Oops! 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: Did you pick up film as a hobby after shooting digital? Or did you just never stop shooting film? And do you do both simultaneously now (phone snapshits don't count)?Previous thread: >>4520917
>>4526501I guess you could still harvest the silver from them, but the fixer may be more expensive than the silver you get. Apparently 1 8x10 sheet has .08 grams of silver.
>>4526504So 8 grams from a 100-pack of 8x10, assuming no losses. That's $17.20 at today's price. Not sure how you would even sell it, but I doubt that's breaking even considering all the other consumables, water and energy besides just fixer.I have almost 4 gallons of saturated fixer sitting in the garage, I really should get on with that project of harvesting the silver from it, but I'm too lazy (and too cheap, mainly to buy a crucible and torch just for a silly hobby project).
>>4526505Maybe with a cheap homebrewed thiosulfate based developer you could make a few bucks.>4 gallons of fixerSame. Put some steel wool in it now and the silver drops out. You strain out the silver powder and melt it into a bar. Pawn shops and some jewelry stores will pay you for it.It would be really cool if you made a little shutter button or some camera accessory/charm out of the silver you recovered from fixing film/paper also.
Anyone buy film on Amazon? Or is it a mix of fake shit?
>>4526514Film is absurdly overpriced on amazon. Go to a local B&M store instead.
I already have a Maxxum 7000 AF and a bunch of lenses. Is it worth stepping up to this 9000 AF with the MD90 Motor Winder? I really only shoot film on vacations/trips.
>>4526534most Kodak consumer films are available for prices similar to my local sellers
>>4526629Gold 120 5 pack 58, portra 5 pack 68. I guess it aint so bad really.
>>4526582The 9000's a nice camera but beware they are notorious for their aperture mechanism failing
>>4526514I don't think fake film exists, at least not in the way that most fake stuff do. At worst you'll get something short-dated that was potentially improperly stored. But then how many brick and mortar stores, even photography focused, do store their film refrigerated?The few times I did buy from Amazon (because I absolutely needed some next day and B&H and others would take too long) it was just fine for immediate use.Make sure to check who the actual seller is, and if it's not Amazon then have a look at their ratings and reviews just in case.>>4526534It was about 15-25% more than what I would pay if I could wait a few days. Annoying, but I wouldn't say absurdly so.
>>4526695>I don't think fake film exists, at least not in the way that most fake stuff do.I've seen some weird complaints in reviews about the film being seemingly glued inside the canisters or other odd shit like that. I even saw one where the film was open, used and had someone else's photos on it (I don't even know how the fuck that can happen)
>>4526830Id mainly be worried about getting expired and poorly stored film from scamazon.
>>4526834I have a few rolls I'm sending off soon, so I guess I'll see how they turn out. I haven't bought any expired ones so far but the worst I've seen was a box that was expiring in only two months, while some others have almost a full year on them.
>>4526168gives me hope for my two rolls of unknown vintage
Should I get the massive 8x10 enlarger with dichroic head? The guy said he would deliver it for free. 3.5k. The thing weighs over 500lbs.
>>4526923Over 8 feet tall.>>4526877I really loved the nps colors and feel like I need to get more rolls. I hope your rolls work out well and you share some of the pics.
Dog.
Cows.
>>4526656Yeah I don't need it then, thanks.
Two Cow
Calf
Bull. This guy just started letting me give him head scratches after having him for multiple years. Had to get a few nice portraits of him in celebration. That is all for now. Thank you.
>>4527017>>4527019>>4527020>>4527021Mood
Kot.
Anyone ever attenpt RA4 reversal process? Tricky ass process. So many variables to understand when first starting. >>4527022Cannot wait for the grass to come back. Too somber without all the GREEN.
First roll of fomapan 200 came out looking a bit thin at recommended parameters (6 min in fomadon LQN 1+10), edge markings included. Developer itself was fine, the roll of fomapan 100 I processed right before came out normal.That's gonna be dense enough for scanning, but would that be too thin for good darkroom prints? I plan on getting into it eventually.
Im a fool and left my unshot portra 160 film in my carry on luggage and it went through the scan because i was rushing Will the carry on scanners ruin my rolls? Anyone had this happen to them?
>>4527149Carry on is fine. Checked luggage is probably fucked too an extent, but at least it's only 160.I've had a couple of (shot) ProZ 800 rolls fucked in corner luggage. They were still mostly salvageable, just annoying to do so.Since it's unshot then just use it for less important stuff. Or cut the loss and toss it if you can't afford the risk.
>>4527128Just looking at density and contrast it seems like they'll print fine. You may be fighting with contrast/ sufficient shadow detail on the top frames a bit, but it doesn't look extreme.
>>4527149That's pretty slow. It's probably fine. I would worry if it was 400+.
>>4527158Dont worry it’s just for my honeymoon in GreeceGood thing I brought digital too kek
>under/overexposure by a few stops usually throws off the white balance>but white balancing off the frame lines and edges, which are unexposed and equivalent to -infinity stops, is completely fineexplain this
>>4527208>white balancing off the film base worksyeah
>>4527208everything is exposed relative to the film base
>>4526695I just saw a reel on instagram where a lady wedding photographer got a 5 pack of portra 35 off amazon and ended up with rocks inside the plastic film containers. LOL
>>4527322Yeah I mean you gotta use your brain when buying from 3rd party sellers lol. Amazon does not sell film and will sometimes default to some absolute dog of a seller instead (eg. because they're the cheapest or fastest).Couldn't find a more drastic example ad hoc, but I've seen much worse before.If delivery time was not an issue, would you go with the second seller to save 5 bucks? (Not even really save because shipping cost, but again, people tend to not use their brains).
>>4527219>>4527288ok but why doesn't it work with over/underexposed scenes then>>4526221just bought a sekonic so i'll share results when i'm done
>>4527208Being unexposed is not equivalent to -infinity stops, the color balance is literally determined by the film. There is a reason daylight and tungsten balanced film exist.
>>4527377Nice. I like sekonic meters. Which model you cop?
>>4526501Does anyone here invert scans manually? How do you cope with Aerocolor's weird filmbase, colour casts, and contrast? My typical workflow for negative film looks like this:>invert>subtract filmbase>set white point>balance the red/blue/green channels until neutrals look neutral>contrast curve>set black pointWith Aerocolor I end up doing a billion adjustments and losing my marbles for half an hour just to end up with an image that still has "sickly" looking highlights, idk how else to describe it. It's like the image is too red and too blue at the same time
Should I buy this piece of shit?
>>4527586Set saturation to 0..Jokes aside try giving the sat slider a little jiggle and see what it does for your color cast.
>>4527588As my first film camera
>>4527586I only invert manually when I DSLR scan. Which is only about 10% of my scans, but this is what I do:>set up the rig with camera tethered to a PC>pre-set in-camera WB to daylight>manually set optimal shutter and aperture for the lens>put empty leader frame in the holder>go to live view and set a color picker point (ideally averaged over a 10x10 pixel square)>dial the light source to get as close to neutral as possible (all RGB values almost identical)>then use that to take a WB preset in camera to lock it>finally dial the light brightness to be where I want the peak highlights on the histogramThis way you get as "true" color balance in your scan as possible, and by doing most of balancing even before the picture is taken you minimize the amount of adjustments you need to do later. Obviously each color mask is different, so what I do next is invert, adjust RGB curves to the baseline I like, then save that as a preset that I apply to all the scans from that roll - and only do actual preferential adjustments for each frame on top of that. If you want to be more autistic, shoot a color checker frame on each color stock you use, and use that to automatically get baseline adjustment preset.Like I said I only DSLR scan very few of my rolls, but this workflow is the only way to not go insane when scanning shit like Phoenix, Azure, and all the other oddities with atypical or no masks. It also makes the pedestrian stocks like Gold shine too, but I don't usually do it because the amount of improvement is not big enough compared to letting the Coolscan do it to make the hassle worth it.Anyway if the screenshot is your pic then it is perfectly fine. I like it a little more with Night Light mode on on my phone kek, so maybe just turn that blue down a little? But it really fine as is, and I see no problem with the reds. Maybe you're just too tunnel visioned into it and need to sleep on it and come back to it after a day or two to see it more objectively.
>>4527588Sure, get a normal lens with it though. Stop down metering isn't super convenient but it's just manual with a minor extra step.
>>4526501some kind gentlemen had shared a couple of good sites to buy film here in Europe that shipped continent-wide, anybody have those?
>>4527586Just use levels, in separate channel mode. Gimme a raw pic to demonstrate
I hate split image focusing so goddamn much, it's extremely difficult to make out in some conditions and takes me like 30 seconds minimum every shot. Am I retarded?
I have finally developed some Foma Retropan using the dedicated Retro Special developer and I like what I'm seeing.I shot a roll of it a couple of years ago and developed it in either HC or Rodinal, don't feel like getting up to check, but it was dull as holy shit.On the other hand, in the dedicated developer this is quite lovely, and almost straight out of the box. I'm tempted to dip some other films in it now.
>>4527604>put empty leader frame in the holder>go to live view and set a color picker point (ideally averaged over a 10x10 pixel square)>dial the light source to get as close to neutral as possible (all RGB values almost identical)So your light source would be pretty much blue for typical C41 film like Gold? >invert, adjust RGB curves to the baseline I like, then save that as a preset that I apply to all the scans from that rollSo you'll have a curves layer (or 3) that sets the RGB balance and apply it on top of the image once the white/black points have been set? Because those would be different for each image.>need to sleep on it and come back to it after a day or twoYou're right, I had a look at the thread on my phone, and it actually looks okay, just a bit more magenta than it looked like on my monitor. It almost looks like there might be a bit of uneven development with the right side of the image shifting more magenta than the left.Here's a different tractor from the same roll>>4527678>levelsIsn't that the same as adjusting the black and white points with curves?Anyway, here's the raw file, thank you, anonhttps://file.kiwi/853f5e8f#l2DG3Qy_QRcvEsmzfZ3-6g
>>4527740>Foma Retropanwhere can you buy this?
