Film General
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
No general film thread?
So, i have been trying out some cheap films here is my experiences i want to share with you so you don't make the same mistake:
Rollei 400s is not even close to being a 400 asa film - i shot 3 films in direct sunlight at f/8 and i got nearly nothing to see
1st film was developed in stock xtol for 12 min -> nothing on the film
2nd film was developed in stock xtol for 17 min -> a little on the film, but not nearly close enough for prints
3rd film got 30 mins on stock xtol -> the negative is thin, differently scanable, but properly would be hard to transfer to paper
FomaPan 400 is not nearly close to being a 400 asa film, more like a 100 or 200.
FomaPan 100 is a really great film, nearly no grain, and even the pictures which was a bit underexposed turned out great.
The pictures if what i could recover from the film developing for 30 mins
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 27797 Image Height 7335 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:10 23:19:54 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 1400
Check your camera/lightmeter, OP.
I used to shoot with rollei 400s; it looked good stand-developed on rodinal. Not really an ISO 400 film, more like ISO 250, but still very nice.
pic related, straight from scanner
From my first roll of film. Need to get the hang of manual focus still
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Macintosh) Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:10 22:51:14 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2683069
that looks great man.
camera and film?
>>2683027
You're wrong, Cruz is right, as much as it pains me to say.
Your shutter or meter or dev are fucked.
It's a high contrast film, so the highlights stack up quickly, hence the 400 rating.
I got quite thin negs with it until I started paying attention to metering for the shadows.
If you shoot it like Tri-X, you're gonna have a bad time.
>>2674363
>>2674365
>>2674366
>>2674368
Developed at 400 in 1:50 Rodinal.
5th for
EKTAR
K
T
A
R
VELVIA
E
L
V
I
A
and
TMAX
M
A
X
>>2683151
Thanks man, appreciated. I shot with a Pentax P30, and it was some Kodak 400 speed film.
I did a bit of post in lighroom to remove some of the grain. Here's the original scan for comparison
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software RB98k or later from AgfaPhoto GmbH d-lab.2/3 Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Created 2015:10:10 13:17:09 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1532 Image Height 1024
>>2683158
This one is much better than the edited version. The edit makes it look like some poor water color. At least this one has character.
>>2683163
I thought so too but the chick in the photo wanted it as her FB profile pic, so I edited it like she asked
>>2683158
Suck less, fgt.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 13:50:30 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1197 Image Height 800
>>2683175
That looks great, thanks. I've never really used lightroom so it's no surprise that I suck at it
>>2683179
Learn to use RGB curves.
After inverting a colour neg scan, you're almost always going to want to drag a shitload of blue out of it. You're probably going to want to add a bit of red in the top half to give people human-ish skin tones. And then very subtle adjustments to the green to balance out out likely slightly too red skin and too green underexposed areas. Green tends to have the biggest impact on your global contrast as well, hence doing it last and least.
Pic related is a normal first adjustment to get things in the ballpark.
But first your scans need to be properly white balanced, yours was a joke.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 14:10:50 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 402 Image Height 638
>>2683189
>tfw can't see individual channel levels
how am I going to clip my blues. Thanks PS7.
>>2683158
was it ultramax? thats surprising, I was almost certain it a jap film by how green it is.
ultramax is a fuckin solid film. much better than shitty gold
>>2683206
Yeah Ultramax, that's the one. Still need to find my next film, not really sure what to look for
>>2683206
I thought Ultramax was just repackaged Gold at 400 speed.
The green cast happens because Ultramax, like pretty much every other general purpose film, is daylight balanced. White balance is a thing with film, too. You can fix it in post, or use an appropriate filter when shooting.
>>2683027
Were you shooting the 400S as pure infrared or just like any other film? I've never had problems with it when using 400 ISO as the basis of IR exposure with R72 (measure at 400, add 5-7 stops). Never used the film as regular B&W though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Minolta Camera Model X-700 Image-Specific Properties:
Kodak 400
>>2683223
I shot it like a regulair 200 asa film - maybe that was a mistake?
>>2683154
I shot 5 rolls with the camera that day, the fomapan 400, 100 and the three rollei 400s. They were developed in the same newly made XTOL - all mesured the same way sekonic light meter, since the two fomapan films was as i expected, i can't figure where the mistake was. Maybe Rollei 400s don't play well with XTOL?
>>2683218
imo ultramax seems to have more vibrant beautiful colors and gold just looks like disposable camera film, which it is.
pic related is ultramax. i think reds show up beautifully
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 02:15:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1302 Image Height 864
>>2683273
another ultramax, same roll. it's me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 02:15:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1302 Image Height 864
>>2683154
It sounds like you know the film well - what develop times did you use for rodinal?
How would you measure the exposure? i use a lightmeter since RB67 doesn't have one build in
I have 2 more rolls of rollei 400s to play with
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1840 Image Height 1232 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 11:54:35 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 778
Didn't feel like creating a new thread, so posting here. Going through what used to belong to my dad I found pic related, it's an old Zenit ET. I want to get in to film photography, but I only know the basics of how to operate the camera. Is there any place I could read up on differences in film, film development, etc. Also, do you guys develop film yourself?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-x Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 650 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 172 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 15:24:10 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 115.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 664 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Close View
>>2683327
For someone that's never used film or manual focus before, that's not bad tbh
>>2683289
this is insane, you got an instagram or flickr?
