Anybody else make real prints anymore? Seems like even the hardcore filmfags are just scanning.
>contact printan
>patchan light leaks
>needs more contrastan
>all my clothes smell like vinegar and pissan
I would love to get into darkroom printing but there's two problems:
1. The enlargers you see online for sale are either mangled and broken.
2. I'm too broke to pay for shipping on something that big anyway.
One a somewhat related note: does anyone know what happened to all the Walgreen's photo developing supplies?
>>2713097
I used to do this all the time, but that was about 10 years ago. Shit is so expensive and hard to get now, buying the fix/stop/developer and all of the equipment is the biggest set back.
Still 100x better than digital photography, it takes far more skill IMHO. There's a certain tactile skill to it, something digifags just can't relate to. Any retard can learn to use photoshop, but perfecting techniques like dodging/burning/etc. takes actual talent.
inb4 excessive rage and seething hatred for my purity and memories of the past you overgrown children will never truly know
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T1i Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand F-Number f/4.0 ISO Speed Rating 100 Focal Length 28.00 mm
>>2713097
I was printing today.
>>2713116
>I'm better than you because I do something arbitrarily harder
>Any idiot can use MATLAB, I do all my numerical computation by hand
Like if you're into developing and printing for nostalgia or whatever's sake, you do you, but don't act like you're somewhere a better photographer because you purposely make things harder for yourself.
>>2713144
>don't act like you're somewhere a better photographer because you purposely make things harder for yourself
not that guy but its not like literally anyone cant just edit the fuck out of some shitty photo, move stuff around, fuck with color, contrast, etc. it's retarded
>>2713154
>not like literally anyone can't
Unless you messed up the double negative, you're saying that it's too easy?
>>2713167
To make something look halfway decent with digital that would otherwise look like shit on film where u can't edit it? Yes it's pretty easy
>>2713175
Who cares? You're getting into the same fault gearfags, you're missing the forest for the trees. The goal of photography is to make beautiful and captivating photographs, and having fun while you're at it. Who cares how you get there?
>>2713178
same fault as gearfags*
>>2713178
It depends what you're doing. If you're specifically making like digital art or some shot and editing and making funky stuff ok but what's the point in editing to hell a landscape or cityscape? Why bother capturing reality if you're just going to distort it to something other than what it really is?
>>2713182
I think you're getting confused between photojournalism and photography. Taking photos to make an accurate record of what's there (e.g. a crime scene) is wildly different from taking photos to create art.
>>2713116
well im doing it now, my college provides all of this, i can do shit whenever i want.
>shit so cash
>never ever been so amazed about making photographs
>scan of two films , ya feel me boi ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HP Scanjet djf4100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1698 Image Height 2338 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2015:11:20 22:14:33 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 726 Image Height 1000 Saturation Low Sharpness Soft
my school has a kickass darkroom, with sinks, a good safelight, drying closet n everything. I'm moving my chemicals and papers so I can start using it. pretty excited
I used to print everything until the beginning of 2015. Then, a series of unfortunate events left my equipment defective and, also, the BRL devalued so much that darkroom supplies doubled its price, and it was already very expensive, since most of it had to be imported. Since is not darkroom prints that gets me money, I'm not doing it anymore, for a while.
OP here
Thinking of putting an ad on craigslist for b+w film developing and printing. Think there'd be any interest? I live in a city of 250,000 with a university.
>>2713097
Just made some FB prints yesterday
>>2713144
You could use the same argument against shooting raw.
>>2713311
Shooting raw doesn't make things harder arbitrarily, you sacrifice a little bit of effort because every pic has to be pp'd, but you have infinitely more options because of it.
>>2713329
How is that related? My point is that it doesn't matter how you get to the end result. If you can make great images using jpeg, then use jpeg. I would recommend raw to someone just because you have more options because of it, but I wouldn't say someone's a better or worse photographer because they did or did not use raw. I mean, I would wonder why they didn't use raw, but that's just because of why they were turning down so much flexibility for such a low cost. But if it works for them, it works for them.
>>2713331
>My point is that it doesn't matter how you get to the end result
>illegal use of steroids is ok
>racing with an autopilot feature
>taking exams on amphetamines/coke
it does matter. if you cant take a photo with proper exposure or framing, dont pretend you can. i still think you should shoot with raw tho because the images are just sharper
I don't anymore. 3 years of darkroom in school access, 6 years at a photolab after, got my fill for sure. It's an enjoyable process, very theraputic, but at the same time it's something I'm kind of over. I still shoot a lot of film but haven't done printing in like 5 years.
>>2713337
>comparing photography to competitive activities
There's your issue right there. Photography isn't a competition, it's an art. Art can stand alone by itself. A beautiful picture is a beautiful picture regardless if it's standing by other pictures or not. An impressive grade on an exam is only impressive when compared to everyone else's. If you got a 100, and the average was 50, then that's an impressive score. If everyone got a perfect score, then it's not that impressive. It can't stand by itself, that's the nature of competitive activities. Photography, and art in general, shouldn't (and really isn't) a competition.
Just enjoy what you shoot and what others shoot. It's not a competition or a race to the top.
