

>>4522901
Discontinued fujichrome films can get close.

>>4522915
I meant more about currently produced films and not discontinued stuff, which yeah can have some insane price tags. I've got some Velvia floating around but I don't know how well that might expose or develop now, it stopped being made 20 years ago I think and I bought it a few years ago from some used camera shop.

>>4522919
Suprisingly well if it wasn't baking in the sun. I have some 20+ year expired provia III that has almost no color shift, unknown storage conditions.

The only modern films that reach that price are 8x10 or bigger color films, and ULF b&w films. Standard ektachrome is getting close tho...
Ektacolor 400 is 38/sheet in 8x10. It's so extremely annoying because even secondhand/expired c41 8x10 is all very expensive.
Once I get my ra4 capable darkroom built Ill definitely grab some to do color contact prints with. I can only imagine how insanely nice they will come out.

>>4522901
E100 is probably closest of the in production stuff, $50AUD give or take. But isn't what >>4522820
posted for a 3-pack?

>>4522923
>unknown storage conditions.
Yeah that's my issue, I have absolutely no idea how it was stored for the first 15 or so years of its life. It might turn out amazing, it might turn out like ass.

>>4522929
>E100 is probably closest of the in production stuff, $50AUD give or take
Yeah you're right. I tend not to use slide film though since the development costs are always more. Is E100 pretty good looking? I'd really like to try some new film that is pretty colorful and not too warm, I'm a bit tired of warm so something neutral or slightly cool would be fun for trees during winter.

>But isn't what >>4522820
posted for a 3-pack?
Fuck it is a 3 pack, I missed it like a retard. The price is sort of close to here then, with a 3 pack being about $32USD. I'd still rather get Kodak or Fuji for just an extra dollar or two.

>>4522930
The nice thing about slide film is that you can just scan it and remove the color cast if it has one. Works quite well. If you intend on projecting it may not be worth more than a "for shits and giggles" type roll if you don't mind the dev cost. It sorta takes away part of the fun of actually viewing the slides under magnification, but even with some color cast it's still pretty nice.

E100 looks fantastic and is actually slightly cool toned. May be exactly what you're looking for, but it is sold out everywhere online right now. :'(

>>4522931
>May be exactly what you're looking for, but it is sold out everywhere online right now. :'(
Aw shit you're right, I was about to say I found one place that has it but it's 120 film.

Any other good alternatives? I want to start getting back into film again, despite the heavy costs. I'm going to be doing some trips across Asia shortly and I'd love to take some film with me (assuming it can go through that x-ray scan stuff at the gate without issues).

>>4522932
None at all, aside from buying some on the secondary market or shooting b/w.

One thing you could do is purchase a pale blue filter and use it with typically warmer films like gold. You may only lose like half a stop to filter factor, so it isn't too inconvenient. Its fairly common for people to put a warming filter on for e100 to balance the cooler tone.

>>4522935
I might look at a blue filter then. A lens I bought came with a red filter attached and I ended up removing it since my photos were warm enough already, it was just a bitch to get off since it seemed to have fused to the threads after probably 20+ years of being on there.

Maybe I'll use the blue filter with 400 film so I can at least keep shutter speed up.

>>4522937
Worth doing some research on the right filter. I only use them for b&w film, so I can't really offer any suggestions for an appropriate color level. Looks like 82A may be a good starting point tho.

Yeah cheap filters love getting stuck on lenses. Sometimes the filter will actually weld itself onto the lens via galling.

>>4522932
Have you checked physical stores? I know off the cuff they've got E100 at at least one drug store and one camera shop where I'm at. Prices can vary, the camera shop has much cheaper film in general, even cheaper than online.

>>4522948
I might have a look around soon. I usually end up seeing higher prices in physical stores depending on if they're a chain or independent.

File: E100VS 4.jpg (4.92 MB, 2719x2088)

4.92 MB JPG

Expired e100VS. Film had a pretty strong blue color cast, so please excuse the probably terrible color edits on these.

File: E100VS 11.jpg (4.94 MB, 1955x2617)

4.94 MB JPG

Was not careful enough about metering my exposure and these came out underexposed. I like the idea, but the e100VS is the worst film for photographing meat lol.

File: E100VS .jpg (1.48 MB, 1510x2052)

1.48 MB JPG

Not really sure how the film got completely covered in dirt but it did. May try cleaning the film, but it's whatever.

Thank you.

>>4523386
>>4523388
>>4523390
Legitimately love these, the dirt and color intensity really works for me.

>>4523387
Don't hate it, but I think the dog is getting washed out by the background a bit, and is lacking some of the punch from the other ones you posted.

Whatever though, glad you shared, not always that something on this site gets me to put up with posting.

File: E100VS 1.jpg (3.42 MB, 1292x1757)

3.42 MB JPG

>>4523398
Thank you. You're in luck because I did a whole series of these intending to use them on my website to sell meat, but they are just too much for that purpose. Provia, modern e100 or non VS will be much better.
They are pretty sweet when viewed from a different perspective. This level of saturation is kind of uncommon these days.
I actually gave most of these around -20 saturation while editing. Lol.

File: E100VS 2.jpg (2.52 MB, 1225x1666)

2.52 MB JPG

It would be kinda cool to have these all printed at like 4x5 or 5x7 size and placed in one frame with a mat cut into a grid. Like a 2x4 or 3x3 grid.

They would need to be more carefully edited to keep the skin tone consistent tho.

You guys edit your film photos? What about the quality loss? Assuming you start with JPG scans.

File: E100VS 14.jpg (3.04 MB, 1444x1937)

3.04 MB JPG

These are 645 format if anyone was wondering.

File: E100VS 9.jpg (2.49 MB, 1434x1951)

2.49 MB JPG

>>4523410
Not editing film scans is a meme(as long as they are .tiff) and you gain quality by editing them.

File: E100VS 10.jpg (2.55 MB, 1389x1863)

2.55 MB JPG

Last one.

>>4523412
I tend not to go with TIFF, the pricetag seems too high and the file size can be insane per photo.

File: 20260815_213001.jpg (2.31 MB, 2950x3920)

2.31 MB JPG

>>4523410
Fgt has been pretty slow lately, so I'll use another image up to show you what these slides looked like before I scanned and edited them. 25 years expired.
I will probably never project my slide film, so for me slide film is usually a way to get a certain look for photographs I intend to digitize, especially in a smaller format like this. Still very fun and cool to see these in person, but not nearly as awesome as good condition sheet film.
Expired slide film can have a strong color cast and digital software can be used to remove it and make useable images as long as they aren't too heavily degraded.

>>4523414
Can't really speak about lab scans too much. I do all my developing and scanning myself, and I don't think I've ever actually gotten lab scans before.

8x10 color scans at 2000dpi are well over 1gb each lol.

>>4523416
Is white balance the main correction you make? Curious how you went from them being purple to being better colors.

>>4523417
Damn that is an insane size, labs I've found nearby are 300dpi.

>>4523416
>30 years old slide film
>medium format
>home developed
>for product shots
>"on my website to sell meat"
Anon, have there been any missing persons reports in your area lately?

File: IMG_1963.jpg (2.53 MB, 2075x3130)

2.53 MB JPG

Fuji 200

>>4523418
I usually do b&w and they need exposure, contrast, and levels editing. Ill get exposure set roughly after inverting and then set my black and white point with the levels slider. Afterwards I will fine tune using midtone slider on the levels tab, contrast, highlights, and shadows slider. I don't usually need to make any sort of curves, and I haven't spent too much time working with them, so they don't work well for me, yet.