>>2683327
probably just blurry cause he set a longer exposure time for bad indoor lighting
there's worse film snapshits out there tbh
>>2683329
>grainy as fuck
>generic snapshit of japanese vending machines
>eye wanders nowhere, low light forced shooter to shoot wide open which leaves the more visually interesting parts of the shot illegible
>juicy bokeh
>japan camera hunter herp derka derk buy film not megapickles I married a roll of Ektachrome check out my noctilux
>>2683027
developing longer isn't increasing it's speed, retard
>>2683329
have a flickr but haven't really uploaded any of my film shots yet (mostly because I only got around a quarter of them developed yet). Will make a thread once I have everything developed though
>>2683349
>grainy as fuck
yes that's what happens when you shoot 1600 ISO film
>generic snapshit of japanese vending machines
I liked the colors and the simpleness of white in the picture
>low light forced shooter to shoot wide open
well yeah? of course?
>juicy bokeh
>japan camera hunter herp derka derk buy film not megapickles I married a roll of Ektachrome check out my noctilux
???
>>2683349
kek
>also sadly accurate
>>2683359
>grainy as fuck
>yes that's what happens when you shoot 1600 ISO film
Not that bad if you don't herp and derp with the exposure. Here, a Natura 1600 snapshit (f/4, 1/125, 200mm tele), where's the grain one?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2683322
was gonna say look in the wiki but I ended up checking it myself so w/e
http://istillshootfilm.org/beginners-guide-film-photography
lord kenneth rockwell also has some pages up but obviously don't take anything he says as gospel
my rec is to start with B&W but you can go either way if there's a convenient place to develop color print (C41 process) film near you. there are startup costs for developing B&W yourself but it's really quite easy and you have control over the ultimate product. I've always done my own developing and scanning.
everyone has their own favorite film stock but i'd try as many as possible before making up your mind. start off with Tri-X or another ISO 400 film, though. the idea is to find the general look you're going for and make it totally reproducible/reliable. I've fallen into the trap of trying too much different gear/film, consistency is the key.
pic related: snapshit from my 1st roll of B&W (Tri-X in HC-110)
>>2683373
welp that's surprising.
I didn't go "herp a derp" with the exposure though. Settings were 2.8 at 1/60 of a second.
Here's another one with the same film, same grain
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0J-016 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:09:03 19:49:39 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1840 Image Height 1232
>>2683377
where'd you get it processed?
>>2683378
Yodobashi camera
>>2683377
As I guessed, you're overexposing it. You could pull f/2.8 1/60 with Superia 400 and get a much better result. Be more confident with 1600, you can expose at 1/250 to 1/500 at full aperture for Japanese streets and not break a sweat. The best thing about it is allowing for using teles in street work at night. If you have a fast nifty-fifty, you can do the same with ISO 400 or 800 and get a cleaner result.
Here's f/2.8 at 1/125 or 1/250, don't remember which, Superia Premium 400.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2683389
ok underexposing gives you less grain, guys. let's all go home.
>>2683376
Thanks a lot anon.
>>2683280
Times as per massive dev chart.
I believe it requires a long development.
Like I said, meter for your shadows, and manage the contrast in the scene.
Also, the actual manufacturing quality of the film is up to shit, so if your images have large ares of continuous tone you will probably reveal defects in the emulsion, like spots and streaks.
Pic related, I'd call this pretty much unusable as an image, but this is from the same roll as my tree-trunk photos, which have enough contrast and detail to mask these problems.
Hey film general.
I'm primarily a digi shooter but I have a film body EOS 300, and have ordered an FD and M42 35mm system/lens too.
I've been paying £6-10 to develop a roll of film and it's pretty inconvenient. There's a couple of evening classes in my city starting in January for £180-220 and I was wondering if it's a good thing to do, the courses don't just cover developing but also cover printing. I'm not very good at figuring things out like this on my own.
Am I right in thinking that the skills I could gain from this would also allow me to process my own MF film?
So I just got a free Pentax A3000. It seems fairly limited. How do I get good at this camera /fg/?
>>2683682
What controls does it lack? I have the Pentax P30 and it's a great little camera
>>2683682
By using it and trying different things.
Is a UV filter really necessary when shooting outdoors in the sun?
>>2683175
absolutely fucking shit. the cold tones are way better. you suck, in the end.
>>2683687
Depends on the time. If you are crafty you can take some really good shots without it, regardless a UV filter is good to have.
>>2683728
This is what I ended up with in the end. A bit more balanced. I'm still shit at editing but it's getting a bit better
Kinda feel shitty that there's like 5 copies of my image in this thread
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Macintosh) Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:11 20:47:47 Color Space Information sRGB
Back from Japan (took my RB67), managed to have time to scan one from some old expired Provia 220 that I took along and shot (also had Velvia 50).
>>2683158
Too much green not blue, use levels tool, move the mid point slider for green, then raise the curve in curves for brightness/luma/etc.
>>2683728
I disagree. I think the warm tones are closer to the lighting of the shop
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model LS-5000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:06 20:32:06 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 679
>>2683764
Looks like it after vsco but i like it.
>>2683273
I really like how Gold looks. You just can't underexpose at all. As soon as you do you're pretty fucked.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 535 dpi Vertical Resolution 535 dpi Image Created 2009:07:22 20:30:05 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 533
hey stupid film question here, how can you distinguish between film that is overexposed vs overdeveloped?
Everything cheap. currently going through 20 rolls of Agfa Vista I found at bargain bin and Foma. Pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:09 21:14:46
>>2683673
Developing is very easy, printing is a bit more specialist. That price seems steep to me but I guess it'd come with the advantage of being able to talk it through with someone IRL and watch them work, as well as meeting like minded people which is always good, especially with film stuff.