Well... through testing I found out my scanner is just incredibly dusty and my film processor is totally fine. I'm relieved and incredibly annoyed at the same time. FUG.
>>4527751Oh fuck me sideways, apparently nowhere. Looks like Foma might have axed it? I only see it in sheet format now but I wonder if it's just new old stock at this point.Man I'm pissed off, I bought 6 rolls a few years ago and meant to decide whether to stock up depending on how much I'd like it developed in the dedicated developer, I just never had time to do it until now. And now that I do like it it's gone. It was plentiful and cheep before. From quick research it looks like the rolls I had, expiring 9/2024, might have been from one of the last batches made.The only hope is that the film (though only sheet format product shots now) and the developer are still listed at all on their website. I'm gonna ask Foma, but last time they took like 3 months to reply lol.
>>4527737You get better with more time. What's the camera - can you swap focus screens to something that might work better for you? Or would you consider a later plastic blob with AF?
Ordered a darkroom automation f-stop darkroom timer. It works on fstops(up to 1/10th stop precision) rather than just seconds with lots of cool features. Anyone ever heard of/used this timer? Seems like a really useful way to think about enlargement timing.
>>4527860>>4527861Very cool, I want to try trichomes sometimes. Did you choose moving subjects just to mess with it? >>4527859>>4527862What material and format? Gives me a bit of grain (lack of thereof) envy
You guys think a 50MP ccd mfdb with 4x multishot would be sufficient for scanning 35mm and 120 film? Im trying to see if I should go to camera scanning because of how obnoxiously dusty flatbed scanning is for smaller film formats. That's the highest resolution camera I own.Or if anyone knows a good custom film holder solution for epson v850.. No one sells an upgraded film holder and they ones it comes with get dusty and then the dust gets embedded into the film holders. It's evil.
>>4527959I thought it would look neat. I would've preferred nobody on the bridge, but it can't be helped. It's a popular location.Delta 100, 4x5, developed in XDev 1:2
Does anyone fuck around with a Minox, and develop themselves? If so, are you using 3D printed spools in modern tanks or an older solution?
>>4528063I'm happy enough with my 24MP DLSR for 135 film. Squeezing as much information out of your negatives is a nice sentiment but digital images rarely get viewed at crazy high definition (basically no one is gonna pixel peep but you), and while I definitely don't out resolve the grain I always out resolve my film era lenses.You're definitely good with 50MP. I'd be more worried about having a macro setup that lets you exploit your sensor to its full potential even on 135 frames (you're gonna need tubes or bellows to fill it unless you've got a lens with crazy native magnification).
>>4528094Got a bellows and a really really good macro lens for it. Film holding and lighting is going to be my main weak point unless I invest into it. I actually outresolved my flatbed scanner on a 4x5 negative using a very quick and dirty setup to test it out. It was only maybe 3-5% more detail, but still.. I guess I can see for myself with some more tests.. It's kinda fun to have the camera tethered to my computer so there's that at least.
Heard through the grapevine that the rollei 6060 film back will be made available again by the end of this year. Pricetag will be around 2500USD. Do you think 6x6 is a major upgrade over 645?
Digital shooter here wanting to try film.Do I just buy the FE2? I wanted something small, metal, and with an automatic mode (aperture priority in this case).I already have a couple of vintage lenses adapted to my Nikon ZF, so it seems to make sense.
>>4528188Yeah, sure. The 90s blobmeras are another fantastic affordable choice, but probably not what you're looking for in a film camera. The f3 is also a very nice camera.
>>4528189Thanks, just placed an order for what appears to be a good one from nippon.Might you recommend me my first film? I would want something for general use. The lens goes to f/1.4 and the max shutter of the FE3 is 1/4000 if it matters.
>>4528210Beginner color gold 200Beginner b&w delta 400, tmax 400, hp5Vibrant colors ektarNice portraits portra 160/400Grttier b&w trix 400If you want finer grain film pick the lower iso variant. tmax 100, fp4+, delta 100, etc.
>>4528210>Might you recommend me my first film?Kentmere Pan 100 and 400 for BW, Kodacolor or Fuji 100 and 400 for color. Disregard the >>4528215 recommendations - no point in paying between 2 and 4 times more for better film when you're just starting out. Kentmere is a perfectly fine film for learning (unlike Foma which can only put people off, even if a notch cheaper).You didn't say if you were planning to develop yourself or use a lab. If you're going BW only, it makes a lot more sense to develop yourself. Super easy and a lot cheaper in the long run.But if you don't want to deal with the extra upfront expense and learning another skill, then it's probably better to shoot color and have it developed and scanned by a lab so you can see if film is your thing.If you really want to do BW but avoid the hassle for now then there is Ilford XP2 Super, which is BW but it's developed in the same process as every other color negative. It's actually an excellent film in itself, only about 2.5x more expensive per roll than Kentmere.
>>4528256And you're suggesting he pay 10 times more to buy everything for developing b&w when he's just starting out and doesn't even know if he's going to stick with film. Nice!
Ektachrome is so cropable man
I setup my camera scanning rig to test. What a pain in the ass. Here is shot one. I edited these a bit. 35mm E100
>>4528268And shot 2.
>>4528263You might still have a chance to delete your embarrassing post before everyone sees it.
>>4528274? I dont see the point in telling someone to buy cheap and bland looking film as a beginner because they may screw it up or whatever and then to spend 120 bucks to develop their b&w film at home. If he's going to screw up basic camera operation he is going to screw up developing film. Sometimes the new to film, but not cameras people need to see what nicer film stocks have to offer. If he has a solid technical foundation from digital he isn't going to waste it but he may be very underwhelmed by boring ass film stocks.You even suggested a b&w film that is very expensive just so he can use c41 on it rather than getting quality film stock. Bro get your priorities straight.
If I could change one thing about photography it would be for photographers to not be so bitchy, it's such a drag.
>>4528287>bitches about bitchesBitch
>>4528280I hope you are better at taking pictures than you are at reading comprehension, because son, you are really bad at it.
>>4528290>dont pay 2-4x more for better film. Pay 2.5x more for a gimmick!
>>4528292I'm not gonna get into Internet spat about this, not on this board and not in this thread. Read the posts you're replying to again, carefully, and realize you're acting foolish.
>>4528300Sensible, although I will still strongly disagree with recommending lame stocks to someone who isn't a complete noob to photography in general. Maybe if it was his first ever camera, sure, but not for a guy who already knows what he's doing.
>>4528256>>4528274>>4528290>>4528300embarrassingsomeone new can learn to shoot film on ektar easilysomeone new won't be able to learn to shoot film on foma as easily, for the simple reason that not every lab develops black and whitein fact, he won't be able to learn anything on foma even if his lab does bw, because he'd be shooting on box speed and the pictures will come out dull and underexposed even when exposed "perfectly"there are whole paragraphs that this could go on, but i will not be the one to write them
went to iceland and had the worst weather imaginable and underexposed a roll of ektar lol
>>4528370purple tint, yuck
>>4528372
>>4528374lol
>>4528189>>4528256>>4528263>>4528215Original anon here, I went to the shartmart and picked up a 3x36 pack of fuji 400 for like $30. It was the only film they had. I was disappointed. The entire photo section was filled with disposable cams, 30$ point and shoots, and a lot of Fuji instax stuff.To be honest I have no interest in shooting B&W. If anything I prefer more vivid colors.
>>4528215>>4528256Both those posts are bad beginner recommandations. The first one because they basically list every stock including super expensive and specialized ones, and both because they don't explain their recommandations. If I was a beginner, I would like to understand why I'm being recommended something beyond "it's cheap". >>4528385You want to buy C41 color negative film, because their development process, C41, is available in all labs. It's also usually the cheapest.Here are the cheap options: Fuji 100/400, Gold, Uktramax, Kodakolor. Cheap film is cheap because it has inconsistant performance and flashy colors. Fuji is rebranded kodak, ultramax and kodakolor are just different names because the ISO is different. The only outlayer is gold which has a distinct, nostalgic yellow hue and grain. If you don't know what to pick go for anything 400iso, because it will give you enough sensitivity to shoot inside and use high shutter speeds without being too much for daylight. If you want to go expensive as a beginner, it's Portra (recently rebranded ektacolor). Portra is the only polyvalent "professional" color film, meaning it has constant performance, realistic colors, and higher dynamic range. It's costly though especially at higher iso.Lastly if you want something a bit more specialised but very fun to shoot in low light, look into cinestill 800T. T means Tungsten because it's meant to correct the colors from yellow Tungsten light, like old street lamps and stage lights. It creates cool cinematic halation effects. Now what I would NOT recommend:- Ektar is a specialized C41 film for landscapes. It is expensive and will yield Ken Rockwell tier colors in the wrong conditions. - Any slide film (E6 process), so Ektachrome, Provi/Velvia. They are hard fun but challenging to shoot due to tiny dynamic range and most labs don't process them.- Phoenix I/II. It's a fun experiment but sometimes it fails for no reason, so not the best for a beginner.