The slide film was edited per rgb channel on capture one. Changing the color temp does almost nothing to change the colors on this film. It's incredibly annoying and took me a lot of practice to start figuring out a workflow for working color film per channel. Basically I set my black point and then work through each color channel sliding the midtone slider until I get a solid, pure black. Same with white. Then I look at the actual colors in the image and modify brightness, and sat. Moving those sliders will throw off your rgb balance, so I go back to that and work through each channel until I get somewhere I like. Highlights and shadows slider can also be handy.
Please note that this may be the most retarded way to edit color film ever conceived, but it works for me just enough to get close to something not terrible.

Is there a better way in C1 that anyone knows?

>>4523419
All my pork, short or long, goes through a USDA certified slaughter facility and is packaged in a USDA certified packing facility. We strive for the three Es of meat production. Excellence in flavor, ethical farming practices, and environmentally conscious land stewardship at doghair/Rockwell farms.

The punchy saturation of e100vs actually gives of psychotic vibes. I got a 50 pack of expired 4x5 e100X that should hopefully produce more buyer friendly images. Maybe I'll post a couple when I retake these.

>>4523405
>>4523407
>>4523411
If I opened a website and saw these I would wholeheartedly believe they had long pork available

>>4523426
Really, all its missing is companion photos of random people wearing colors matching the wall and >photographer name: nathaniel rothschild

File: Yum.jpg (2.83 MB, 3686x2948)

2.83 MB JPG

>>4523430
I think 3x3 grid with a picture of a pig head in the middle would be really cool. Doing a diptych with your idea would be legitimately crazy as a whole series of images all displayed on gallery walls with really well done framing/matting.

Kind of off topic, but I made pig head pozole for the extended family last xmas. The whole head would need too much water in the pot so I used a reciprocating saw with a 4TPI blade to saw it in quarters in my kitchen. Worked suprisingly well, but a little messy. A lot of pink goo...

Soup came out fantastic.

File: Untitled (2) (13)_1 1.jpg (2.21 MB, 2459x1973)

2.21 MB JPG

Finally got my local machinist to make me a retaining ring and cut a lens board for my perscheid lens. Fucking expensive, but so worth it.

First test shot on xray film.
The rendering from this lens is just remarkable. The way it softens the egg but still maintains volume is something I have not seen from any of my other soft focus lenses. The overall look and local contrast is just beautiful. It really has that pictorialist look to it. Cannot wait to use some real film with it and make some contact prints.

>>4523461
I gotta be honest anon, it kinda just looks blurry to me.

File: E100VS 14_01.jpg (1.35 MB, 1444x1937)

1.35 MB JPG

>>4523411
>>4523426
personally I think it could work, gives very 80s-90s product photography vibes, which is probably my favorite genre of photography
the subject seems pretty under-exposed compared to the background though
like you need to pull away from the backdrop & add a separate white light for just the hands & product
then again looking at >>4523416 maybe that's just somehow an artifact of the post-processing, because the lighting looks more or less balance before correction?

>>4523513
Compare with >>4522361
I think there's enough to see the difference between these two soft focus lenses.
The effect really translates best when printed. Sometimes they even look flat out bad when scanned but really nice when printed.

>>4523520
I am definitely going to try again with more careful metering and a few other changes. They're fun, but they need lower contrast/more exposure.
I think the blue cast makes the images appear to be more balanced than they actually are, but idk. They looked a bit lighter before turning into jpg as usual also.

>>4523461
>Cannot wait to use some real film with it and make some contact prints.
Will you use it to take some photos though, and not just eggs with assorted junk?

File: 20260816_142343.jpg (2.63 MB, 1622x2354)

2.63 MB JPG

>>4523560
Yeah, I took three portraits today and an egg shot on some tmy 320 with my Perscheid lens. I used my expolux shutter so I could use 1/500s shutter speeds to shoot at f6.3ish outdoors.
This LF setup is possibly the best camera system ever made if you don't care about portability. Film plane spot metering, 1/10th stop shutter speed precision, automatic film reciprocity calculation, flash metering, vibration free shutter, when you put the film in it automatically closes the shutter and so much more.
Developing them all simultaneously on my Jobo atl2+ right now. It still fills me with joy whenever I use this thing to develop film.

You probably only get to see my egg pic tho. :D That weird branch thingy is awesome. It has got such a nice shape and texture to it. Sorry still lifes aren't your thing. I used 2 lights, bounce card, and a diffusion panel to set the shot up.
I am passionate about making them and will continue sharing them! Thank you.

File: Untitled (2) (4)_1 (1).jpg (1.81 MB, 2688x2224)

1.81 MB JPG

Sorry for posting this same image 4 times now. My special brand of autism truly believes these lens comparisons and then a final much more refined image is interesting content.
Using a second light bounced off a white card I created a very even tone on the background. Somehow I got away with it not casting a secondary shadow, which would have ruined the whole look I was going for.
I love the extremely diffuse and delicate shadow that is cast off the vine onto the background and points almost directly to the opening in the C shape. The way that it is behind the egg on the left side creates that lovely seperation keeping the egg's form strong.
Tmy 320 also makes a huge difference tonality wise. Really huge improvement over the xray film.

I have a feeling this is going to be a challenging print on azo + amidol, but nailing exposure is going to make a beautifully delicate image.

>>4523560
Well.. Do you like it?

this thread has the worst posters

>>4523596
at least it has posters

>>4523596
are you new here? the gear thread is infinitely worse

>>4523596
I think it's probably one of the best actually. People post photos, talk about their film stock and about their methods.

File: P_20260816_165111.jpg (336 KB, 1516x1137)

336 KB JPG

Setting up and calibrating each time is such a bitch, but the feeling once your get it tack-sharp corner to corner is almost ecstatic. The mirror method really does wonders to getting centering and leveling right.
I wish I could just leave it there permanently.

File: Untitled (55)_1 1.jpg (3.39 MB, 2683x2175)

3.39 MB JPG

I just wanted to post this again to share. I remembered I had this egg photo after taking my plant + egg image, and I think the visual/symbolic contrast between these two circle + egg images is really quite interesting. I had no intent to make contrasting circle images, but through my creative process I accidentally created it.
Self imposed creative restraint is really such a powerful tool for making art. I would highly recommend giving it a shot if want to practice creativity.

>>4523621
Yeah. I think it's fun and interesting when people go into detail about the cool gear and techniques they use to produce high effort photographs and prints as well as their own opinions/thoughts/critique on the images they took. Maybe it will inspire someone to do the same and we have a really cool /fgt/ thread where there is a lot of discussion about photography with high effort photos being posted! I can dream.
I make posts like that because I am become the change I would like to see in this thread.

Speaking of change if anyone wants a critique feel free to ask! I would just request that if you want a critique to provide some context like what your goal/intent was, so I'm not working a critique coming entirely from a vacuum.

>>4523747
Congrats. Have you ever considered attaching your camera+lens to a bellows, so you can level the focal plane more easily. Oh, but you lose the electronic control of the lens.. sad! The juice is probably not worth the squeeze for it, but some adapters may have the wires to keep lens control when not attached to the body.

>>4523749
this nigga using 8x10 film to take troll photos

do literal rocks and leaves next

>>4523751
Can you explain? I don't understand what you mean by troll photos.

>>4523752
The eggs and junk thing isn’t a meme?
Were the building corners always serious too?
Oh no

>>4523754
What do you mean troll image? Can you explain what's wrong with the pictures?