Developing is just
1) load film onto reels and put them in your tank (this is the only step that needs to be done in a darkroom or changing bag because the tank is lightproof).
2) mix up your chemicals to the correct ratio at the correct temperature
3) add developer chemical to tank for allotted time and do the indicated agitation
4) pour out developer and add stop bath chemical, repeat time/agitation
5) pour out stop and add the fixer chemical, repeat time/agitation
6) rinse and hang to dry
It's pretty fool proof if you follow the instructions carefully. Loading the reels and drying the film without spots are the only two bits I find difficult at all. Scanning is a huge pain and I hate it, but aside from that for black and white you're golden. It's pretty forgiving, you don't need to be dead on with your temperatures or timings, just get as close as possible and try to be consistent and you'll get reasonable results.
MF film is no different to 35mm, aside from needing more chemicals because it's physically bigger.
>>2683673
Do it, keep in mind you'll need to buy your own equipment for printing if you don't have access to a darkroom after the class is over. And yes, MF is exactly the same technique just the negative is bigger.
>>2684023
Overexposed film has an overall brighter image (no true blacks), whereas overdeveloped film will have excessive contrast. If you have the negatives it's noticeable by visual inspection, esp. if you have correctly exposed/developed material to compare them to.
>>2683673
http://ukfilmlab.com/pricing/
dev and scan if you're in the uk. Havent tested them myself but the price seems quite nice for dev and scan.
I'd look for some photo clubs etc that offer free courses etc for members. It's way faster to have someone tell you why somethings happen and what should happen instead of learning the same mistakes everyone else has made.
How do you agitate your
R O D I N A L
O
D
I
N
A
L
mixes? I've done 15s of agitation rod at T+0 (because it's quicker than putting the lid on and then turning), and then four gentle inversions on the dot every minute. But I wonder if I'm getting too much contrast this way, even at 1+50.
>>2684263
>stand dev at 1:100 for an hour
>3 inversions at the start
>make and eat dinner
>maybe 1 inversion around 30-40 minute mark
>watch some TV
>fixer time
>lazy dev ftw
If you're getting too much contrast why don't you just try doing less agitation next time and see if that helps. What film are you developing?
>>2683027
When and where did you buy the film?
There was a bad batch about two years ago, maybe you got your film from that.
first time shooting with illford
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:14 19:06:01
>>2685626
>taking photos of your garbage hi-fi system
>sharing them
What Ilford, dummy?
What developer?
Why didn't you stop down for this?
I've started to shoot 35mm film, and I've done a few rolls before and lurked a couple of threads in the past.
I have an Epson 1670 Scanner and I've previously scanned to Print Image Matching II TIF but I was wondering if there was anything I could do to improve my scans.
I know my scanner is quite old, is it considered trash and is there a scanner I could buy for <£150 that could do the job better?
Should I avoid going above a certain DPI?
I also remember reading about some software a while back that took multiple scans of a negative but I can't recall the name.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:16 16:06:14
Switching away from T-Max ever since I started printing. Any other printers notice its relative flatness? Think my go-to films are going to be Acros and HP5+ from now on.
>>2686125
I tried one roll of both speeds in rodinal, got that same impression straight away.
As far as I'm concerned it's a technical film for dedicated sharpness & dynamic-range-ophiles.
I also like hp5. Acros I only shot with a flash, loved the resolution though. Neopan was great.
>rip in piece
But I've settled on films that impart a lot more character on the image.
Rollei Retro 80S and Ortho 25.
HP5 or Tri-X when I need speed.
Retro 80S I've found to be an absolute dream to print as well. Grainless 8x10's, easy to get full tonal range without resorting to magenta filtration.
>>2686121
what I would recommend is looking around for dedicated 35mm scanners rather than a flatbed, that is if you want to continue doing 35mm and not larger formats. they have higher optical resolution (vs. advertised dpi) than flatbeds, though there is the drawback that you have to manually advance the film for each frame.
these guys are a very good resource for scanner reviews, I would recommend the Reflecta 7200 in that price bracket just because I use the newer 10T which is awesome and they are basically the same thing. obviously you can read around their other reviews and see what else is good. I'm not in the UK so I can't comment on availability other than that I searched for the 7200 and couldn't find it so you might have to order from B&H or Adorama, where it's sold under the pacific image primefilm brand. (if they ship to the UK?)
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan7200.html
your dpi question is better explained by that site, but I wouldn't recommend using a dpi setting above the optical resolution of the scanner unless you downsize the file after. otherwise you're just wasting disk space on extrapolated information.
lots of software does multi-exposures of negatives but I don't find it to be particularly useful. I like vuescan but for whatever reason it doesn't work with the Reflecta/Pacific Image so I use the bundled silverfast.
>>2686125
I definitely prefer HP5+ too but it's not like you can't get good prints from T-Max
>tfw you misframe by like 1 degree and don't notice until the print is dry
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.2 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:17 13:43:32 Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2686718
on second thought don't do that cos the plug is different? you can look into this lol
>>2683682
Figure out how it and exposure works, so you can get better at using it as a tool. Take pictures too.
<- Pentax MG
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:16 22:58:19
This is my second roll of color film. All shot with an old Olympus OM-2 + the standard 50mm 1.8
C&C please, even though I know they're not the most interesting frames (don't want to post too personal pics on here). I'm very happy with the quality though. Fuji 400h
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2686794
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2686794
>>2686795
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2686796
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
This is a test roll from a minolta hi-matic 7 I bought at a flea market. The first ~20 frames were okay, but got closer and closer until they overlapped. It did a similar thing with a color roll I tried too, though the overlapping was more randomized.