Cont.>>4528385This is unfortunately normal, even in most specialized shop you won't have a large selection of film, only the most common stocks. If you're picky you have to buy online. Lastly some unsolicited extra advice. Most C41 and ECN-2 color stocks are just rebranded kodak film (santacolor, candido, lomography, Frontier, etc etc). Everyone can decide for themselves the morality of this but personally I would never buy it unless it's actually cheaper than kodak film.One anon recommended you to try home dev. I don't think that's the most important. Chemicals for color have quite a short shelf life so it's not gonna be a good investment unless you shoot a lot. Moreover it's generally just a lot of money and time to get started that yields litteraly no benefit before you break even, at best it will be as good as a lab, and you still need the lab for ECN2 or E6 unless you have infinite money to buy all the chemicals.What does yield a massive benefit is home scanning. Standard lab scans are, in the best case, mediocre, and in most cases, dogshit. Plus they're expensive, and ridiculously so when the lab proposes higher quality. Since you have a digital camera and probably a tripod, you can make a scanning setup thay would blow away 99% of labs scans while saving money in the long run (takes about 10-20 rolls before ROI). In my opinion, shooting film is not really worth it unless you have control over the scanning process, but that's just me.I guess that's it, hope it helps.
>>4528395agree except you’re complete bullshit about ektarit’s not expensive compared to the other pro color films, it does not give ken rockwell colorsand it is not meant for just landscapes, it’s marketed as a negative replacement for kodachromeI’ve started using it for any purpose that doesn’t require more than ISO 100, also partly because the negatives are easy to handle
>>45277371. find a vertical line somewhere that's approximately as far away as your subject is2. focus on that I fear it's just that simple. Humans love rectangles so there are vertical lines everywhere. It is also easier if you ballpark your focus using the distance scale first.
>>4528362Someone can learn to "shoot film" (shoot manual) on a DSLR modded with focusing aids by that standard. The only stuff that's specific to shooting film is lab and darkroom stuff.
>>4528399This is fundamentally incorrect for anyone using film for something more than simple journalism.
>>4528400Name one aspect of shooting film that can't be practiced on a DSLR with an aftermarket focusing screen, then.
>>4528404Understanding how film in general and different film stocks respond to light. Put more simply the look or feel of film when you go from exposure all the way to finished print produces a specific look that cannot be internalized and then utilized successfully without hands on experience.
So I have a bunch of 3x4 negativesHow do I make contact prints, I have something like pic rel but idk if its ideal
>>4528410Yes that is what you need. Does it have a piece of glass held by the frame? If not you need to cut one and place it in the frame. Glass - film emulsion down - photofraphic paper - split frame back. If you are using normal VC paper a dim bulb or your enlarger light will be enough to expose most negatives in a timely fashion.Just to be clear you want the emulsion aide of your film in contact with your printing paper.
Anyone have tips for shipping film internationally for development? Nominal value for customs? The lab in Portugal thinks I'm crazy but it's cheaper and way better than dev/scan at any lab I've tried in the US.
>>4528430How do you plan to avoid x-rays?
>>4528434I'm gonna tank it. The fastest film I'm sending out is like 200 ISO. Some guides online also report that the x-ray exposure for shipped parcels is lower than for passenger aircraft due to higher throughput.
Vintage action/sports camera with 610mm f/6 lens. 3.5k local pickup only. So freaking cool.
>>4528448Forgot to mention it shoots 4x5!
>>4528449Holy fuck lmao
>>4528467All that for a 160mm equivalent FL too.
>>4528470it's for sports, they didn't have autofocus or stabilization back then so they just cropped for framing later
>>4528472Seems pretty stable to me! Lol I know. It's still something to point out. It is pretty impressive that they got f6 on a 610mm lens. Bausch and lomb aero tessar.I've always been tempted to get one of those graflex 4x5 slrs... seems dope for dog photography and faster more free flowing portraiture, but still big film. 1/1000 max shutter speed too!
>>4528472Saem basic idea as how action cameras stabilise, kek
Hi anons, as a digital shooter I never post here but I just managed to snag this at a local garage sale for 5$. A Canon T50 with 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 with a nonmatching Minolta bag and papers.How did I do? What do I need to know? The battery door is missing but I tried jumping it with aluminum foil and the shutter released.
>>4528549Congrats! I have no experience with this camera but 5$ is low risk anyway. I suppose the first thing you should do is test whether the light meter is functional by shooting the camera in the dark and then in front of a bright light and listen for the shutter speed, it should be slower when you're in the dark. If it works then you can just load 1 35mm roll and have fun with it. For testing purposes I recommend either cheap color film (fuji 400, ultramax, or gold if you're ok with lower iso) or illford XP2 for black and white because it's extremely forgiving and can be processed by any lab (other b&w film cannot).
Interesting discussion about SR 71 blackbird's cameras, picking up golf balls on the ground at 80K feet with old school cameras/ lenses.https://youtu.be/Lm9NbFzU0Qk?si
>>4528569This guy https://www.ebay.com/usr/aerozeissSells those high tech aerial lenses and look at his 80k$ 9x9 enlarger he's got for sale. Insanely cool stuff. Unfortunately the lenses are so specialized it would take "a lot" of work to get them rigged up for pictorial use and actually pull the insane lp/mm resolution the lenses have.
>>4528569deep earth ayy tech
Any bulk roll film loader enjoyers? Found powdered B&W chemicals cheap and bulk film rolls are very affordable. Tempted to cheap out and see what happens.
>>4528478>>4528484sorry I made that up
>>4528685Back in the day people did shoot 4x5 just to crop it. It's okay bud you were not wrong.
>>4528683I actually just bulk roll film a couple rolls here and there at a time in a dark room without any "loader machines."
>>4528700How you measuring/estimating length and stuff?
>>4528791i look like this and i shoot like this
>camera chain in my city finally got stock of a used old 50mm for my old ass film camera for dirt cheapI ordered that shit in a second before anyone else could. All the examples I can find on eBay are double or triple the price and this store also gives a 14 day money back once I get it. It's supposedly been checked over by them already but I'll still check it over myself for sharpness and fungus and other shit. Anyway I'm just excited I finally got a prime instead of using the basic zoom lens that was on it when I bought it. I only ever see absolute praise for it.
>>4529128But anon, where are the pictures? This isn't the gear thread. It's the film photography thread. I got a 14" admagic fresnel light modifier and a mola setti 28" beauty dish recently. I will take a cool film picture with these light modifiers and share those images while talking about them.. Aside from this post because it gives me an excuse to talk about them while giving you a relevant example. Thanks.
>>4529134>But anon, where are the pictures? This isn't the gear thread. It's the film photography thread. I know I know, I haven't got the first roll finished and developed yet. I want to test out this new lens properly so I'm going to finish the roll with it. I really hate 36exp as it turns out since it takes forever to finish, while 24exp is something I can run through pretty easily with the photos I do want. Sometimes less really is more.
>>4529135I've been using 220 rolls lately and it is kind of hard to get through 32 or 24 exposures, but it's also nice to have that many pics on a roll. 6 sheets of 4x5 is really my sweet spot if I'm just doing a casual wander around for an hour or two with my camera type of day. 4x5 film holders fit in my pockets, so I can carry two in my back pockets and one in my front. I usually bring a backpack, but theoretically I wouldn't really need to if I stuck with a single lens for maximum casual-ness.
>>4529136I'm trying to figure out a plan for my gear and what film I should be going for. An upside I like with film is that I take so long to get rolls developed that I forget what photos I took, but the negative is I take a long ass time to finish off my rolls and I always send them off in bulk, so I might only have 3 or 4 rolls a year. I'm still annoyed that slide film is in short supply everywhere too.I like having a messenger bag type but fitting a full size film camera and a full size digital is a complete pain in the ass. It seems like every backpack camera bag is only setup for just one body but multiple lenses.
>>4529137I shot 13 rolls worth of c41 in the past two weeks lol. When I first started a single 35mm roll would take me like a week to finish.Bring a little digicam that doesn't take too much space and a nice film camera, or use digi/film body that shares the same lenses.
>>4529139I'm struggling to find a well priced digicam or a digicam that supports modern SD cards. Ideally I'd like some utter piece of shit for $50 or less but I can't seem to find any, as digicams are pretty trendy right now unfortunately.
>>4529141Local thrift shops are your best bet for that one.
Expired portra 400VC @200, 645. Forgot to set rpm to 75, so I got some streaking and possibly the weird blue color shift on the edges of these two pics. I was testing the continuous auto focus on my hy6. Horse was trotting. Got pretty close, really.
Too lazy to fix the color shift. Just imagine the dog is not red. Thanks. All the dust is from my scanner and film holder. I ordered a new film holder that I'm going to keep in a ziplock bag and I need to disassemble my scanner to clean the inside face of the glass. Maybe I'll add some silicon to see if I can reduce dust ingress.This was roll 11-13 on my 1L of 12 day old jobo c41. Probably could have given it a little longer time in color dev. Still learning.
>>4529143They've gotten wise to it too now and look up prices on eBay for tech shit to figure what to price it.
>>4529149The goods ones still offer fair prices. You should find them and give them your money.
For me? It's Kentmere Pan 100, the poorfag's choice.
>>4529177After shooting with Fomapan 100 the KP100 feels like premium stuff.Currently have a roll of KP200 in my old box camera, will be interesting to see how it holds up.
>>4529147the dust gives it character like you did a double exposure with astro.
>>4529234Yeah, I had the same experience. Based on what other's say online I don't see much benefit in scrimping and buying Foma over a 50 cent savings. Unless you really like the character of Foma of course.
who here cuts their negatives before developing
>>4529367?????????
>>4529367Cut into strips of six for storage
>>4529398how do you get the frame spacing right?
>>4529367You mean before enlarging?
Saw another box camera at the thrift store. A bit dusty and a tiny bit of rust but it is in working order (as usual) and came with another empty 620 spool which is convenient. It has two tripod mounts and a cable release so I couldn't pass on it. And with a slide in yellow filter and portrait lens it definitely feels like a bit more "premium" for box camera standards.