File: 1787033232161.jpg (244 KB, 1000x1000)

244 KB JPG

>>4523749
Yeah I wouldn't want to lose the electronic control. You can kind of see it in the mirror reflection, but the lens has a foot, and it's attached to the stand via a leveling mount (pic related). Which gives it about the same freedom as a bellows would. One downside is the tightening screw - I can level and center it perfectly while it's loose, but when I tighten it and let the camera go there's always some movement or sag. But after a while I have learned how much I need to compensate for that.
This was my first attempt at this build and I haven't looked into upgrading it for a while. A leveling mount that is not based on a hemisphere in a pan, but adjusted with precise screws would be a dream. I'm not sure if one like that exists though.
Anyway, realizing that instead of independently leveling both the copy mount table AND the camera relative to Earth using bubble levels I could just level the camera only relative to the table surface using a flat mirror was a life changing revelation.

>>4523756
Yeah the mirror trick is pretty cool. Useful for taking pics of flat things in general as well. Maybe I'm not considering something, but wouldn't a geared tripod head be exactly what you need?

File: 1787034982316.jpg (115 KB, 1000x972)

115 KB JPG

>>4523757
>geared tripod head
Oh shit that could be just what I need. Now I wonder if i never knew those existed, or I did and only forgot after dismissing them because:
- they cost between 5 to 8 times more than what I paid for my leveling mount.
- they are tall, about 15 cm, compared to mine at 5 cm, and I'm afraid it would be putting too much leverage on the copy stand column (and amplifying any vibrations too). I don't have much more than 10 cm left on the table to move the light source. And if I lift it to scan 120 I'll probably run out of space since the column is angled.
Maybe I'll just borrow one from you know who and see how it works out...

>>4523749
you have diagnosed ocd or autism or something man? seriously you post for years and spend a considerable amount of money and have zero visual talent whatoever. a little kid with a phone could outshoot you. this is fucking bizarre to check in here every few months and 20% of the posts are you still horrible at taking photos with more and more gear. unreal

>>4523758
Pretty sure there are some with much lower profiles than that. Maybe search "low profile geared tripod head". They have weight ratings to them, so maybe you can do some fairly simple math to calculate the leverage your lens is applying to the head, and size it accordingly.
They are definitely pricey, but don't forget that you can always use it for your normal photography as well. They are very very nice tripod heads for precise framing.

>>4523759
What's wrong with them? I really don't see where you're coming from.

>>4523749
>Maybe it will inspire someone to do the same and we have a really cool /fgt/ thread where there is a lot of discussion about photography with high effort photos being posted! I can dream.
I'm liking how these threads are more than others (especially /gear/) so it's giving me a nice push to start getting into film so I can ignore all the gearfaggotry and everything else can be about the film stock and methods. I got a used film camera just recently and I'm finish off some test rolls I'm going to get developed, as at the moment I want to make sure it doesn't have fucked up seals and light leaks (something I dealt with on another film camera recently and ruined photos from a trip I took).

I do also find I think more about my compositions. The other day I took it out again and I was looking around the edges of the viewfinder to ensure there was nothing that was slightly creeping into frame and that I'd got the focus right. The photos will probably be dull in subject but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised, who knows.

>>4523763
Always happy to see someone picking up a film camera!
Something I like to do when I am taking test shots is devise a way to test multiple things at once, so I can maximize my learning from mundane shots that just gotta get exposed. So for example if you're testing for light leaks and maybe shutter speed accuracy you can also do tests on something like a weird composition or subject matter you're interested in as well.
Sometimes I will spend multiple hours working a scene before I take the photo to get everything just right. The process is iterative, but there are iterations before and after making an exposure and printing the negative.
My hit rate for technically successful exposures is extremely high after spending so much time doing really slow and methodical photography. You don't necessarily need film to do that, but it sure helps.

>>4523766
>Something I like to do when I am taking test shots is devise a way to test multiple things at once, so I can maximize my learning from mundane shots that just gotta get exposed. So for example if you're testing for light leaks and maybe shutter speed accuracy you can also do tests on something like a weird composition or subject matter you're interested in as well.
I've done a few tests with one roll. I took my mirrorless with me and I'd compare their readings with as identical settings as possible, and the film camera seemed to bias towards slight overexposure on the meter or slight underexposure, it never quite matched 100% to the mirrorless readings. It's also an early 90s SLR since I wanted a good meter and some creature comforts like different metering modes and that kind of thing.
>My hit rate for technically successful exposures is extremely high after spending so much time doing really slow and methodical photography. You don't necessarily need film to do that, but it sure helps.
I'm trying my best. I started out with a DSLR so I'm used to not knowing what I'll get until I see the playback, but film is a step beyond of course. I'm wondering if maybe I go with slight overexposure (about 0.3+) when using center metering since I read that film responds better to being overexposed vs underexposed.

Currently I'm using Ultramax 400, but I also have some Ektar 100 and Kodak Gold 200 that I'm saving for when I'm sure there's no light leaks and I'm a bit more confident in trusting the exposure settings.

>>4523768
Love 90s blobmera film cameras. The nice ones are such a joy to use. 1v and F5/F6 may be the best 35mm cameras ever made.
Negative Film has excellent latitude and terrible shadow recovery, so always err on the side of over exposure unless you are shooting slide film.
Most modern negative films have about a stop worth of tolerance both ways, so you don't need to worry too much if your milc is showing a half stop discrepancy, especially if you are just scanning your negatives.
The one thing you should keep in mind is that well exposed film will make great darkroom prints and great scans. If you have poorly exposed negatives they may scan fine and look okay with some heavy editing, but years down the line when you finally decide you want to makes prints in a darkroom it may be a real struggle or impossible to make nice looking prints because the negative is very poorly exposed.
I have some ektar 4x5 I should screw around with... it's a sweet film for everything but portraits.

>>4523770
>Love 90s blobmera film cameras. The nice ones are such a joy to use. 1v and F5/F6 may be the best 35mm cameras ever made.
It's a Nikon N6006, so it was mid-entry when the F5 was around. I love the features on it and it's really easy to use. It just doesn't look much like a film camera which puts people off I guess, and right now I'm trying to find a 35 or 50mm lens for it but they seem to be a little highly priced. The price I paid for the camera itself and the 35-80mm it came with is less than the prices I'm seeing for the 50mm lens (assuming I'm finding the right lens, I'm a little confused with what lenses work on it).

I'll try and expose as well as I can, erring on the side of over when needed, but I just have a bit of a struggle trying to figure out how to get the look I want without seeing it. Say I wanted some really strong shadows during the daytime with a sort of "highlight metered" look with the sky being a bit darker blue, I'm not entirely sure how I'd get that and my best guess would be using matrix with a -1 exposure compensation (which might work or might not).

>>4523772
>go looking for used lens
>"fungs, needs cleaning"
pisses me off to no end

File: zone-system-infographic-5(...).jpg (44 KB, 539x800)

44 KB JPG

>>4523772
For a beginner it can be helpful to use the spot meter mode to explore the light values in your scene. You can take a reading of your shadows then using the basics of the zone system you can place the shadows at your desired zone.
So 3 stops lower exposude from middle gray(spot metered reading) is the darkest where you maintain meaningful shadow texture/information. So placing your shadows in zone 3 or even closer towards zone 2.5/2 would create very strong and possibly textureless or almost textureless shadows.
You can also use your spot meter to understand how far your shadows are from your sky or your total contrast.
Eventually you'll be able to roughly visualize/understand a scene based on its metered tonal values. Just takes some time to get that experience.