How do I figure out why it's not fully advancing the film sometimes?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 4064 dpi Vertical Resolution 4064 dpi Image Created 2015:10:17 22:56:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 359
>>2686990
Well for a start, this is way nicer to look at than any one of these photos would have been on their own.
But regarding the problem, every camera's advance mechanism is different.
If you wanted a take no prisoners approach, you could try binding the take up spool to the spindle inside, so it can't slip.
>you may not be able to rewind, you may waste a lot of film as the frame gaps get bigger towards the end of the roll
>>2686995
>Well for a start, this is way nicer to look at than any one of these photos would have been on their own.
Yeah, I'm almost thinking there might be an artistic advantage to using the camera this way. You never know how the film will turn out. I can always find another manual film camera that works properly pretty cheap anyway. for what I paid you could buy 10 of them and not be anywhere close to the price of a digital rabble.
I'm trying to buy my first film camera. What is a good, low cost (<$100) film camera that I could find easily on Ebay? What should I look for?
>>2687931
Forgot to mention, I understand that a lot of the important stuff is in lenses. What I'm asking about is what is a good body to buy?
>>2686794
this one has potential, maybe try a square crop to get rid of the dead space? I cba to see how it looks myself but as is the out of focus beams on the left are a bit distracting. also the highlights are brutal.
technique-wise if you could go back and change anything I would suggest a slightly less shallow depth of field, just enough to cover the whole window and your subject
>>2687931
>>2687933
I would do what the anon above did and start with a 35mm SLR that has an auto exposure program of some sort, that is if you're starting from scratch. the word is out on the mechanical cameras like the Canon AE-1 and Olympus OM series but if you're willing to sacrifice some aesthetic points '90s-'00s electronic prosumer Canikon film SLRs (Nikon F**, Canon **) that work with modern lenses can be had for less than the classic vintage systems. you won't have to worry as much about light seals, film advance/rewind etc. either.
so I guess the question is do you have any lenses that are already compatible with certain systems (Nikon F-mount, Pentax K-mount, Canon EF mount)?
First roll of film, be gentle.
1/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687963
2/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687964
3/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687965
4/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687966
5/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687969
6/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687970
7/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
>>2687971
8/8
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: White Point Chromaticity 0.3
There is a disturbing lack of 5x4 on this board.
>>2683274
Yoooo do you live anywhere near Logan?
>>2684099
Where is this from? Looks a lot like a path near our cottage, though it's obviously a ridiculously low chance it'd be the same one.
>>2683027
did u leave the cap on
how do you guys meter light? i started film photography about 3 month ago, and i used a smartphone app to meter light but the results were inconsistent. should i buy a lightmeter? what do you think about the sekonic twinmate?
>>2689344
I use an old gossen luna pro meter for my medium format camera. I use the built in one when I shoot 35mm, usually.
Really like the Luna Pro a lot, but whatever works.
>rodinal
>rodinal
>rodinal
>rodinal
>rodinal
>everyone on /p/ uses rodinal for b+w
Why?? D76 is easily better, or at least use Xtol if you think that D76 is for babby's first dev. I've never seen a b+w photo developed in rodinal that wasn't fucking grainy.
>>2689531
It's just a lot easier to use and store. Comes as a concentrate liquid in a bottle, use very small amounts, and can be stored for a long time without spoiling.
bump 4 filme
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 09:39:00 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 527 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Flash Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2689531
HC-110 master race. I like it better than Rodinal and syrups are the best form of developer by far, none of that dissolving powder bullshit and it lasts forever and you can mix up just a little bit at a time as you need it and easily mix up different dilutions for different results. It's a little grainy especially with 35mm but if you don't like a little grain then why are you shooting film?
>>2691431
I'm fine with natural grain, I just don't like my pictures to look like they got rubbed in wet sand.
>>2685789
>why didn't you stop down for this?
care to explain wat/why for film n00bz?
Developing at drug stores/type thingy yay or nay? Costs me around 8-9$/roll there, but somewhere around 17-20$ to get it done in a photography store. Are they going to fuck it up?
>>2684106
dunk your film in kodak photo-flo for 30 seconds and it will dry perfect
>>2691893
If you're films are superia, colorplus, afga: yay
If you're films are portra, ektar, 400h: nay
>>2689531
>RODINAL
dat 1:100 tho, you could shoot 1 roll per week and your small bottle of rodinal will still last for one year.
>>2683358
I know the film itself will not be "faster" but there will build a thicker negative
I'm going to buy some
VELVIA
E
L
V
I
A
but I just wanted to know first, from anybody who's tried it before, how well the F100's matrix meter (is it the same part as in the FA and F4?) handle slide film, given a scene with sufficiently small DR? Can I trust it or should I default to my spot meter?
>>2692056
It's not as bad as everyone says, some people are just -really- shit at exposing. Try CMS 20 - that is actually difficult to expose well, Velvia 50, not that hard to expose well.
>>2691942
any reason why I shouldn't get the more quality films developed at a drugstore? Only have two of those in the bunch so I'm gonna get those developed at the store but I'm still interested
Where's a good place to buy 35mm film in bulk that isn't eBay?
>>2692769
Freestyle Photo, they have bulk rolls. sometimes they get back ordered though.
So, C41 developed BW? My girlfriend has tons of expired cheapo color film (mostly Agfa Vista 200) in the fridge she got for free from her old school. She gives me a few rolls occasionally, but I'm not much of a color guy. Is it feasible to try and develop it BW?
>>2692821
Yeah, can even be redeveloped back to colour later on (not quite the same as straight C-41 processing though).