>>4529447>Saw another box camera at the thrift store.I thought it was the Gosling pasta at first glance. Interesting find, I've only handled the leather wrapped ones.
>>4529417no? also what’s enlarging
>>4529485>what’s enlargingMaking prints, those negs in the picture are developed already
I have a bunch of 120 negatives in 6x4.5 and 6x9 that I would like to print. I've dabbled a bit with contact printing which is fun and simple but I would like to try printing them a little bigger but I don't have a proper enlarger. Do you think a primitive diy solution could be worth the effort for some prints that are slightly bigger? I reckon I could fabricate something with a projector lens, I have a few laying around.
>>4529509well yeah they’re developed, I had just finished developing them, you can see they’re still wet
>>4529521Yeah you can definitely do that.
another roll done
The velvia 50 looks good. Thank the lord. 18 220 rolls in the lot. This one and two others were sold out of their package, so the fogging on the edges is expected. The slides look great in person.
>>4529591
>>4529592Mamiya 6 rangefinder FAIL.
>>4529593And some red goats.
>>4529408Dunno I just kind of eyeball it and hope for the best>pic related
>>4529587Why are you cutting them individually and before they dry? Wet film is much easier to get dirty than dry film.My drying cabinet only fits half lengths of 120 film so i am forced to cut them in half, sadly.
I think I made a bit of a mistake. I got some really good condition Kodachrome but the process for it is K-14 which apparently no longer exists, so how do I get it developed? Is there an alternative method or do I just have some box that will sit on my shelf forever?
>>4529600You have expensive b&w film unless you're a maniac and try to homebrew the k14 process.
>>4529601Ah fuck. Does the B&w look decent at least? I paid only $5 for it so I'm not at a big loss, I just got hyped about the name and didn't realize it was a dead film. Unless you mean it's expensive to even develop in B&w at all, in which case that really sucks.
>>4529234What was so different to you ? I've had the notorious issues with Foma 200 and especially 400, though I've made 200 work in the end, but 100 never felt much worse than Kentmere aside from the grainier look.
>>4529602Idk. I just looked it up out of curiosity. You just dev it like any old b&w film except it has remjet that needs to be removed as well.The process is really cool and interesting. It's kinda like a trichrome but the colors are all exposed simultaneously.
>>4529596it’s dry when I cut it >>4529367
Assuming I have zero experience, what's the easiest to use set of chemicals for developing B&W at home? Or alternatively, are therethings that are hard to use, which I'd want to avoid? For example, there are pre-composed sets from Iflord and Jobo with developer, stop bath (none in the Jobo set), and fixer, and with somewhat comprehensible instructions. Are those a good place to start?
>>4529683I would also be interested in an experienced answer as I'm putting together a B&W dev kit. From my research, you pick between rodinal and fine-grain, which are just as easy to use. The main difference is that fine-grain has a much shorter shelf life once opened and even worse if half empty, from 6 to 2 months. It's also more expensive per roll, 1L can develop only 10 rolls. In comparison Rodinal has years of shelf life and 1L will last hundreds of rolls. Appart from that the other baths and equipment is the same. I dont know the jobo kit but in the store I go they have an illford kit and it's absurdly expensive for no reason. Look into what you'd save if you bought stuff separately.
>>4529683also the illford kit doesn't even have a changing bag
>>4529694Yeah, I already figured that I'd need to make a checklist and separately order all the necessary items. Like, the "Jobo alpha" kit seems to want me make 2l of fixer at a time, but then I'd need a 2l accordeon bottle or something like that to store it.
>>4529605Well it may just be superficial but kentmere film is a bit more glossy, has a neutral tone and doesn't curl as much. The foma with it's blue tint and extreme curling just becomes annoying to handle.
I've cheaped out. Kentmere 400 and fuji spd to mix and develop with. Nothing fancy, just follow instructions on the bag. Timings? Estimated 9 1/2 to 10 1/2 minute ballpark dev time aiming more to the shorter end. Seem legit? Can't find much on that combo
>>4529692Yeah, Ilford stuff seems to be relatively expensive, but also it has comprehensive instructions, which I find reassuring. Except maybe the part on how to reuse the fixer.
>>4529701I mean the kit is definitely more convenient and faster than figuring out stuff yourself, that's what you're paying extra for. Just know that if prices are the same where I live, you're paying ~75€ extra for that comfort. Since we're talking about the most basic dev process here, you can ask AI or find the guide on the internet. That's what I'm doing at least, but I'm trying for the first time tomorrow.>>4529697You don't need an accordion bottle for the Fixer because you pour the entire bath all at once and then get it back all at once. The volume stays the same so you only need a normal bottle. However 2L seems like a lot, the standard Patterson tank that can process 2 35mm rolls or 1 120 roll sold in the illford kit has a volume of 500ml. The accordion bottle is needed for the developer (if there is leftover).
[Good News] Phoenix has, in fact, risen from the ashes, now rated at sexy ISO 125.I see this described variously as either reformulation or recalibration. The sensitivity and characteristic curves in the spec sheets look identical, so my assumption is the latter - "recalibration" meaning largely search and replace "200" with "125" in the documentation.New 125: https://www.harmanphoto.co.uk/amfile/file/download/file/1973/product/2277/Old 200: https://www.harmanphoto.co.uk/amfile/file/download/file/1963/product/2143/What I'm more interested in is whether they actually did a fresh coating run, or just defrosted another coffin with the originally coated spool from a few years ago - considering the word on the street was that the original Phoenix formulation was now discontinued in favor of Phoenix II.Either way I'm glad I can continue my abusive relationship with this weird thing.
>>4529697>>4529712Accordion bottles are more trouble than they are worth, but I would advise two things for fixer: 1. Counterintuitively, store it in a slightly larger bottle than your target capacity, eg. 1.2 l if you're mixing 1 liter. In my experience, over time the fixer solution tends to gain more volume rather than lose. My guess is it's from the stop bath leftovers - because I want to keep the process going, I don't wait a few minutes for the stop bath to drain fully, as opposed to having more relaxed timing once fixing is done. So after about 10 rolls, my 1 liter of fixer started to overflow the 1 liter glass bottle where it originally had about 2 inches of air left in the neck. 2. Use argon to top up your chemicals each time, all of them, not just fixer. It did miracles for fixer for me, especially after migrating to a larger bottle. Before I started using it, a 1 liter batch (Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:4) would barely handle 20 rolls, and by that time it was almost opaque with precipitated silver sulfides. A new batch that I used with argon from the start went up to 30 rolls while staying crystal clear.I use pic related, but there a bunch of different brands available. I use almost 100% one-shot developers (HC-110 and Rodinal) but I just spray it into the concentrate bottle after drawing each amount.
>>4529777Cool, thanks for argon suggestion. I assume for the fixer you are not using this double bath exercise?Nice trips btw.
>>4529822You only really need to use argon for long term storage of c41/e6 chemistry. There are some exceptions for b&w developers, but most of them will last you plenty long. For a beginner stick with one shot dev. Don't over think it. B&w dev is really straightforward and quite forgiving. Just remember that consistency is key for repeatable results so you want developer temp, agitation times, etc to be the same.Get some 24 exposure rolls and just do it.
>>4529464It's interesting, one thing that bothers me is the yellow filter, it's thin plastic but hidden away enough and I can't seem to get the haze out of it. Otherwise it's in good condition.Had some Fomapan 100 sitting in a yashicaflex, decided to rewind it on the extra 620 spool and pop it in the brownie instead. Maybe I'll take some snapshits tomorrow.
>>4529447Do you have to cut down 120 film to fit it on a 620 spool? Or is it really just the spool sizing that's different
>>4529777But, isn't it better to just wait 1mn for the bath to be drained and therefore avoid all these issues?
>>4529833> Get some 24 exposure rolls and just do it.Yes anon you're right of course.
>>4529840The film is the exact same size, only the spool is different, the same width but a thinner shaft and the ends are slightly smaller in diameter and also thinner.I unwound the film while it was still in the TLR camera, then took it out in the dark and wound it back on the 620 spool by hand.
About b&w development, can I just use plain water for stop bath and citric acid for fixer?
>>4529841I stop with plain water, not vinegar or other acidic stop bath, so I want to keep the wait as short as possible since there is still SOME unwashed developer soaked up into the emulsion.
>>4529856>can I just use plain water for stop bathYes.>and citric acid for fixer?No lol, where did you get that idea.
>>4529860I see, thanks>>4529861I confused stop bath and fixer, thanks for pointing it out. Some put acid in the stop bath but if plain water works why bother.
>>4529863You can get Sodium Thiosulphate cheap for fixing.
>>4529874I like tf5 best, but a noobie may want a hardening fixer.
>>4529863Acid just works better because it actually neutralises the remaining revealer instead of just diluting it. You can make a working stop bath from food grade white vinegar or citric acid, but a commercial stop bath will add things like a mixed-in pH indicator so it changes color when it's used up.If you drain the releaver properly every time, a tank's worth of prepared stop bath can be re-used so many times the concentrate's price ends up being negligible in the long run compared to other chemicals, let alone film rolls themselves.
>>4529765i was fond of the first phoenix on 120 for lofi portraits. i didn't like phoenix ii very much, so i'm excited for this
what dev do you guys like for Trix? my rodinal went bad I'm thinking of getting hc110 syrup. I like a long shelf life and accutance>>4529777I've heard of this trick using butane but argon makes more sense I didn't know you could just buy a spray can lol
How many exposures can you realistically get from a 24 or 36 roll? I have an SLR and it seemed really happy to go on to 37 and beyond or 25 and beyond, but I stopped just incase I fucked up the rolls. It's supposedly smart enough to know when the roll is at an end but I'm still concerned maybe it doesn't and I'm just double exposing or something (despite hearing the sound of it pulling the film forward). More confusing still is that I did 3 exposures at the very start after loading the film, so the roll would've been really short I'd think.