When I'm making my still lifes I will use my film plane spot meter and carefully set my lights so that I have the correct tonal values between all the elements in the scene. It's suprisingly easy to create a scene that looks good visually, but doesn't have the right contrast and ends up looking terrible or sloppy.

File: Untitled (47)_1.jpg (3.81 MB, 2150x2597)

3.81 MB JPG

>>4523772
Here is an example of what I'm talking about. In person this weird object had very distinct colors, but b&w is all about tonal relationships/contrast, so the forms I was interested in photographing got almost completely lost.

File: 20260818_120630.jpg (1.92 MB, 2428x4000)

1.92 MB JPG

Posting this image a fifth time now because I think I found the look I want for my final print.
I used ansco 130 at a 1:2 dilution instead of the suggested 1:1 to produce a lower contrast print. As a side effect it produced this really lovely steel blue tone to the print.

Thoughts?

File: 1787086469161.jpg (138 KB, 875x980)

138 KB JPG

>>4523590
>Well.. Do you like it?
Like you mentioned (>>4523570), "still lifes aren't my thing", and I will politely agree. Neither the subjects nor compositions do anything to me. They don't tell any story (not one that I can see anyway), and as presented they are not very aesthetically pleasing in a purely abstract sense.
Maybe they would be interesting to see if I got to see them in a gallery, in large format, good and consistent lighting. Maybe they are actually really stunning in person, with subtle tonalities and textures, and that large format depth, but it definitely does not translate to your phone snapshots of them that you show here.
I will not call your posts trolling like the other guy, because fundamentally I do agree with what you said here >>4523749 about the thread and contributing to it. And your posts and photos are more about photography and better - technically - than 90% of what is being posted on /p/, and I would not like you to stop posting.
At the same time, I would really like to see something else from you than the fucking eggs on a plain background, photographed with Fuzzy Lens A or Fuzzy Lens B, on Mystery Meat Sheet Film Q, dipped in Obscurest Developer X. Less gear and process wank, more content and variety, please. Go out, touch grass, shoot the most cliche sunset you can find, and it will be more interesting than Egg and Junk #6363638.
Respectfully yours,
Anon.

>>4523837
Lol funny meme.
Your assessment is fair, but I can't stop yet. Not until I feel like my series is completed. I have like 7 or 8 pictures I feel strongly about, and I think around 10-12 will be enough.
As an outside observer the differences in soft focus lenses or whatever may seem unimportant or whatever, but as the creator of these images and someone who has a vision for them as a series every small detail is important, and I firmly believe that is what it takes to produce something great.
Just like I spend a very long time arranging scenes, tweaking light setups, selecting focus, etc. The actual output, the print, is the summation of all that detail oriented effort actualizing itself in reality. If I just slacked off and didn't care or used the same ol dektol and didn't care about what could be achieved with the best tools I have access to then all my prior efforts would be wasted.
One day when I finish all my prints I'll make my own thread to share them all as a series to look at together and maybe you'll understand. But for now I will continue making autistic posts in fgt about my egg pictures and the process I go through realizing my vision.
I could write a huge amount more about this, but I will spare us both. I have test prints to make with an amidol developer. I won't post those ones unless someone asks. I felt like I should post my last one because that cry baby guy was being rude and stupid.

And fuck no am I going to take cliche pictures of sunsets. That shit is so boring and not nearly as exciting or interesting as my egg pics. Maybe a couple with some of my 8x10 slide film, but THAT'S IT.

>>4523837
Also don't tell me to touch grass. Most of the pig, goat, and horse pictures posted here are mine, the ridiculous color meat pictures are mine, and I literally walk around my property looking for the found objects that I use for my egg photographs and my job as a farmer is almost entirely done outside. The whole egg series revolves around nature and farming.

File: mannequin - beads.jpg (1.87 MB, 1464x2232)

1.87 MB JPG

I can't believe egg anon also put up those crazy meat pics. What's next, mannequin anon is also the guy always posting weird meme/color swap films?

>>4523842
I hope it's clear enough they I do respect the craft, while not caring about the end product, right?
Anyway I will look forward to and reserve judgement until your final reveal of the completed series. I hope you will do your prints justice and scan then on a proper high end flatbed.
>That shit is so boring and not nearly as exciting or interesting as my egg pics.
We're gonna have to agree to disagree here lol
>>4523846
>the ridiculous color meat pictures are mine
They're probably the most interesting photos you ever posted here, both visually and thematically.
What do you think of Clarkson's Farm?

>>4523866
>they I
that I

What's your least favorite film photography meme?

>>4523871
lomo

>>4523866
Yes I understand that, and appreciate your respectful post. I really don't mind criticism as long as you aren't being purposefully mean or whatever.

For the final scans I may actually use my hasselblad 50MP mfdb with one of the macro lenses I have for the system. It has multishot, so I can get really clean files of them. It's still not the same as actually seeing them framed, but Ill do my best to try and give them justice. It would be fun to have a raffle to actually give away some of my prints for free, but idk if that will work out well. I'd love to share the actual physical print with people so they can see just how amazing they look in person.

Im all for disagreements. Just remember that your amazing sunset picture is just some random water vapor in the sky being lit up by burning gas that's really far away. Pretty much just some random garbage floating in the sky if you ask me lol

Oh yeah, the amidol prints came out subtly better, so it was a good test. I was reading that you want to aim for an exposure that gives you a 60 second dev time. Nailed that and bumped up the overall quality of the print about 5%, maybe. Crisper and cleaner whites, slightly deeper blacks, slightly richer midtones, and it maintained an almost identical low contrast look overall. Success.

>meat pics
Well I'm glad you liked them so much. It was a happy accident. Next batch of them will be on 4x5 using expired e100X, which is a much more tame slide film. Hopefully the film is not too degraded.
>clarkson
I havent watched, but I really should. I know he has all the piggies and stuff. Bringing attention to local and ethical small farmers is always good in my books. Buy some meat and/or eggs from a local small farmer nearby for me, okay? Preferably one that has regenerative farming practices like I do.

>>4523853
Big fan of mannequin anon. I would imagine he understands my eggsanity more than most.

>>4523871
people who tell you not to get film SLRs repaired because you can get another mystery meat non-CLA'd 50 year old body for the same cost as the repair

>>4523871
Scanning your own film but not editing it. Or getting lab scans but jpegs only not tiffs (which is essentially just hoping the lab didn't scan with no edits)

>>4523874
I've heard people say something similar, that you shouldn't get electronically controlled cameras because they will fail while mechanical cameras just need CLA. Idk how much I buy it but at least there's some logic compared to "just toss the body bro they made like 12 million of these!"

>>4523829
It honestly just looks blurry and fuzzy like you missed focus. I'm sorry anon, I think you're wasting this film's potential.

>>4523875
>I've heard people say something similar, that you shouldn't get electronically controlled cameras because they will fail while mechanical cameras just need CLA.
Kind of depends, something like an AE-1 for all of its faults can probably be kept running indefinitely as long as one of the printed circuits isn't damaged. Something later like an EOS may be different.

File: WETPLATE (2) (6).jpg (3.61 MB, 2744x2239)

3.61 MB JPG

>>4523871
Thinking that larger film doesn't afford you better resolution because of diffraction.

>>4523877
Missing focus looks completely and entirely different from a soft focus lens like this. Look at the egg and the shadow behind it. The egg is soft and glowing, but it still maintains volume. Not possible by simply missing focus.
Here is a 720dpi scan of a print I made with the half strength ansco 130. Size it to 8x10 and view it like that. I wasn't going to share this one, but you made me. It's your fault not mine, okay?