Rodinal 1+25, 8 min was one of the times I was using for C-41 films, so there's a stating point.
>>2692829
Cheers! I'm thinking HC-110 for dev, should work fine as well I guess. How does it look different compared to true BW film?
>>2692843
>>2692843
>How does it look different compared to true BW film?
Shit.
Develop it as colour and convert in post, if you must.
I think fuji superia 400, in 1:50 rodianl for 13 mins.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:08:14 23:30:35 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Here's an old one. Got some shoots with pretty girls coming up this week and some Provia to eat through so hopefully something good will come of that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 23:25:11
>>2692862
flat like an 8 year old girl
>>2687999
Says the guy not posting any 4x5's himself.
Reposting one to please you anyway anon.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 14:30:36
if gear doesn't matter,
why are you using film?
film hipster status:
[x] TOLD
[x] TOLDSAURUS REX
Am I retarded to think temperature doesn't matter all that much, or have I just gotten lucky the last few rolls I developed?
My thermometer is broken, so I have just been adjusting the temperature by feel to about 20 degrees, and letting it sit out for 15 minutes to get a bit closer to room temperature.
Pic related, Rollei Superpan 200 in Rollei Supergrain.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 14:49:44
>>2692897
wat
How long can i use my fixer?
I made 1l a300 fixer from fixing salt a few months ago. So far I developed 8 rolls of film with it (135 and 120).
Fixing time in the beginning was 4 mins ,now it is 11 mins. How long are fixers generally usable?
>>2692907
It depends on the developer.
Anything that's one shot tends to be less critical, because it gets used up, and you're unlikely to drastically overdevelop. This is why rodinal is such a good recommend for beginners, and why stand developing is so foolproof.
Active developers on the other hand, will block up your highlights in no time if you're a bit too warm.
I never bothered with a thermometer either until I started using T-Max developer, and my results became pretty inconsistent; some rolls were btfo, some were too thin.
This is Straya though, coming into summer I actually need to mix in chilled water to get the temps down to 20deg C.
>>2692897
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 480 Image Height 270
>>2692843
Worked fine for me, though I always rehal processed mine back into colour.
Pic related, some old shitty random label expired film I processed in Rodinal, fixed, bleached, exposed to light, and re-developed in E-6 colour developer, bleached and fixed.
If the b&w neg was shitty and uneven, then the colour version would also be shitty and uneven, each one of these steps, was prefectly even and fine, or it'd come out shit, so of course you can do just b&w stage only and have fine normal results.
It'd likely just look like this but desaturated if i I didn't re-develop it.
>>2692854
That's because you did it wrong to get uneven and bad results like that.
>>2693420
Oh, that pic was from a found roll in a cam I bought. It had been opened, but I closed it up, replaced the batteries, and blasted off the rest of the roll on around the house snapshits.
I was saying the results were shit because it is.
Unbleached colour film is very opaque and a pain in the ass to scan, and then you get shitty low contrast results.
You're doing some other alternative process bullshit.
I'm saying that processing colour film as if it's black and white gives poor results and that you're better off processing it as colour and desaturating in post.
>which is kind of what it looks like you did for the pic of that ratfucking bogan kid
>>2693422
It gives the same results as above, the contrast and density are similar to the developed b&w negative. I've done it before, prior to reprocessing back to colour, but it was years ago and not sure where examples are.
Also no need to be a cunt to strangers.
>>2693423
>no need to be a cunt to strangers
yeah, but speedway shirt...
>>2687963
fucking pathetic tbh fam
>>2693423
>Also no need to be a cunt to strangers.
Do you even know where you are?
>>2693105
thanks for your answer
next question. how do you guys dry your developed film.
in the beginning i used to just hang it to dry which gave me ugly chalk dots on my film.
then i bought pic related which wasnt the best idea either as it leaves me with ugly scratching stripes all over my negs, which can really ruin them
>>2693506
Do you use a wetting agent at all?
Kodak soap is dirt cheap and lasts for years. In a pinch ordinary detergent works too.
If you get huge chalk spots your water is probably to alkaline, and you should consider boiling it first or just buying distilled water.
>>2693508
nope. normal process for me was:
-pre water tank
- put in developer
-develop
-pour developer
-rinse tank with water
-put in fixer
-fix
-pour fixer
-rinse tank
-hang to dry
you mean i should add just a drop of dish soap would help?
ive read about that before, but never tried it.
>>2693539
Yes. Surfactants help the wwater to run off the surface, rather that evaporate off it leaving mineral deposits.
This is the same reason people who know how to wash glassware use soap and don't rinse; suds will run off, plain water will bead and dry.
>>2693506
After washing, I rinse the film in deionized water with a tiny bit of dishwashing liquid. (One drop of roughly 10% diluted stuff is enogh.) Then I hang it to dry.
>>2693506
Some people use salad spinners to dry film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0hO6uHjDHc
Never tried it personally, but it looks interesting.
I'll just paste this from the other thread :
Someone give me a run down on 35mm colour negative film.
Is the Kodak portra/ektar shit worth the price?
Whose better, fujifilm, kodak, agfa?
Which run of the mill colour film do you prefer?
>>2693601
Ektar is a pretty solid film. Portra is great, too. Whether its worth it depends on your budget. I was satisfied using Fuji Superia for a long time before I went full b/w. ymmv
>>2693585
Pretty cool. Might try something like that.
>>2693601
KODAK
O
D
A
KODAK
But like, if you live in Japan/Asia, Fuji has some high speed colour film options (Superia Venus, Natura) that aren't available in North America. Kodak doesn't have any current high speed colour film stocks.