>>4529922The most I've had from a 36 roll is 40 exposures.
>>4529927I guess that means I did okay then, I only took it 37 before deciding to rewind it, but the camera still didn't believe I was near the end of the roll despite showing 37 on the screen. It does 3 on the initial load up too so it must've been at exactly 40 by the point I got #37.
>>4529874Thanks for the suggestion, I bought the illford rapid fixer, will look into this for next time. But where I live chemicals are hard to come by.>>4529907I see. Citric acid in powdered form is super cheap so I don't even know if I need to keep it. I will try with plain water first though because my aim is to make film cheap and easy. I also went Rodinal.
Fresh Provia?
>>452992236 exposure rolls (at least Kodak ones) all have a 0 and 00 frame in addition to frames 1-36, so if you load your camera in darkness and don't waste the early frames just advancing you should get a minimum of 38 shots.
>>4529978I just keep it at 36 so they all fit in the sleeve.>>4529976How much did you pay for that provia?
>>4529982€25.80, or $29.40. A bit more expensive than Fotoimpex, but I have to pay 25% VAT plus a customs fee when importing myself.Fotoimpex has Velvia 50 in stock now, btw.
>>4529988Do you have an art project that requires slide film or is money just not an issue for you?
>>4529928If you count the first exposures then I guess I was at 42, my camera takes 2 releases before the counter reaches "0". But it has a manual winder so I just keep shooting until the lever won't let me advance.
>>4529989No, I just like to hoard Fujifilm. I'm almost done shooting Fujichrome (might want to shoot E100 later) for the year (frame counter at 22 now).
>>4529988I wait until american vendors have their fujichrome in stock. I have healthy expired fujichrome and some unexpired 4x5 provia to have fun with for now. Shooting slide film is quite addictive and owning a rotary processor keeps costs down.
>>4530002How has the Fujichrome availibilty been the last year? No point in amassing to big of a stash, but Fuji has been so flaky lately.>кoтPortra 160, AF-D 50 mm f/1.4
>>4530191>нaйcThe texture in the cat and the wood are really well-developed.
>>4530198Thanks. It's a pain in the ass to get anyhting in focus at dusk.
Looks like an entry to a Murfree Brood cave.
>>4529447So, I ran an old roll of Fomapan 100 through it, I tried to overexpose it a bit but despite the 1/45 shutter speed and fixed f/11, the film came out rather thin after a standard development.Still, I had fun with it, currently out of film but I may give it another go once I get my hands on some kentmere, still not sure if I should go with 100 or 200 iso, what would be the better choice?Anyway, enjoy my shitty phone "scan" as the film is still drying.
>>4530516I like Pan 400 myself. Very similar results to HP5+ at least on 35mm.
>>4530568I mean, for a box camera with a fixed shutter and aperture that seems a little too fast. I don't have enough filters to step the light down... yet.
>>4530709You can pull hp5 down to like 6 iso with good results. You just need to dev it properly.
Thanks for the advice on developing earlier, turned out alright I think
>>4530725Nice
>>4530709My bad, I didn't read so wasn't aware it was for the box camera. >>4530712Or just shoot slower film.
>>4526501Fucked up and didn't test my batch of chems before developing 2 rolls. Had the Cinestill 2 bath kit, and I'd read that it can last up to 6 months if stored properly. Apparently not. Do you guys have any advice on how to make the best out of what you have? I have those black accordion bottles and store the chems in a plastic container inside my closet.
>>4530747what was the result you got? If they’re under-developed not much you can do, but if it was just under-bleached (magenta negs / inverts with cyan cast) you can re-bleach+fix
>>4530760I didn't take a pic, just threw them out of anger. They looked like normal light brown shade, just empty.I did test the dev after, and the piece of negative didn't come out as intended, so just discarded the whole batch.
>>4530762>They looked like normal light brown shade, just empty.Are you sure they were exposed?
>>4530773I thought about that, and these 2 rolls were shot from 2 different cameras, both in great condition, so I'm pretty sure they were exposed.
how to make still life not boring
>>4530801crop mb?
>>4530805dont crop your cropped crop for reachget closerbuy a tripod
>>4530773>Looking at a roll I shot>Most exposures using in camera meter are spot on or within a stop>One random shot in the middle is terribly underexposed, not a particularly difficult scene either. Man what the hell
>>4530801You need a concept or vision that is more than simply three limes on a surface. Not necessarily symbolic. It could be an exploration of form, color, contrast, etc. Maybe you use heavy side light so the green from the limes reflects in a pretty way onto a lighter cloth background for example. The limes are imperfectly round, so how would perfectly square or round forms play with that imperfection?Secondly understand how negative space and form works to enhance the mundane. Studying classical still life would be very helpful for this. The negative space is not doing anything for you in the image, which is exactly why you felt compelled to crop it all out.Thirdly you may want some tension in the image. A simple example of this would be placing the limes near the edge/corner of the table. Another way could be to have them balanced in some sort of precarious kind of way where motion or action is implied. Still life is tough and often times rewards an iterative process, so try again with these new concepts. Something that helps me with conceptualizing still lifes is the idea of rewarding the observer. If someone slows down and really takes in your photograph does it lead them somewhere greater? Is there a small, but important, detail that reveals itself with careful observation? That is the reward and good photography should always reward careful and thoughtful observation.
Does anyone make their paper developer from base chemicals, or alternatively has anyone used Caffenol for printing? I have some questions if so
>>4530879I have made a few different paper developers from scratch. What are your questions?
>>4530881Awesome, anon. 1- fundamentally is it worth it? I find I can manage film chemicals for C41 and B&W without too much issue but printing is something I do a bit more sporadically so I'm much more likely to end up wasting a third or more of PQ or whatever else. I was thinking keeping the base chemicals on hand and mixing on demand might be a bit less wasteful and be more useful if I'm struck by the urge to do some printing without then waiting a few days for chemicals to arrive. Is that realistic or is it more trouble than it's worth in your experience? 2- Do you make fixer/use sodium thiosulphate etc, or do you make developer only? Same question as above with that I guess3- Have you made everything from scratch dry chemicals at the point that you're using it, or do you mix batches and store, or mix partial mixes and then mix those on demand later?4- You've made a few- is there one you prefer/recommend or are they all much of a muchness?
>>4530840>Still life is tough and often times rewards an iterative process, so try again with these new concepts.just put some fruit in a bowl nigga
>>45308841. Yeah I would say it is worth it. You save some money and guarantee your chems are not overly oxidized. B&w developers pretty much only use like 12 different chems and half of them are very inexpensive. Once you have them all you can whip up lots of different developers.It's also really really easy if you have a milligram scale and a gram scale for larger quantities.2. I just use tf5 because it is non-hardening and works best with staining developers. Quite cheap to buy in gallon jugs. They make 4 gallons of working stock.3.depends, but most paper developers have loads of sodium sulfite in them so oxidation is fairly well controlled in stock solution. Ive had a batch of a 2 part pyro film dev mixed in PG that is still going strong after like 8 months. The part a is mixed in PG and it contains the chems that rapidly oxidize. Part B is just mixed in water.Amidol has to be made from scratch before every printing session. I was unaware that even the part B in some recipes must be mixed fresh as well... 4. I like ansco 130 best aside from amidol based developers. It has a really really good tray life, like a week in a tray, and it produces really lovely looking prints.You can get some really nice/interesting toning with different developers, dev times, and paper combos. Ansco 130 is neutral with shorter dev time and gets a nice cool tone as you extend dev time. It has really nice dmax and smooth tonality as well. It's like 85-90% as good as amidol developer for chloride paper. Much prefer it over dektol for normal VC fiber papers. Glycin is a cool chemical.My pyro paper developer had warm/red pink highlights. Kinda nice for some stuff, but I prefer the cooler more neutral amidol kinda colors usually.Once you start learning a bit of the chemistry behind the different chemicals you can tweak and tune your developers if you need to as well. It's not totally necessary, but more creative control is rarely a bad thing.
>>4530886The whole point/fun of still life is that you get to control every little detail of the scene if you want. It's highly intent driven and takes real practice to get decent at. Do you think the famous still life painters shared your mindset or were they refining every detail of their piece to make it something more than just "fruit in a bowl"?I challenge you to make a still life and post it here or in rpt if you choose to use a digital camera. :D
>>4530801I lol'd @ ur limes>>4530888ty based effortposter <3
>>4530887Thanks very much for taking the time to write all that, anon - that's covered basically everything i was wondering, and it seems like it's probably worth the effort setting myself up to do that. I didn't even consider making your own pyro dev is something practical on the cards - I pretty much exclusively use Pyro 510 for BW unless I'm pushing; I might have a look at the film side, too.Thanks again anon I appreciate it.
>>4530801>>4530805The texture of the table cloth gives a magazine scan sort of feel to the image. Nice.
>>4528372Looks based to me, has a very Twin Peaks vibe with that tint.
I got a free full bottle of rodinal kept in a garage. Safe to assume its expired? How can I test it
>>4530948If it's full it's pretty likely it works actually Dilute some to 1+50 and drop a bit of film in it see if it turns black
3 C-41 and 1 ECN-2 developing, just scans and negs is 45£. This is ridiculous.
>>4530951That's tough britman, here in los angles we have options in the $8 and below range for development (of course dev and scan is still a rip off but hey)
>>4530951>paying film 18£ per roll, 10£ for dev, and then 10£ more to see the result as a JPG from the lab's flatbed scannerShooting film is absurd if you don't scan yourself. It would be like buying a medium format digital camera but you only get screenshot of the viewfinder screen. I have no idea why a photographer would do that.