Is Kodacolor 100 just ProImage 100 distributed directly by Eastman Kodak?

>>4523884
Nope, not seeing it, sorry. Still just looks blurry to me.
I think this >>4522359 was the best of the lot so far. Just oozing with crisp, fine detail. Has impact. Feels like the kind of thing you'd see in a scientific paper, like you put the whole thing under a gigantic electron microscope or something. That's the one I'd keep and print, personally.

>>4523893
Scans and digital viewing of soft focus images look nothing like seeing them in person, and before I started making prints of them and understanding how they translate to physical viewing they also looked kinda bad to me, hah. Once I made nice prints and framed them I saw how amazing they were. It's part psychological and part technical. We train ourselves to dislike softness and out of focus because we almost always intend to avoid it, and it becomes internalized as a flaw or a bad look. It doesn't need to be a flaw if it emphasizes or compliments an image. Softness can be a very beautiful part of an image. I wish I could share the portraits I've taken with my soft focus lenses.
Either way that crisp and clinical look is exactly what I wanted to avoid for this image. Im suprised no one has called it flat yet lol. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LOW CONTRAST. The tones are still rich and textured without looking washed out. Thanks amidol!
Compare it with this image>>4523749 where a harsh and gritty man made object contains the egg within a "circle". Dark heavy tones, extremely sharp, everything in focus. The sharpness and contrast emphasizes the theme or vibe or whatever you want to call it of the image.

>>4523884
>a blurry twig

File: 20260531_165137.jpg (929 KB, 2584x2032)

929 KB JPG

>>4523901
You forgot about the egg, lil bro. NEVER, EVER forget about the egg.

I show my framed egg prints at the farmers market, bringing one new one each week, and this one, which is another soft focus lens shot got more compliments than almost any other pic I've shown. Maybe my 5th favorite out of the 8ish I have right now.
My infamous posed dog 8x10 was hands down the most loved of them all, but that's cheating because cute dog. About 4 people thought it was a painting, and one old lady asked if the dog passed away because the picture looked like it had an aura to it lol... kinda strange but I get it.

Oh yeah, It's a black berry root btw, so when you call it blurry please get it right and call it a root. Thanks.

>>4523875
>getting lab scans but jpegs only not tiffs (which is essentially just hoping the lab didn't scan with no edits)
TIFF files are bigger than they're worth. A 36exp roll taking up 3gb or more is insane when the RAWs from most cameras top out around 40-50mb per image.

>>4523905
Yeah I don't understand how TIFF is still so prevalent. It's been surpassed multiple times now. Personally I think JPEG XL should be the standard in current year (at least of the image formats I know about, which admittedly is not all of them).

File: IMG_1895.jpg (4.32 MB, 5728x3824)

4.32 MB JPG

In the parking garage

File: 2024_0059_029.jpg (413 KB, 1500x1000)

413 KB JPG

>>4523873
Print raffle or exchange sounds kind of fun. I'm just extremely wary of doxxing myself on 4chan, especially these days. I think proto-/fgt/ actually did something like that before with a traveling single use camera, and /a/ has their Secret Santa, but I never participated and don't know how they are coordinated and how the trust and security issues are solved. But if I had one of your prints I would unironically cherish it - like I said the subject may not be too my taste, but I respect the craft and amount of thought put into it.
>sunset
If you want to philosophize, that random garbage in the sky is 99.9% of the entire mass of solar system. Created from the original cloud of gas and dust, with the leftover crumbs of the accretion disk becoming the planets. But it's all the same, you and I and everything around us and the Sun are just made of the same cosmic dust that just happened to accumulate in one part of the void. So if you're talking about the life or nature metaphor, then I think in the classic question, the Sun came first before the egg.
Here's one of my most kitschy ones, don't remember if I posted it before.
I used to buy all my eggs from a Vietnamese farmer at a local market, and he had everything you could ask for, from medium to jumbo, white, brown, blue, duck eggs, balut (never tried) and so on. But with some personal shit going down, and the economy going down the shitter coinciding with it, I had to change my spending habits drastically. Sadly the $3.49/dozen from Costco wins with my guy's $8.99 now, despite the very obvious hit to the quality. I don't have enough disposable income now to frivolously buy top tier foods. I just hope he'll still be there by the time I get out of the hole.

>>4523921
It's a mix of backwards compatibilty and user inertia. There are genuinely old systems around on which only legacy formats are supported at all, especially in photography with all the old farts. And people have used JPG/PNG/GIF/TIFF for so long than when they see a new format, they just bounce off it which removes incentives for software support to evolve.
WEBP and AVIF are pretty good and so would be HEIF if not for muh royalties but JPEG XL's feature set is so extensive and its compression algorithms so good that it could easily become the one format to replace them all if not for these barriers.

>>4523921
>>4523925
These labs could at least give us the option of DNG, that's used across Adobe, Apple and Android. Anyone that's editing on a computer would be using something that supports it anyway, I don't know much about boomers but what could they possibly still be using in the modern day that can only handle TIFF?

>WEBP and AVIF are pretty good and so would be HEIF if not for muh royalties
I hate WEBP just because it was so badly implemented to start with kek. HEIF has some decent footing, Canon and Sony have both adopted it into their cameras and it's supported by everything Apple. It's essentially the HEVC of the photo formats as I recall.

File: _IMG6376.jpg (2.23 MB, 4060x2712)

2.23 MB JPG

>>4523930
HEIF is literally the compression format used by HEVC for key frames. Same for WEBP/VP8 and AVIF/AV1, only JXL was made for individual images from the ground up.
HEIF's ecosystem is gonna keep being limited by the royalties MPEG demand for commercial applications. Google actually started backing VP8/9/AV1 and their image counterparts to dodge those.

>>4523405
Anon I think these are very cool but I find it hilarious you'd want to use those to actually sell meat. My first thought when I saw your photos was that it aimed at showing how weird and unappealing meat really was when put front and center out of culinary context. I think the weird color shifts and solid background combined with how you present the meat with you bare hands is highly unsettling and look like a David Lynch horror scene. It's like meat is a deal with the devil. So yeah I really like the pictures but what the fuck man.

>>4523939
This. Put the meat on chopping board, nice soft lighting, either in kitchen or on table outside with the farm in the background. Product photography 101.

>>4523939
It’s all human meat, veggie boy. Every pig farmer does it. Those hobos and hookers gotta go somewhere.

The virgin product photographer
>show it in an idealized scene
>nice soft light
>shoot top down for a fun whimsical look
>dont forget to set your camera to f8 and RAW!
>i recommend a short macro lens

The chad cannibal contact printer
>I HOLD THIS FLESH IN MY HANDS FOR I HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION OF IT
>THE FLASH IS CLINICAL, EVERYTHING IS JUST EVIDENCE NOW
>YOU SEE WHAT I SEE
>TAKEN VIA A 10 MINUTE EXPOSURE AT F128 WITH 666MM OF BELLOWS EXTENSION
>THE LIGHT OF THEIR DYING SOUL IS CAPTURED WITHIN MY FILM FOREVER

>>4523871
naked women photos by a leica

>>4523871
>IF YOU BUY THIS [GEAR] YOU WILL TAKE BETTER PHOTOS
Any camera with manual controls and traditional-ish ergos will do for most beginners. Bigger sensor better, but otherwise it's like learning how to drive a car; every car will let you learn, not every car will let you compete on the track.