Any of the pro series films give fantastic results. 400H, Portra, Ektar. Any of the consumer-tier shit give good results, just not excellent. Gold, Superia XTRA, Colorplus.
>>2693667
Kodak has pretty poor tonality compared to Fuji and Ilford. Just saying.
>>2693506
I also use a film squeegee to dry my film. Just clean it under flowing water before you use it. I never had any problems with scratches caused by the squeegee.
I'm gonna buy some film in bulk, 120 for rz67. Mostly gonna be doing portraits with it. Obviously for color I'm gonna use portra 160 and 400, and maybe some provia. but as far as black and white, there's so much stuff out there. I prefer low speed, finest grain possible. I know there's Pan F, rollei retro, efke 25-50 (if you can find it) and others, but what are your thoughts?
>>2694423
>Colour film
>Ilford
Nigger pls, Ilford Ilfocolor 400 was rubbish, and it's even worse now expired.
>Kodak poor tonality
What is muh Portra, muh Ektar
I switch from 400H to new Portra 400 when it came out and never looked back, a lot better, grain is a lot better too. 160NS I use still, but it can have colour issues if exposure is a bit low unlike Portra 160
>>2694544
Pan F+ has keeping issue, process promptly after exposure, exposure fades over time.
Delta and T-Max are much better than Pan F+ for that kind of thing, you'd probably want to shoot Pan F+ at 25 in something like Xtol, but T-Max and Delta box speed is good, extra fine grain than at 50 in Perceptol.
Otherwise, Rollei Retro 80S is as sharp as T-Max 100, but ridiculously much more finer grain (confirmed on high end scanner and microscope), bit contrasty at 80, so I'd go down to 50 for portraits most likely.
There's finer options but they're annoying to use, 80S works fine in standard developers, it also does not have a big difference in grain between say Xtol and Rodinal unlike most other films. It's also better than RPX 25.
scanning in some of my old stuff that I dont like too much
>>2694554
Thanks. I've just used d76 in the past but I've wanted to use xtol or something else. I'll keep that in mind when I start developing.
>>2694556
Humblebrag much? If you don't like it, why are you posting it?
>Look guys, I'm shooting nude models and I don't even like it! I'm seriously way cooler than you.
Looks pretty good, light/model/pose wise. Hope it's better once you get to work on it.
>>2694562
If you plan on higher end scanning or dSLR scanning etc, then
Pan F+, T-Max 100, Delta 100, FP4+ also experience could resolving power increases when you add 5mg of potassium iodide per litre of working developer prior to developing, tested in both Rodinal and Xtol, so it'd work in D-76 too.
I just measure out 1g of the stuff, dissolve in 1L of water, and measure out the 5 mL I need etc.
>>2694563
I don't like the expression or pose or composition among things.. Its few years old now maybe 5. At the time I scanned them on V500. Times gotten away from me and I haven't gotten to shoot nudes since.
>>2694544
I second Retro 80S for portraiture.
Very fine grain, but also the extended red sensitivity makes skin appear luminous. Very pale blondes will look a little alien in high IR situations, because their eyes will be much darker than their skin.
>>2693601
Really really hard to go wrong with Portra.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2010:04:02 16:01:45 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 797
>>2693601
Ektar for punchier colours and finest grain, Portra 160 for balanced skin tones and still fine grain, 400 bit more speed than 160, less finer grain.
Fuji C200/Agfaphoto Vista 200 for more grain, but better sharpness/resolution than the others.
>>2693601
ektar is love, ektar is life
ektar for portraits, ektar for landscapes
everything else is garbage
>>2683611
It's completely possible to judge something without being able to do that thing yourself. Roger Ebert could write great film reviews, but he was shit at making them.
If you can't handle other people's opinions, please get off the internet.
Newbie film photographer here
What's a decent black and white film I can get for really cheap?
>>2695086
Yes. Roger Ebert. Exactly. he's not some dude with literally no name or identifying distinction whatsoever, telling directors that they're terrible. You know him. You know his qualifications. You know his track record, and his credentials.
None of that is available to you, here on /p/, posting shitty "critique" as anon.
Guys I need some help here.
I can't get my color negative correction right. I always get these weird color casts. I adjust the white and black points with levels, then find a grey with curves.
Is my scan method shit? Tried this frame on a friend's flatbed and it looked much better, so the quemicals are not the issue.
Here's the raw file if anyone wants to give it a try:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k5cxzne0mmpfw89/_DSC8120.NEF?dl=0
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D5300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 718 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:01 13:01:59 Exposure Time 1/10 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Cool White Fluorescent Flash No Flash Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2695673
Fomapan is cheap, but I don't really fancy it that much.
Try it, if you like it, then spool your own and it gets much cheaper.
Get tmax or hp5 for some more coins, and it's the best you will get.
What's the cheapest SLR out there?
>>2695732
something at a thrift store
>>2695687
Had a look, I hand correct colour negs almost daily from various sources, yours looks pretty fucked.
Try altering your back light colour temperature. Basically two 80/80A filters would do the trick I think. At the very least make it a lot more blue.
You need to filter the backlight and so, R, G, B lines up a bit more, so one end isn't completely fucked.
Pic related, its your raw histogram.
>>2695950
I see. Interesting, thanks a bunch.
I'm using an old lcd sceen, wich I took the pixels panel off, so I only had the backlight. But now that you mention it, it is kinda magenta-ish.
Would figuring out something with a flash suffice? Or would you try those filters on the lens first?