>>4531039Because I have neither the room, the knowledge, nor the impetus to do it myself.
>>4531041yeah I was being a little bit harsh but it's not against you personally I was more going your way in the idea it is indeed ridiculous, and it's stupid how it's promoted as something actually viable as an alternative to digital for a photographer
>>4530951And here I was thinking I was getting ripped for paying £10 in development per roll (which includes the scans).>>4531039>paying film 18£ per rollI'm thankful I'm getting rolls for £10-15. I'd do home dev but I don't know enough about macro lenses, film holders or the backlighting to use. In some ways I think I'm happier just doing film rarely and sending it off when I have a bulk pile of rolls. It forces me to put more consideration into every photo I take and where I take the camera. I'm taking my film camera with me on a trip soon and I'll probably really get some rolls done, but I'll have to budget it in the ridiculous dev costs when I get home which sucks.
>>4530888I figure the best way to start is to do it in the simplest most proven way and iterate on that. Which would be to just put some fruit in a bowl in the simplest most reductive of terms.
>>4531150Yeah that's definitely one good starting point if you really need it that simple.I think it also depends if your goal is to just photograph fruit in a bowl or if you have some sort of concept or vision you want to explore through photographing fruit in a bowl.If you already have a sense of what fruit in bowl brings to the table you may not need to be so reductive. There's still the whole technical, lighting, and set design that goes into making a still life. Having a concept or vision in mind is what really helps give the details outside of subject matter a purpose/goal/destination.
>>4527586Have you tried NegPy? Its pretty good IMO. It has really good cast removal. I'm no expert on negative inversion but this is what I got also from a DSLR scan.
>>4531187forgot image lol
>>4531189versus the same shot, same scan with NLP
Is 3600x2400 good enough for scans? It's an extra $5 at the lab I'm using for 6000x4000 and I'm not exactly going to be pixel peeping or cropping these. I might print them but idk how big you can print with 3600x2400.
>>4531208Please dont pay a lab 5$ for them to click on the "high quality" radio button of the scanner settings. save those 5$ to make yourself your own scanning setup.As for printing, 3600x2400 is quite big, you dont need that much for printing A4 or A3. I know some will disagree, but taking in account viewing distance and the price, it's not worth it. This guy tested it:https://youtu.be/6OxoqkZwmmk?si=QwmlZPZyABHnoa6-
>>4531215How could I set up a fairly cheap scanning system? Are there any scanners that are actually decent and not horribly overpriced? The scans are also 72ppi (not sure if that matters, I'll check the vid).
>>4531218No, this is not cheap. But given that scanning a roll costs 15€ where I leave it's a good investment. I recommend dslr scanning because you'll get better quality for cheaper, but it is a finicky setup. Flatbed is more reliable but slower and lower quality depending on which dslr you use of course.This guy shows a good start:https://youtu.be/9IBh8nO3dRw?si=DojKUHOPyarx47JrBut you can make it cheaper by using a tripod instead or building a basic copy stand yourself. I see there is also a new method where the film is directly attached to the lens, didn't research that, look into it if your objective is to scan for cheap. You also need a solution to invert the scans, and they can be pricey. But he point is, if you're gonna shoot film regularly, the possibility of controlling the scan is invaluable.
>>4531224live*
>>4531218Home scanning is its own rabbit hole of "one more piece of gear will make it sooo much faster / more convenient / more consistent" but at a basic level you only need a digital body, a decent 1:1 macro prime, a LED light table and some kind of makeshift copy stand (tripod included).
>>4531226Second this. Heard many people enjoy the Micro Nikkor 55mm f3.5 or f2.8 for this. They're quite cheap.
I also have a bunch of negatives that I developed myself and are left in limbo because I have no scan setup. I did some with my phone and it was good to get a basic impression but it's not producing a worthwhile result.I don't have a DSLR, any recommendations for a cheap but sufficient model for this kind of stuff?
>>4531278Make proof sheets...
How much better is 6x6 compared to 645? Like 30% better?
>>4531327645 is better because you get more shots per roll and you don't have to deal with square compositions.
>>4531328True. You do get 4 more shots per roll. You think that is better than having to turn your camera or rotate your film back 90 degrees? When I was first shooting 6x6 I always tried for square compositions, which can be tricky, but now I see it more as a format to be cropped into a rectangle at your discretion.
Kinda interested in buy this as an experimental camera, I have been shooting box cameras and this seems like a fun SLR box to play with my own bits of glass and filters.
>>4531278the lens is more important. You can get away with extension tubes but a macro lens is better.anything that's more than 20 megapixels should be fine
>>4531470>>4531278This. Ive used both an olympus em1.2 with 50mp pixel shift and a 5D mark 2 for scanning. Both worked great, but because the lens I used on the olympus was shitty, it resulted in pretty annoying vignette. 5D2 is a pretty old and cheap camera now, so your options are pretty open.>picrel, 5D2 + sigma 150mm f2.8 DG APO HSM, compressed for file size limit
>>4531470>>4531476Been doing a bit of searching, hoping to settle on a mirrorless but with the lens it's quickly going to cost me a couple hundred euros. Do you guys have good experience with mpb for buying shit like this?
>>4527588These things are surprisingly solid. M42 lens mount, so pretty easy to find lenses. Simple, reasonably accurate TTL light meter, and it forces you to think about your pictures. I has one with a 28-70mm Carl Zeiss zoom that ended up never coming off. Survived a very wet hike in the Lake District, took some really nice slides of a day's racing at Brands Hatch, and was a decent first camera for teenage me in the UK. Much better than the Zeniths the school had for their photography class (although I always wanted one of those too - an early meme of the Zenith was that the reason they were heavy was because they were made from T32 tank parts).Sadly, that same Zeiss lens eventually got too much for the lens mount, and it started to pull away from the camera body, causing light leakage.Replaced it with a really nice Olympus OM-30, which was my primary (until my then-alcoholic and gambling addicted brother pawned it for beer and fruit machine money).Now I look for a decent MTL 3 of my own, to coddle and l leave film in for months, even years...
>>4531519Nah mpb seems overpriced I buy my gear on my country's auction site. i got the macro lens in a japanese store actually. good price because it had fungus but I learned to clean, great success
>>4530516Did a test scan with a different setup with a picture from the same roll, 15 year old fomapan 100 shot with a Kodak Brownie model E. Did a standard development in Rodinal.It's alright for what it is, I reckon I could get something nice out of it with fresher film but I honestly don't really feel like respooling something more expensive, and getting only 8 shots out of this rather low-end camera still feels a little hard on my wallet.Also, appreciate the dust, it's there totally on purpose to check the focus and absolutely not because I was too lazy to clean my glass pane.
>>4526501Anyone here use Lucky film? Just shot a test roll of "New" Lucky SHD 400 developed in rodinal. I like it, decently sharp and contrasty for $5 or less a 36exp roll. They just released a new more modern looking b&w film but the 400 iso version isn't out yet.
>>4531678I'm currently working a roll through of SHD 400 right now, but I find Kent 400 gives an overall better look with underexposed areas and grain in general, while only being a dollar a roll more. I will admit the SHD 400 has better contrast so it might just be down to that, or the fact you're deving in Rodinal which I don't, but online photos look very similar to yours in that the grey areas look quite rough (as in texture, not bad).
Has any of you successfully modded an Elan 7 to work with IR film without fogging it? I would really like to avoid having to go looking for a new film camera when this one is perfect for me other than the IR sprocket sensor. If worst comes to worst I could always get a Zenit as there's plenty here but then the fogging would likely come from the leaks instead. Literally the only good thing about them is the Belomo Helios that came bundled with some.
Got some loooooong frames for you guys. Impulse purchased a sinar zoom 2. Lets you choose your frame size from 645 up to 612 midroll without wasting film.This tmax400 has been floating around for years and spent a few months open on the floor in my shop. Souped in a way. My pyrocat MC finally kicked the bucket as well. Used 105mm apo lanthar to take these. 612 actually felt really natural and a very fun format. This one is my favorite from the batch.
>>4531987Even horizontal felt really good to use. Enjoy the building corner hah
>>4531988It almost felt like shooting 4x5 but more focused because you don't have to worry as much about the top and bottom of the frame. Definitely recommend the format if you're on the fence about trying it.
>>4531989Underexposed
And some velvia50 shots.
>>4531622Id love to get one of those 8 inch rolls of the lucky(?) c41 that apparently exist. Im too lazy to learn how to buy off those weird chinese websites and don't want to get scammed.
Fin. I think my film holder made this one blurry from the film curvature. Oh well. Just pretend it is sharp.
>>45319928 inch roll? What kind of format is that?
Fomapan 100 in Retro Special developer, 5 minutes at 18°C. Recommended time is 4 minutes at 20°C, but I feel even 5 minutes is outside of my comfort zone for a manual tank. And it does seem overcooked, but I'm not sure if due to bad time or temperature control, or just the starting time is bad (wouldn't be a first for Foma).I still have capacity for about 20 more rolls but I'm not sure if I won't just dump it since I'm out of the Retro film it's dedicated for. At least it was only like 7 bucks.
>>4532045You cut your own 8x10 sheets in the dark. There are some funky rotating LF pano cameras that use 8 inch rolls to get a single pano shot.
Bros. I might finally get a job soon. And you know what that means?I'll start putting rolls through my Zorki.
>>4532129Heh, that's how it works, be sure to show us.I took my Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor out again, it shoots 645 format and is compact for a 120 camera. Honestly, I just devved some Kentmere Pan 200 that came out of it and I am very excited with the results. The camera is simple but I am really enjoying what it's doing. I think I'll do another roll of KP200 to build a bit more confidence with the Box Tengor and then see how it goes with some Ilford FP4+. Pic related, a phone scan.