Unironically the [GEAR] that is worth buying into is lighting equipment. Even if all that is, is a solid speedlite with a good GN and a somewhat large softbox. But since there aren't any YouToobrs that get paid off to promote that stuff nobody cares.

>>4523946
My understanding was they went to the pigs

>>4523975
>tfw the shoe on my main camera is broken and the new flash unit I got doesn't fire reliably with my other cameras
I guess this is a reason to buy gear

File: Dog.jpg (2.73 MB, 1642x2167)

2.73 MB JPG

>>4523939
I wanted to try something a little different from the standard shots everyone has on their online store. I have some 220 portra 400VC if my 4x5 e100X doesn't work out.

>>4523994
It all depends on who is hungrier...

>>4523405
>I did a whole series of these intending to use them on my website to sell meat
These photos are cool, but they would not sell meat, not at all. The lighting, colors and posing gives off a sickly feeling.

They're more like prints that would be on the wall of some artsy upscale steak restaurant.

>>4523874
the guy who repaired my K1000 hit me with this meme

>>4523875
>Scanning your own film but not editing it.
what do you consider editing?
for most of my film photos, I just do inversion then black & white levels
sometimes for B&W I'll play with the contrast

>>4524003
>when life gives you meat you make meatonade type pictures

I am actually going to do the 3x3 grid of 5x7 prints with a frozen pig head in the middle as an art piece. It's going to be killer.

Do you or anyone else have any recommendations on digital printing technology that would be a good match for it? I suppose I could get laser prints.

File: Cow2.jpg (1.14 MB, 2512x1962)

1.14 MB JPG

Meyer & co schnellarbeiter 270mm F3 lens. Fast petzval design that covers 8x10. Shot wide open. Really like the look of this lens so far. Expired 4x5 slide film "tastefully" edited.

>>4523924
If youre in the states it's easy enough to send a first class envelope without a return address. Raffle would be fairly straightforward. Gather emails through a fresh email account, online raffle tool to choose a winner, just the winner would share an address through email.
On /an/ this guy recently raffled a tick orb that he made and it went pretty smoothly. Haha.

Well yeah that's my point. When you think about everyday things they can actually contain a lot of meaning to them, and often times it can be foolish to dismiss them so easily. The simple egg can have a lot of different symbolism and meaning to it if you're willing to think about it as something more than what a chicken shits out every other day.
I sell my eggs for 10/dozen laid yesterday, and 2-3 day old flats of 30 for 20 or 8/dozen. Unsorted, but 98% of them are large or bigger. We got to two farmers markets on saturday and usually sell around 1.5k eggs. It's kind of crazy.

File: Cow3.jpg (4.57 MB, 1958x2471)

4.57 MB JPG

Im sorry.

what is the rodinal of paper developers? i mainly mean a concentrate with nice shelf-life that is also cost efficient. i wouldn't mind needing to dump the solution after every session in the darkroom.

>>4523903
you might be mentally ill, man. peace

shot some HR-50 at night with an extra stop on average since my camera underexposed this film last time i shot it with it during the day. Do i just develop at stock or should i try stand development? only have rodinal and i really like high contrast which it has with HR-50

Things are going good
>Godox C100 has been working great as a meter
>now have access to cheap c41 dev + good scans
>one local shop carries at least 20 varieties of 35mm film
>got a cheap set of RGB filters so I can make some trichromes
>have 2 body 3 lens FD setup now

>>4523949
those are good

File: Ansco130 recipe.jpg (261 KB, 1080x1089)

261 KB JPG

>>4524060
That is a little trickier with paper developers. Most paper devs require a significant amount of sodium sulfite and the solubility bottlenecks your maximum concentration.
Ilford multigrade is 1+9.

My advice is to invest in raw chemicals and just mix your own. It makes it significantly more affordable, and with about 10-15 chemicals you can make like 100 different paper and film developers, or even customize your own if you wanted to get crazy with it.
It is really dead simple to mix up your own developer chemistry. I've noticed my homemade dektol actually works better and lasts longer than when I've used premixed powder bags.
Ansco 130 is considered one of the best developers and people use it as a stand in for amidol based developers. Glycin took a little while to get because it is regularly out of stock. I was able to order mine from b+h.

Pic is ansco 130 recipe for 1L. Mix in warm water in sequence making sure each chemical is dissolved fully before adding the next. Easy peasy.
It is used at 1+1 for normal contrast. Working solution lasts for like a week or longer if you transfer to an airtight bottle between printing sessions.

File: output (8).jpg (3.44 MB, 4794x7000)

3.44 MB JPG

>>4524125
i looked into this a little and mixing up your own stuff does look very fun and affordable if you buy in bulk. are there any sites that have lists of these mixes or do you need to scour random search results to find these? I'm personally more interested in colder or neutral developers.

by the way does anyone here happen to know good chemical suppliers in europe? most either sell stuff in huge quantities or not at all. found a site that sells everything needed for ansco 130 and it would be around 8.18 euro for one liter if you dont get everything in bulk, is that price normal?

File: 1787332113998.jpg (195 KB, 700x1000)

195 KB JPG

>>4524191
>are there any sites that have lists of these mixes or do you need to scour random search results to find these?
Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook, and Troop's (feat. Anchell) The Film Developing Cookbook. The former is more comprehensive about darkroom work in general, in addition to just the recipes.
Pricey but worth it. Also libraries [spoiler]and Internet[/spoiler] exist.

File: 20260821_111147.jpg (2.6 MB, 2718x3876)

2.6 MB JPG

Bought this mystery positive printing paper, got lost in post for 4 months, refunded purchase, showed up yesterday. 50 sheets of 11x14 glossy RC for free. Nice. Found it is 2 iso and its preflash timing to tame contrast. Pic is without preflash.

Going to cut it down to 4x5/8x10 and set up a photobooth for a party on sunday. I think it's going to be a hit.

>>4524191
Around 8 usd seems about right. Glycin is kind of expensive, but a magical chemical for developing. There's this developer called Harvey's 777 tank developer that is a glycin based dev that is extremely interesting sounding. Ultra smooth midtones/highlights. Considered the holy grail of portrait developers by many people.
You run it as a deep tank system replenishment system, and the more you use it the better it gets. It is even recommended to run a few rolls you don't really care about to season the fresh developer. Now that I have my rotary processor I should actually make some...

I search online mostly, but books are great if you want a physical resource and they have a lot of good info if you wanted to learn about the chemistry behind it as well.

File: 20260821_130642.jpg (1.55 MB, 2924x3744)

1.55 MB JPG

Here is another one I took. Preflashed the paper before exposing the image. It really helps tame the contrast. Got this stuff dialed in pretty good now.
Direct positive paper is so much fun. Highly recommend trying some out if you have a view camera and a darkroom.

File: 1.jpg (4.84 MB, 2433x3601)

4.84 MB JPG

one of my favorite shots from a recent trip to Boston

>>4523875
i just found out on my last lab visit i could get tiffs at no extra charge. now im debating whether or not to pay for a rescan or just get a scanner at this point

>>4524024
Making adjustments to create the final product you want basically. If B/W balance is all you need sure. Many labs send photos with color casts, or that are low contrast because they assume you will do the final edits. It's not always a bad look but whenever I see film shots with the green cast and someone saying that's just the "film look" it drives me up a wall. Because it isn't the "film look" it's (generally) the look of shooting under fluorescent light.

>>4524048
Pair that lens with some good black and white film and you'll have some true kino. Dress up as a cowboy for it too.

>>4524048
pointless as it gets mogged by a iphone

>>4524328
That's the plan. I'm still waiting on my temu assless chaps to show up.