>>2695994
Red looks good, green still is good, but you can see the blue is fucked with little exposure and no separation. Filters don't need to be on the lens, you can filter the filter before it hits the film, same thing, except you can use shitty filters when you do that and it wont degrade the image quality at all as its not between the lens and film.
You could also typically take two exposures, one much higher exposed for the blue if its tripod fixed with cable etc, and replace the blue channel from the 2nd image, but it's a pita.
Are photo labs generally okay with nudity? If they are, how about sex? Do people see my pictures or is it all automated?
>>2696034
It comes up on the screen when printing/scanning, but yeah ours are, they'll probably be like "hey get a load of this" and call others over to have a look. Customer won't be any wiser and will just get their pics back like normal.
Ps I work in a lab.
>>2696039
Okay, thanks...I don't care if anybody sees it as long as they don't feel the need to mention it or anything when I pick it up and they don't have some prude policy against it.
>>2696034
I send almost exclusively nude stuff on my film. Never had any comments or issues.
>>2695690
>Fomapan is cheap, but I don't really fancy it that much.
>Try it, if you like it, then spool your own and it gets much cheaper.
>Get tmax or hp5 for some more coins, and it's the best you will get.
Thanks! What do you mean by spooling your own film? A friend said that B&W film is easier to develop and I want to develop my own. Any tutorials on how I can develop my own film?
>>2696319
By spooling your own I meant getting bulk film cans and getting it into 35mm cartridges.
Google bulk 35mm film.
And yes, b&w developing is super easy. Developing times are different depending on film type and chemicals. Each manufacturer has developing tables online.
Search any procedure tutorial on youtube, then adjust the times according to your chemicals.
>>2696381
>Google bulk 35mm film.
Thanks I will look into it.
>Search any procedure tutorial on youtube, then adjust the times according to your chemicals.
Is it ok to buy developing chemicals online? Also is spooling my own film or are the bulk 35mm film of inferior quality or expired as compared to films like fomapan, tmax, hp5 etc.?
>>2696421
Bulk roll film is exactly the same but in a 30m roll instead of in a cartridge of 24/36 exposures.
>>2696034
just out of curiosity: are they legally obliged to report illegal stuff? (Drugs, terrorism, CP etc.?)
>>2696434
if you were the guy working at the lab:
a) would you look through the photos
b) report CP if you saw it?
c) report Drugs/terrorism if you saw it?
.... I would.
>>2696446
My question wasn't about if he would, but if he has to
>>2696446
I've taken some pictures with varying illegal content and never had anything happen from labs. In Canada if that matters, not sure of the actual legal obligation a lab worker would have on them.
>>2696434
Again there is likely someone looking at pictures in a lab. Since you are asking I know you are not stupid enough to do anything like that. Yes if you send CP to a lab you are likely to get arrested. It has happened before. Unless it's some really hardcore shit it gets ignored since people take pictures of their kids all the time.
There is also the story of the guy who got arrested because he was doing an art project and took pictures of fake human heads in his fridge. Don't know if it's true though.
I don't know what you would be doing with drugs to get arrested. Maybe if you take a picture shaking someones hand after exchanging drugs for money. Otherwise it's just a picture of drugs and money. Too many of those around and nobody really cares.
Same thing for terrorism. Unless you take a photo that is explicitly part of your application to join ISIS or a picture of your clock bomb then nobody really cares.
If you send porn worst case scenario is that the lab technician might make a copy for himself. I would.
>>2696501
like what?
Okay. This is less of a film question - but I have a Nikon FM2n, and I have a Nikon Speedlight. How do I meter with the flash? Just underexpose the shot and hope for the best?
>>2696515
The flash will probably have M, A, and TTL settings.
If you don't know what you're doing, set it to A.
You should be able to set an aperture and ISO on the flash, f8 is a pretty safe option, set the ISO the same as your film.
Set your camera to f8 and 1/250, and fire away.
What's a good high iso film to use at night/evening?
It gets dark way too fast this time of the year
>>2696583
Pushed Tri-X or HP5.
>>2696421
T-Max in bulk rolls isnt any cheaper iirc. I'd get Retro 80s for bulk.
>>2696434
>>2696446
We haven't reported drugs etc, seen a girl bending naked over a table doing on a line on one shot, anyway you can't prove what the actual substance is in the photo.
CP (it'd have to have a sexual context, not just bath time or nudity) and making bombs etc would be different.
>>2696583
A tripod.
>>2696558
tiptopkek
>>2696515
Look up guide numbers. Your illumination is a function of distance, guide number, aperture, and ISO. Old manual flashes had little sliding guides to help you out. Alternatively, get a FE2 for TTL flash.
>>2696691
>motion blur: the blurring
>>2696583
Pushed TriX, HP5, Delta. Natura, Venus, Cinestill 800, old Portra 800 for color. Watch out for light sources on Cinestill, there's no anti-halation layer.
Poorfag here wanting to get into film.
What are some cheap color films to get? Is it okay to just get the cheapest film out there even though it is expired as I somehow like the effects it brings?
>>2696900
Get some kodak colorplus off eBay
I know this belongs to the gear thread but it's a film camera so why not.
I got an Olympus OM-1 camera but the problem is it only accepts 1.35V mercury battery and there are no more batteries like that here.
What are my choices? Should I return the camera?
>>2697275
many alternatives exist bra, google and figure it out.
Developing this right now will update.
Trying black and white for this though
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2448 Image Height 2448
>>2683808
This shot is so easy but pretty nifty. Id crop a little off the left though.
>>2697584
what is that?