4x5 Ektachrome 64 test shot. Screwed up the lighting/exposure. Maybe tommorow I'll rework it and see if the film does better. Background is pretty cool just need to figure out a good way to illuminate the subject how I want.
last bulk loaded foma 400 I wanted to get rid off, at 200EI threw it in rodinal 1:50, even though the grain is horrible the tonality is always great with rodinal
>>4531987>>4531988>>4531989how do you get those black spots all over the place? I like that look. And the light burn, for example on the solar panel here >>4531987 ? Would love to know how to do that.
>>4532400Take a roll of expired 120 film, open the package some, drop it on a dirty floor while still in the package, kick it around for a few months and then develop it in heavily oxidized pyrocat MC lol. Make sure you get pretty good humidity swings as well. Those burnt lines come from the paper getting slightly wet and kinda sticking to the film.Pretty sure the black spots are mostly from the oxidized developer but idk for sure. I got a new film holder and wanted to test it out with a roll I didn't care about.
Why is bulk Kodak Tri-x more expensive than the canisters, not even slightly but significantly?
>>4527149ruined if it went through a CT scanner. Fine if it just got x-rayed once>>4531187QRD?>>4528210I just use Fuji200/400 which are the same as Kodak Gold 200 and Ultra Max 400, respectively. They're fine.Once you know what you're doing and what you want, you can try other stuff. Lately I've been shooting E100 which I've enjoyed a lot. It's pretty expensive. I wouldn't waste money on anything other than consumer grade film if I were just starting out. And also there is literally nothing wrong with cheap C41 film, it's all made by Kodak or Fuji for the most part and is still more technically advanced than it was even in the 90s.>>4528362He can, but if he messes up a roll of Ektar it will suck more. I would say run through like 2-3 rolls of cheap stuff and then try something else. But if money is no object then sure, shoot whatever you like and have fun>>4528385You picked up Ultramax 400 which is perfectly fine and has medium saturation. If you want film with vivid colors shoot slides (later once you know what you're doing) or perhaps Ektar, which was made to give a sort of slide-filmish vibrancy/contrast to photos. But it's also $16 for a single roll.If you want more vibrancy from consumer film you can consider using a polarizing filter in the right light.
>>4530002>owning a rotary processor keeps costs down.Which one do you have and how long does your chemistry last?
>>4530927>>4530805yeah I kinda like it
>>4531470not him but I have a crop sensor Canon rebel, that's the only real digital camera I have. It's maybe 15MP which is enough for me at the moment but I don't know what combination of lenses/tubes and gear I would need
>>4532420Jobo atl2+ I run c41 and e6 through it and keep chemistry for a couple weeks or until I use it up. Ill usually mix 500ml of chemistry at a time, which is like 8-10 rolls capacity I think. Not too terribly difficult to pull off, especially if you are shooting sheet film.The atl2 is a dope ass machine, but a cheaper model would work great as well. Being able to shoot color film and have it processed and scanned same day is really a great thing. It will pay for itself in around 400 rolls of color film.
>>4532426well... maybe later when I'm not mostly broke haha
>>4532433If you're willing to refurb a lower end jobo you can get them for like a grand, but if you're broke that's still probably a ways off even if you will eventually save money developing film.
>>4532442I'm spread too thin on my hobbies between the old shitbox car, camcorder shit, old computers, and so on. I just need to get a better job.I can get developing done for $5 a roll at least for C41 though, so I think if anything I should probably start scanning myself first. I have a flatbed but it's so bad to work with that it's not worth it at all
>>4532443Oh yeah definitely get your scanning or even better your darkroom finished first. The darkroom makes b&w film a lot more fun. Scanning prints is a lot easier too. :D
>>4532444one day when I have a house. I looked into getting the ilford pop up tent and a small enlarger but I mostly like color. I shoot more E6 even than B&W these days so I'd need a color enlarger and the costs get up pretty fast.
>>4532445I use an ilford pop up tent. It has served me well for the past few years. Ra4 would be tough in a 4x4 space. It's quite cramped to even do 8x10 sized enlargements. My permits will probably be approved in the next couple months to get my 10x14 sized darkroom built and I'm going to be doing a lot of ra4 once that's finished. I even have an automated print processor that does upto 11x14 prints. Contractor one wanted 45k for the build but Im positive he was trying to overcharge me on a few things and I haven't heard back from him since I brought it up. 2k on demolition when they're installing 2 walls? 10k for a 20' cold line, 2 faucet sink with a water heater, and a drain that pumps wastewater to a 100 gallon tank? 2.1k for painting the walls gray? Nah bruh.
>>4532426Sounds nice. Once I move I may look into getting a dev machine since I pretty much only shoot C41 (and some E6). My only concern is that now that I'm working full time I'm not shooting nearly as much, so I fear I'd end up wasting a lot of chemicals.
>>4532457Someone on photrio was saying he uses these "stop-loss" bags which are refillable mylar/plastic bags kind of like what they put box wine in. He said it extended chemistry life almost indefinitely for a lot of things, but I haven't tried it out yet myself. If I could have C41 chemicals keep for a year or so I'd use them a lot more. Waiting to do a batch of 4-8 rolls at once is not worth it for me
I forgot to post my sinar zoom 2. It lets you switch between formats mid roll with basically no wasted film. It's some real mechanical wizardry and the way you spool up a roll of film is really wild.>>4532457Yeah roller processors are pretty slick machines, especially for ra4. I would hate to work trays, especially because you need to keep them heated and work in total darkness. I got a roller processor that auto replenishes developer, washes, and dries. Once the print is in the machine you can turn the lights on too. Darkroom is going to be killer. 10 foot custom stainless sink, HEPA+positive pressure ventilation for dust free environment, temp/humidity control, auto mixed water, 35mm enlarger, a wall mounted motorized 45vxl with dichro head for 35mm up to 4x5, and possibly a third enlarger strictly for 8x10, maybe. The sink size and enlarger will let me do up to 30 inch prints.Hopefully people will want to rent the space and/or have me teach them how to print and/or hire me for high end portraiture. Ill also have a really nice studio space for my egg work and portraiture with enough flashpower on tap to do wetplates at f5.6-f8, around 25k watt seconds. Direct positive b&w paper is also around 1 iso and RA4 direct positive is .75-1.5 depending so insanely powerful flashes is sort of a necessity.My dream is to be able to have my paid portraiture let me buy lots of fresh 8x10 portra and e100 lol. 30 dollars a sheet is too much for me when I have a ton of good provia I got for 2/sheet.
>>4532246You'll get there. Are you doing the development yourself?
>>4532465>My dream is to be able to have my paid portraiture let me buy lots of fresh 8x10 portra and e100 lol.I was just a little curious and had to look up the pricing range for this kinda stuff. Honestly, it kinda scares me.
>>4532419>QRDLike I said im no expert. The guy who makes it has an installer available on github and its free so the easiest way to see if it works for you would probably just be to try it. Its been out for a little while now and its still getting regular updates. I havent used silverfast, but as far as I understand its more like that than NLP, and helps you get the most lifelike results out of your scans. It also has colour correction profiles for a bunch of different film stocks built in. its really gotten me back into film.
What do you guys think about cross processed slide film? Have you ever tried?This expired e100vs looks like absolute shit when developed normally. It kinda gives instagram filter but in the best way possible.>>4532475Yeah. I think a polarizer + spot directly above may do the trick. When I see the scene with my eyes there's a really cool effect where they kinda glow and the different colors mix, but you lose the effect if you they arent primarily back lit. A fun little puzzle.>>4532485Don't forget to add an extra 25 per shot for dev and scan! A lot of people that shoot 8x10 will take 2 shots of the same scene as insurance. 70 eurobucks per photographed scene will definitely slow you down. :D
>>4532525>What do you guys think about cross processed slide film?That's just my opinion, but to me cross processing is an insufferable lomography meme where disgusting colors are supposed to be an happy accident of the moment or whatever, but I find doing that with a 30€ roll of high end film obscene and an excuse to consoom the most expensive stuff possible without ever expanding any effort in learning photography technique. Of course if you are sitting on a stack of expired or compromised slide film i'd understand you dont want to pay for E6 process knowing the film is unreliable.If you're trying a little bit to make cool images and not just using cross process as a randomizer filter on snapshits, I find the harshness can be used to render action impactful and emphasize darker objects.
>>4532534Yeah i would never use good slide film for cross processing. Badly expired slide film already has an unavoidable and strong strong color shift and low contrast so it can bring life back to the film even if it is a silly lomo life.
tried trix and hc110
>>4532578
>>4532578Like the shot, the silhouette of the goat really completes it.
Well, the thread is finally at bump limit.I have another photo to share.Kentmere PAN200, 120 roll shot as 6x4.5.Shot with the Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54 with shutter at roughly 1/25 and aperture I believe was f11. (The only other aperture is f22 but it doesn't look like it)Was quite satisfied with this one, I like the play of light going on but I wish I used a tripod to get a slightly sharper image. Still it's interesting to get this camera to perform, even if I'm not so good yet, the limitations of it force me to think creatively.
>>4532525>What do you guys think about cross processed slide film?Kinda neat, but turning positives into negatives defeats the point imo. You can't project or light table a cross-processed slide which are the two biggest reasons to shoot slides in the first place.