I think fujichrome like provia3 hold up significantly better than expired ektachrome films.
I've had only bad luck with expired ektachrome, and only good luck with expired fujichrome.

Anyone else experience this?

File: Provia100 14.jpg (2.66 MB, 1516x1990)

2.66 MB JPG

Sorry these are dirty. I am extremely annoyed because this just started cropping up in my normally clean-ish workflow and I need to check everything now. Ugh.

>>4524448
How come this happens to all your photos? You posted earlier with the same problem.

>>4524449
Something happened. I have a mistral 3 film drying cabinet that normally keeps everything quite clean while drying.

My two guesses are that my stabilizer got contaminated from a dirty tray or the mistral 3 filter got compromised somehow. I make it a point to use my stabilizer in a clean tray/container then pour it straight back into my storage vessel after Im done
I'm going to pass my stabilizer through a coffee filter tommorow into a very clean container and see if it resolves the issue. And wipe down the drying cabinet.
My b&w stuff doesn't normally have excessive dirt, which is why I'm guessing it is the stabilizer. It can't be from inside the dev tanks because I clean those and the film goes through multiple rinse cycles in the tanks.

Anyways you like the pics?

>>4524449
It's quite annoying because the jobo 2.5L e6 kit only comes with like 2.5L worth of stabilizer, so I need to reuse it. The bellini 1L kit came with enough to make 10 liters and I could just one shot it.

>>4524450
Unironically yes, great photos. Very old style Americana and I really like seeing them. Provia 100F or is it some expired old version? I'd like to get some photos like this myself.

File: Provia100 7 2.jpg (2.75 MB, 1851x1406)

2.75 MB JPG

>>4524452
Ty. :D Yeah, rdp3 expired 2004. After this test roll I'm happy with the condition of the 5 pack of film I got and will spend another roll for meat pics soon. It's a little contrasty, but not overly so like the e100VS.
That industrial area has many good photographs to be taken. One day I'm going to haul my 8x10 over there during sunset/golden hour and do some slide and b&w.
I got lucky and had my camera in the car and about 10 minutes of spare time to scout and snap a bit while we were out.

>>4520917

I'm going to get back to darkroom. I still have some fomatone 132, but in general finding bromoil papers seems rather difficult these days. Maybe i'll coat my own papers...

File: DSZ_5516 - Copy.jpg (773 KB, 2129x2429)

773 KB JPG

trichrome, underexposed with no details in the black clothing except very slightly in the blue channel. I tried using flash for this and found it difficult to meter well.
>>4524447
Nice
>>4524445
Did you squeegee this, those vertical streaks are pretty bad

>>4524465
Used a slightly too rough brush just to see if I could wipe the dust off. Film was contaminated before drying, so no luck.
I swore off squeegees a loooong time ago lol. Not really necessary with a drying cabinet..

When are you getting a rotary processor btw? Developing e6/c41 at home is so nice it almost feels luxurious.

>>4524465
Colors look really nice on your trichrome btw.

File: imm006_4A.jpg (97 KB, 588x881)

97 KB JPG

Hi /p/, I'm new to photography and have some questions.
My "collection" of cameras, which are all flea market finds, are an Olympus Trip 35 (pic rel shot with it on Fujicolor 200), a AGFA Optima sensor 1035 and a Yashica T4 (Olympus 3€ heh, AGFA 10€ and T4 3€ hehe). The first roll of the T4 is still being developed by the local drug store lab. Super hyped about the outcome, electronic seemed to work fine.

That drug store lab is also where my problem lies. The resolution of the scans is 1536 x 1024 pixels, which is enough to look at, but not nearly enough to e.g. make it into a poster, enhance a certain area, or so on. Would biting the bullet and buying a film scanner for a couple 100 bucks give me better quality scans, that way it would also be cheaper to have them developed. I don't really need/want the printed photos?
Second question: Have you had bad experiences with shooting expired film? I don't want to pay 15 € per roll of film + 9 € for getting it developed every other week.
Third question. If I want to use either the Trip 35 or the Optima 1035 for black white photography during an upcoming hiking vacation, which one would be your choice?

File: monarch 2.jpg (3.78 MB, 3539x2370)

3.78 MB JPG

>>4524468
I did bite the bullet and get my own film scanner about 2 years ago, and I quite like it. It is also time consuming and takes some trial and error to get good at it. Long term it can also be cheaper as you say, I used to pay 13 bucks for dev + scan and now I pay 7 for dev only; but I also spend ~2 hours per roll scanning and doing initial edits. maybe that time investment is not worth it for you, I don't know. You could also try a different lab that has a higher quality scan option to see if that satisfies you before pulling the trigger on a scanner.

>>4524468
Expired film can be hit or miss depending on a variety of factors. Buy a brick of expired film and you can shoot/test one of the rolls to get a feel for what the rest will give you.
Camera scanning is a good option if you already have a decent digital camera. Something in the 30MP range will give you pretty good results for 35mm film. Flatbeds kinda really suck for smaller film formats unless you get autistic about it. Check online examples for whatever scanner you may be interested in.

If you intend on doing night shots or shooting portraits with sunset behind subject type stuff with flash take the optima, otherwise the battery free operation of the trip 35 will be nice. You'll have one less thing to worry about and possibly forget or lose.

File: P8210163.jpg (866 KB, 2312x3486)

866 KB JPG

>>4524471
>Expired film can be hit or miss depending on a variety of factors
Learned this lesson again when I got some expired GT24FILM 400 developed and it looked ass. Probably the worst film I've ever tried. Color film really doesn't forgive you any under exposing and it probably was stored under suboptimal conditions in the store shelf...

File: P8210203.jpg (948 KB, 2322x3478)

948 KB JPG

>>4524472
For refence, this shot taken with expired Ilford XP2 Super 400 was shot with same camera, developed in the same lab and scanned with the same camera settings. I'd say it's one of the nicer shots I've ever taken on film.

Inherited a Minolta 7000 Maxxum. Don't have any prior experience shooting on film or developing it. Anything important to know going into it?

File: R1-04720-0009.jpg (3.2 MB, 2433x3575)

3.2 MB JPG

>>4524473
Nice shot.

I too got much better results out of expired B&W than any expired color I'd shot prior. And it can be had for very cheap. Can't bring myself to go full B&W though

File: Velvia50 1 1.jpg (959 KB, 2479x1872)

959 KB JPG

Mistakes were made. I've been holding onto this velvia for a very long time and it was not stored properly, and then I vastly underestimated the contrast of this scene. I ignored the gut feeling that I should have brought my light meter out.. Next time.

These edits are what the film basically looks like except brightened up some. The rebate is dark red.

File: Velvia50 2.jpg (776 KB, 2424x1834)

776 KB JPG

I think they're kinda cool like this, so it's whatever.

You can shoot 800 ISO film (Cinestill 800T) handheld at night and get decent results, right? My lens goes to F1.4 and I'm using one of those fancy newer (from the 1980s) cameras that has a Program mode and has done a good job at figuring out correct settings for daytime photography so far.
I've managed to get a roll for cheap off someone who didn't need it anymore and decided to take it with me on a vacation on a whim, hence I can't take a tripod. Feel like I might be making a big mistake, since it's my first time shooting film at night, but what's the worst that can happen (other than wasting a roll of good film)

>>4524497
>>4524498
Looks like it should be some drug fueled prog-rock album cover.

>>4524500
800 and 1.4 should be enough, based on my experience with digital at least. I was managing just fine with 1.8 all the way to 5.6 handheld with 800ISO.