>>2697596
Kodacolor Gold 200
>>2687970
I liek how the tree brenchz are in the sky so it makes it look like tree sky and a pointy point house. 8/11
A+
D+
Aesthetic mucho sexi
Thoughts on Fuji Superia 200? I can get it hella cheap but I don't want to get it if it's not worth it
>>2700715
Sharp with plenty of grain
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2260 Image Height 3585 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:08:23 13:26:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 946 Image Height 1500
>>2700736
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2268 Image Height 3611 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:08:23 13:26:30 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 942 Image Height 1500
>>2700736
Love this.
>>2700740
Thank you!
>>2700737
This seems to fit the contemporary notion of exactly what people expect of film.
>>2700754
people are dumb faggots.
no one recalls laserdisc, but it had superior quality even to DVD (dunno about blu ray)
>>2700761
That they are. I'm honestly sorry 'bout the resolution, but you gotta be able to zoom in on dat grain. Lomography did photography a huge disservice in terms of IQ
>>2700767
>I'm honestly sorry 'bout the resolution
dont worry m8, not opening it.
still, how do we get the megaplebs back into the correct notion of what film is capable of? ..i mean, the fucking movies look so sweet but they dont make the link between movies and photo, moving images, etc.
i wish i could track down the inventor of lomography and hunt his ass, and document all that with a fisheye diana on "cinestill"
>>2700771
I still can't get over the fact that with stuff like collodion or microfilm, esp. in large format, the only real limit on the image resolution is in the optical elements' physical limitations. Something you can actually "enhance/zoom in" ridiculously like in all those CSI-esque tv shows.
>>2697275
I just use a 1.5V alkaline battery, it works okay. It just makes the light meter underexpose, so you either have to set the iso under what the film is or overexpose according to the meter. I do the latter.
Or just usehearing aid batteries, or get it modded if you're anal. Anyway, there's literally no need to worry about it.
I just got my first roll of film back, shot with an ancient Praktica L, and they are all out of focus. I could understand if I had missed focus a few times, but I'm more inclined to think something is up with the camera. Is there any way I can check whether something is up with the camera?
>>2700882
Probably the pressure plate not positioning the film correctly, so the point of focus is off from what you see in the finder.
>>2700907
Thanks, I'll check it out. Is it possible to wind film back into the canister if only half the roll has been exposed? I dont want the next 20 shots to be wasted too
>>2700914
Yes, but don't wind it all the way in - if the film gets pulled into the canister via the light-tight slit it sticks out of, only a special tool will be able to get it out w/o risking damaging the canister. You should feel when it snaps off the takeup spool (the winding lever suddenly turns with less flrce needed etc).
The only two reasons a praktica could not focus correctly are the pressure plate not working like >>2700907 said or the focusing screen somehow malfunctioning - extremely unlikely, but you can test this by placing some scotch tape/oiled tracing paper/anything else working like a ground glass focusing plane over the place film is stretched over, focusing on the viewfinder and comparing the focus of the makeshift screennover the actual film plane. You'll have to do it in B shutter mode.
>>2697275
the om1 is all mechanical, the battery only powers the light meter. Just don't use the meter.,\
Favorite cheap b&w films? 35mm
recently shot Arista EDU Ultra 100 & 400, which was alright. A bit too much halation for me, which leads me to think it's bad Foma stock (being made in CR). Won't buy it again.
I develop with Rodinal stand, had good results with tmax so far. Shot some Arista Premium, the trix one, which was alright. very grainy when combined with Rodinal.
Any opinions on Kentmere or Ultrafine Extreme? I'm leaning towards Kentmere since it seems like there's more QC since Harman is an Ilford company. Haven't decided towards 100 or 400 speed anyway.
>>2700940
Fomapan 200.
>>2700941
Yeah? I've heard since it's a mixture of classic & modern grain it doesn't do great with rodinal. What do you like about it?
>>2700943
It's cheap. I don't do dev myself, so dunno kek. I just shoot.
>>2700715
Rockwell approved using ISO-2375 compliant palm tree.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2701108
And have a full res.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:10:27 10:28:34 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3456 Image Height 5184 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2700715
All I'm stuck with at the moment.
It has nice grain, though greens can become a little over expressed in the more shadowed areas of the image. Don't know if this is just me but most of the photos I shoot with the film are like that. Not a pro film by any means but definalty a great contender when it comes to films you can still buy in drugstores.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1536 Image Height 2602
Some Portra 400 from a senior photo shoot earlier this fall.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 5.80.020 (111031) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:24 18:54:51 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3029 Image Height 3029 Unique Image ID 06ADD9D3F4C341F78503DCE73519CADE
>>2701118
No pizzas?
>>2701776
not the season
>>2701776
hahaha.
*literally* the frame before >>2701108
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:11:11 06:20:04 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1522 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
I've been shooting film for a short amount of time and finally managed to get everything I needed for B&W dev. I have about 20 rolls of AGFA 200 C41 kicking around and as winter is coming up I decided to try developing them in Rodinal. I shot a quick test roll with a flash and it turned out okay after figuring out how to scan them in Vuescan& PP with Photoshop/LR.
Anyone have any experience with pushing C41 when stand developing with Rodinal?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera Model M6 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.5 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 50 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:11:15 19:53:51 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/8.0 ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Focal Length 50.00 mm Comment -Make=Leica -Model=M6 -ISO=200 Scanner Make Epson Scanner Model V550 Film Make AGFA Film Type Vista Exposure Index 200 Developer Rodinal Dev. Time 1h LensTaggerVer:1.7.4
>>2701773
File size too large; didn't view.