Fomapan 100 at an airshow, I went with the Pentax-M 50/1.7 and 100/2.8 primes on a MX
>>4532762
>>4532763
Actually good /fgt/-tubers?>inb4 oxymoronSubscribing tier>Ben Horne:Not the most exciting personality, but goes to actually interesting landscapes and shoots LF slides. >James PopsysA pretentions cunt, does 4x5 and MF (and now 35 mm again with an ironic distance). Many cool sites in the British country side. Does not develop himself.>Kyle McDougallSlow paced, 4x5. I like this guy.>David HancockDoes in depth reviews of film stocks, compares different development times/solutions. Mediocre photography.>grainydaysLe depressed millienial with big chungus gf and furbaby. Primarly shoots abandonned building with Ektachrome on the camera of the month. Literally a beanie hipster.Not subscribing>metal fingersGen Z douche bag with a mullet. Sometimes shoots new stocks, but usually looks like him and his fellow douche bag friends hanging out in Japan/Jackson Hole.>overexposedSummary of the week's film rumors. >Romping BroncoDon't know why I even click his shit. All he does is taking snap shits 10 ft away from his car and presenting them in a boring manner. Bargain bin metal fingers.
>>4532789I kinda like the Pictorial Planet guy for his in depth technical videos.In the same vein I get some amusement from the nonsense created by the Attic Darkroom channel.Helps me get more out of film by understanding what is going on. Anyway these were just two from the top of my head.
>>4532762I like this one a lot but the people kinda break the illusion.Still, very nice for Fomapan.
>>4532854I have this one without anyone in it, I just liked the vertical framing more. The polished skin in broad daylight really makes for a striking look.
>>4532858Yeah neat, I also like the framing and perspective on the other picture a little better. The metal and the rivets, lovely textures in all the images.
>>4532525>Yeah. I think a polarizer + spot directly above may do the trick. When I see the scene with my eyes there's a really cool effect where they kinda glow and the different colors mix, but you lose the effect if you they arent primarily back lit. A fun little puzzleFucking cool anon
>>4532858>No no I hate being able to see the subjectVertical is for phonesnappers and portraits. This is the better photo, period.Nice set, anon.
>>4532900t. snapshitter
>>4532905You didn't greentext this therefore you're the snapshitter.
>>4532789I like Teo Crawford. Doesn't do the greatest work or whatever but it's comfy enough since he's either in Austria or Japan depending on family stuff it seems.
>>4532789the only ones I've found worth watching are the naked photographer and >>4532850>>4532762looks great what dev did you use? did you shoot at box speed?
>>4532789I find that I generally lose interest the moment a youtuber mentions "this video was sponsored by squarespace". I dunno it just ticks me off but it's prevalent among photography youtubers.
>>4532945That was at box speed and in Fomadon LQN. 100 works great if you trust the datasheet, can't say the same about their other emulsions.
>>4532949At leas it has basically nothing to do with photography so you don't have to worry about there being any kind of conflict of interest with the sponsor.
>>4532850>Pictorial PlanetPicked up a couple of new darkroom tricks, just from one video. I wish I had an uncle like this. >Attic DarkroomThis guy has trichromed every dumpster in NJ. Gotta admire him for that.
>>4532945>the naked photographerWho? I've never seen any nudity on here
>>4533159grainlets BTFO
>>4533159Nice, the grain in this case really adds to the atmosphere of the photo.
>>4533161>>4533194idk why its so grainy thoughmaybe a bit overdeveloped, idkits double-x in 510
>>4533224What iso were you shooting it at?
>>4533225the meter was set to 400, but the camera overexposes about a stop... or underexposes a stop? yikesi should start shooting a fucking automatic
my gay ass film lab taking 1 whole week to sacn and develop xp2i thought the whole point was for it to be developed and scanned same day
>>4533310Man, reminds me how common the one-hour photo service was back in the day. How good we had it...
>>4533312And cheap as shit film, thanks to economy of scaleI miss it, bros
>>4527561an l-308bstill testing
>>4533310Dropping off a roll of E-6 tomorrow. Could have it back on Monday or in 6 weeks. I never know!
cancun
>>4533365What camera?
>>4533279>>4533365>>4533381more like what lensthat’s some pretty significant vignetting
>>4533419>>4533381yeah i noticed that with my most recent batch of film i got developed this week.this is a reto pano 35mm point and shoot, 400D film just a fun little $30 camera, but i kinda like the vignetting to it
>>4533310The labs around me are 3-5 days for pretty much everything, except for ECN-2 which takes 10 days.
>>4526501For Holga week (RIP) I designed and 3D printed a checkerboard pattern frame mask with 7mm squares, you wind approximately 7mm between exposures. It verks
>>4533594If your winding is off you get a brick pattern
>>4533596
>>4533596Cool as hell bro
>>4533597>>4533596>>4533594Really cool. Is it like a filter with square holes in it stuck between the lens and film plane? To take a picture do you: expose, advance partially and expose again?You're making me want to buy some crappy plastic cameras and film.
500t ahu
>>4533614Yeah, I use the frame counter numbers to eyeball it. It's like a quarter turn on the first few frames, 1/8th in the middle and one click at the end of the roll. I did one with vertical bars too, might try the same kind of pattern with circles or ovals.
>>4533650>>4533596this is sick as fuck
>>4533650just a thought. If you made the squares smaller then you'd basically be getting more pixels, and that would make your images a bit more readable? Would love to see it.
I want to copy the 80's National Geographic look, how's this quick edit? Obviously not Kodachrome but it is slide, black point and highlights all the way down, sharpened and cropped
>>4533712I considered this but at the end of the roll it gets touchy because as the take-up spool gets fatter the effective gear ratio of the winder changes. 7mm was about as small as I could go while still being able to reliably position the frame counter numbers. If anyone wants to mess with it I'll post the .STL files
Just got a reusable disposable camera and a roll of BW film. Wish me luck.
>>4533745>reusable disposable
>Buy 5 rolls of Cinestill 800T>One hundred twenty five US dollars
>>4533780I'm trying to decide on a color negative stock to shoot in very low light and capture bold colors. Thinking of pushing 800T. But also considering pushing Kodacolor 200 two stops. Either way I'm going to get some experimental shots that may have shake but are bold af
>>4533790>underexposing Kodacolor two stopsftfy
Go ahead and shoot that expired film at box speed
Are 81A-filters on slide film a meme in 2026?In any case, under which conditions do you use it?>>4533867Never had any problems with doing so. Attached is Superia 200 from the mid 00's.
And here's what film left undeveloped at room temperature for almost 40 years looks like.
>>4533763> I already upset Mr. Frog.Welp. I guess I'm not going to make it.
>>4533875>>4533879i've had some problems, just not ones where overexposing fixes those problems
>>4533790Why not just shoot UltraMAXX fo hunnit instead of Kodacolor?
>>4533908Yeah mate, this looks cooked. I don't think overexposure (and pull prosessing) can fix base fog, and whatever is happening on the right. It's temperature dependant, so warmer climates suffers more, I guess? As far as I heard, being left one afternoon in your car's passenger seat is enough to ruin the image quality. What stock and vintage is it?
Guys am I a hoarderI might be a hoarder
>>4533974At least you actually take photos regularly, right?
>>4533974oh yes, it's just that most of this is either a)expired; still very usable but slow(ish)b)300m cans I intend to use for movieso good 90% of pics I take are on film that I buy right before the shoot
>>4533827I usually prefer underexposure. Maybe if black point adjustment didn't exist it would be otherwise, but here we are. >>4533924I really enjoy the colors and wonder what they'd do, I don't think many people have bothered pushing it for reasons such as you've said. I'm basically planning huge colors surrounded by crushed shadows. If it goes well maybe I'll then try UltraMax to see the difference for myself.
>>4533827>>4533998Oh nm you were just being cheeky.
>>4533974>bins full of decades expired filma very reddit hoarder
>>4533974What do you eat?
>>4534026The film, obviously.
>>4533938Konica-made, repackaged by an old film lab chainapresumably 2002~2003-ish judging by the branding
>>4533974Nice. I must have like 300-400 sheets of 8x10 b&w film. Atleast 150 sheets of slide film and the rest is color. Something like 40-50 rolls of color and b&w 120/220, and that's pretty much it aside from around 30 rolls of XX I bulk loaded. 200ish sheets of 4x5Feels good to be stocked up for a couple/few years. Once fujichrome/e100 re-enter the american market I'll probably drop a couple grand to get some fresh slide film if I am allowed to do so. 10-15 35mm rolls, 20 120 rolls, and maybe 60 sheets of 4x5 provia would be really freaking nice to have. Really love provia a lot.
>>4533974>>4533987I keep a manifest of my expired film, emulsion, date of expiry, etc., and plan out when I'm going to use themIf I don't think I will use them (except for niche cases like waiting for a new K-14-compatible process) I just throw them outwaste of good fridge space and electricity that could otherwise be spent on meatIf you keep stuff without the conscious intent to use them, or display them for their aesthetics or archival, and instead just keep them for the sake of keeping them, then yes i'd say that's hoarding
>>4533763>not reusing his disposablesngmi
90% of the long exposure shots I have taken so far have failed merely because I forgot to actually pull out the little tab that puts the camera in timed mode.Such a waste of film but hopefully I never do it again from now on.
>>4533310the scans were really impressivethis shot was super overexposed managed to recover quite a bit
>>4528372discovered digital ROC in the printer settingsbig improvement
>>4534626The original looks a lot closer to natural. This one is overcooked.Drop the blue and red levels a touch on the original and you'll balance out that magenta/purple cast.
>>4534627huh, is that so? interestingimpressive
>>4534629dropped local contrast + shadows and highlights adjustments on the ROC:d scan for comparison
>>4534629Now it has a green cast. Look at the rebate. Set your black point properly also. Editing color is such a pain in the ass.>>4534631This seems a bit better, but the road looks very blue and the greens are still a bit overcooked for my tastes.
>>4534635need to digest thiswho would of thought a TN panel was difficult to work withthanks anon