What matters at night is metering if you're using anything but manual. Typically I'd use Aperture Priority and about -1 exposure bias when using Matrix Metering (I hear spot metering works too but I feel that risks underexposure if you pick the wrong spot to meter). Someone else probably knows better than I do, I'm still only just entering the film world and I only know about digital.

My pen-d screwed up. Got the seller to give me a partial refund. She insisted on replacing the camera. Gave me a pen-ee2 instead.

And made me keep the dead pen-d which I can now get repaired.

Shit.

>>4524564
Ask her for the pen-is. Works everytime.

>>4524451
I basically only buy Bellini now for both C41 and E6, easiest to mix, fastest and you can buy just bottle of dev if your fix and bleach is still good.

File: 1787577272271.gif (3.66 MB, 400x300)

3.66 MB GIF

>>4524566

File: PXL_20260824_153138072.jpg (1.53 MB, 3072x4080)

1.53 MB JPG

this is getting out of hand now theres two of them

File: Velvia50 15.jpg (2.28 MB, 1986x1504)

2.28 MB JPG

Are foggy cows the rural equivalent of the night time foggy gas station pictures?

File: Velvia50 18.jpg (1.64 MB, 1623x1236)

1.64 MB JPG

>>4524663

File: Velvia50 20.jpg (2.34 MB, 1892x1420)

2.34 MB JPG

>>4524664

>>4524663
>>4524664
>>4524665
>With a cow, you can drink milk any time you want.

File: Velvia50 21.jpg (2.75 MB, 1991x1516)

2.75 MB JPG

And thats what I got out of my morning the other day.

>>4524569
Huh, the bellini 1L is basically the exact same price as the jobo kits/liter as well... getting multiple 1L kits also makes a lot more sense for long term storage than a 2.5L kit. Thank you.

I realized last night that my rotary processor will be able to do RA4 reversal processing super well with my 3005 drum. 5 sheets of 8x10 at once!
I'm very annoyed I did not realize this sooner. One off color prints sounds freaking incredible, and ra4 paper is cheap as chips.

I'm doing my first night film session soon and I'm not sure what to do, I keep reading things about film acting very different at night and going past certain exposure times doesn't work. I hope some anons can help.

Any advice for using Ultramax 400 at night? The subjects are mostly going to be old highway motels with lit up signs and basic fluorescent light around the rooms, and also some very old style restaurants/diners with lit up signs and basic interior lighting. I might also go for golden hour since I would really like to capture some decent detail of the buildings, but I'll run out of time going between locations. Any settings advice would be massively appreciated. As for my lens, all I have is a basic zoom right now and f4 is the fastest it can go.

>>4524696
Look up reciprocity charts for your specific film. Some suffer from it more than others.
The idea with metering any exposure is to understand total contrast and select an exposure that will allow the film to record all or most of the detail you want.
Read up on the exposure section of the zone system. You want to keep your exposures long enough to place the darkest areas of your scene no more than 2 stops darker than middle gray. Any lower and you start losing information.

File: IMG_20260824_230659829_HDR.jpg (3.28 MB, 4096x3072)

3.28 MB JPG

been a couple years got my tank outta storage, developed a couple rolls. haven't figured out setting up enlarger but here's my professional grade scanning arrangement

>>4524702
Based messy desk bro. Where's the scans at, bruv?

File: chorch.jpg (432 KB, 2000x1338)

432 KB JPG

>>4524702
realized i knocked the angle a little off here but didnt mind the result

>>4524702
fellow stoner

File: hazymountain.jpg (869 KB, 2000x1317)

869 KB JPG

>>4524703
working thrugh one roll tonight. I need to wash this shit again, I dropped it and washed it off in tap water. Luckily it doesn't really show up in prints.

File: hazymountain1.jpg (1.06 MB, 2000x1292)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4524711
i hate the east i wish i lived in the mountains

File: cent.jpg (618 KB, 2000x1311)

618 KB JPG

>>4524712

>>4524711
Idk how I feel about the colors, but it is pretty interesting. Otherwise I like your pics. What film? And how are you printing them?

File: house.jpg (914 KB, 2000x1314)

914 KB JPG

>>4524715
this is ultramax. Ones i figure out how to block light in the bathroom i can print on 8x10 sheets with a durst m370 color and a jobodrum. hopefully all my stuff still wokrs havent tested it in a few years

File: trae.jpg (1.26 MB, 2000x1338)

1.26 MB JPG

>>4524718
not a print i just liked the look of not cropping out the film on this one

File: Delta200 5_1.jpg (1.62 MB, 1797x1368)

1.62 MB JPG

I'm posting pigs.

>>4524719
Oh so these are old ra4 prints you've done?

File: Delta200 19_1.jpg (1.7 MB, 1947x1474)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4524721
Still diagnosing my new dust issue as well.

File: Delta200 3_1.jpg (1.56 MB, 1839x1392)

1.56 MB JPG

>>4524722
Makro-planar 120mm

File: Delta200 9_1.jpg (1.42 MB, 1653x1259)

1.42 MB JPG

>>4524723

File: Delta200 21_1.jpg (1.4 MB, 1680x1260)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4524724

>>4524668
People disregard Bellini because strictly on per roll basis it's more expensive but rarely does anyone take into account storage and reusability of the kit pieces and Italians mog both Jobo and Adox in that regard. I also like the no bullshit plain box and single sheet instructions.

File: file.png (410 KB, 633x847)

410 KB PNG

i love film!

File: trae2.jpg (1023 KB, 2000x1298)

1023 KB JPG

>>4524721
nah these are scans with this thing:>>4524702


Prints happening soon. Need to buy dev and paper. Hopefully will be much cleaner because enlargers dont seem to show watermarks or dust as much.

question for people who edit their scans: Do you also do your scans yourself?
I've only ever edited raw files, but my lab only sends me jpgs

File: oldprint-2.jpg (914 KB, 2000x1598)

914 KB JPG

>>4524721
my prints are acually clean usually. my scanning is so crap i play up the dust and artifacts look. heres an old one.

File: IMG_0753.jpg (262 KB, 864x1280)

262 KB JPG

>>4524735
Request Tiff scans, any good lab should offer it. Hopefully at no extra cost you

>>4524757
Dammit I really want to do ra4 prints. If you have a flash you can try using that instead of your lightbulb lol.

>>4524771
Jobo used to make RA4 friendly safelight, it was extremely dim and you had only like 4 minutes of time before it would negatively affect the paper but it made classic tray dev possible so you didn't need to change anything in darkroom. With one of those and cheap aquarium heaters for trays you could basically do RA4 the same way as B&W. But tank dev is honestly more convenient, you don't want to dip your hands in the RA4 chemistry or inhale the fumes.

>>4524772
I have a print processor that will do up to 11x14 waiting for my dorkroom to be built. Permitting process is taking a very long time.
For now I am going to screw around with reversal process in my automatic rotary processor. Using a view camera to make one off prints with direct positive b&w paper is extremely fun. I think that color will also be a joy.
There's something very satisfying about taking a picture and seeing it only minutes after photographing, and the quality of direct positive paper is outstanding if you can control the contrast well enough.

File: P13235_71-10728-101_01.jpg (146 KB, 1200x1200)

146 KB JPG

how many did (You) pre-order today anon?

>>4523390
>>4524497
absolutely dope
Animals are always an engaging subject, but I like those very much

File: Velvia50 7.jpg (3.36 MB, 1547x2032)

3.36 MB JPG

>>4524783
:D Have another. This one may be my fav from the roll.