>>2713340
so what about a painter who paints a shitty painting because he's not very good but has a lot of experience in photoshop so he just changes all his mistakes and edits his composition and then puts it on display
>>2713341
Are you saying he scans his painting and then edits it and then somehow prints it out on canvas again? I think someone might notice that it's not painted.
Either way, if he put on and display and said "this is my mixture of digital media and painting," then there's nothing wrong with it. The only issue would be if he lied and said, "This is just all painting," because then he would be being untruthful about the nature of his work.
>>2713325
If I can get the results I want shooting jpg, then shooting raw is making things harder arbitrarily
>>2713344
How is painting digitally any different than 'traditional' painting?
>>2713348
I literally addressed this like two replies down.
>>2713331
>>2713349
Depends on who you ask. Painting is a very different animal from photography and digital media in general. The issue is that you're saying you painted it all by hand which is just lying. Editing in LR or PS isn't lying, it's the nature of digital media which has a very different tradition than that of painting.
>>2713351
>I would wonder why they didn't use raw, but that's just because of why they were turning down so much flexibility for such a low cost
>making things harder arbitrarily
Even though you say that process doesn't matter, clearly you think process matters. Low cost is still cost. This 'power' is important to you.
>The issue is that you're saying you painted it all by hand which is just lying.
So you think process matters. Digital painting is still done by hand. It's not lying at all.
I only use film cameras. Photography isn't a digital medium (in my personal use) When I dodge and burn, I dodge and burn 'by hand'
You may not think that it matters (for you) but it is still different, and affects the nature of the art. You may think that most people don't care, but there is a reason why people perceive paintings, and even prints, of higher worth than photographs.
serious question - I've done some research on this but I wanted to hear /p/'s opinion before going out of my way to contact "experts." do any of you have experience with negative duplication?
im a little mystified regarding the exact details of the process - e.g. danger of one film or another to safelights, how to get a correct exposure, whether it's better to use an enlarger or a camera (and what sort of lens to use with either), etc.
im looking at this tutorial and it seems mad complicated http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html
I mean, everyone has to make a choice with process. That choice is usually not random. Usually, you would choose the process you think is best (for your work) even with something like jpeg vs raw. Obviously you would view the other as inferior (for you).
I don't know why it surprises anyone that people think their methods are inferior.
>>2713357
Now we're getting mixed up here. Process matters, but only in the extent in it's relation to the end product. I say raw is probably a better choice because it gives you the availability to make better pictures, not that it inherently does. All raw does is open up more doors. It's like choosing to only paint with three different colors as opposed to being able to use as many as you'd like. If three works for you, use three, but I'll be a little curious as to why. (not a super great example because minimal color can be artistic choice while jpeg isn't really, but whatever)
>So you think process matters. Digital painting is still done by hand. It's not lying at all.
Now you're deliberately misunderstanding what I meant by "by hand". Obviously I meant that in the sense that you used a paintbrush and paint, not that you literally you used your hands in the making of it. The only reason I said it was lying is because you were saying you did it all via traditional painting when you also used digital techniques.
>You may think that most people don't care, but there is a reason why people perceive paintings, and even prints, of higher worth than photographs.
Then that's the nature of the people, not the nature of the art. People's appreciation of art is tied up in a whole bunch of other factors: economic, cultural, etc.
Also we're comparing apples and oranges here. Painting has a level to it that photography doesn't have which is the effort behind it. Painting a painting can takes months or even years to fully complete. So there's not only the image in itself, but also the sheer effort and drive it took to create. A photograph is taken in an instant (inb4 someone is pedantic about long exposures). Now, obviously photography requires effort, but it doesn't have the physicality in creation (inb4 someone is pedantic about photographing hard to reach spots) that painting does. That's why people have a deeper appreciation of painting.
>>2713362
(cont) So the level at which process matters varies per art form. The effort in photography (like your darkroom work, etc.) is different from the effort put in painting. But perhaps people may like knowing the extra effort you put in with your photographs. It won't be as big as, say, the effort in painting, but maybe it matters to them. Either way, my point being, is you're not better or worse because of it. Some people may like the effort, some may not.
>>2713351
but photography isnt a "digital media"
and photography used to be more of a science than an art until the mid 1900s with people like adams elevating it to a more artistic field. and
>>2713371
but theres a whole aspect of photography in composition that you cant just put whatever you want wherever as in a painting, you have to capture this perfect image that may only be available so often and you have to be good enough to frame everything properly (which is why i brought up Adams, he spent a lot of time before to know exactly what he wanted to capture and how it would turn out before taking it) but with digital all that work is just done with some shitty processing in 2 minutes.
>>2713375
>but with digital all that work is just done with some shitty processing in 2 minutes.
it really isn't...
>>2713377
yes you can easily just take a big fat picture of nothing, crop out whatever amount you want, change the exposure, contrast, black levels, etc, and delude yourself into thinking you've become a good photographer. see: instagram
>>2713379
You can do the same thing with film. You can also do the same with painting, or drawing... etc.
Can the two faggots arguing digital versus film please go to another thread? I wanna learn more about darkroom prints.
[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 400 Image Height 545
my dad had a darkroom downstairs when he was freelancing on the side of being a fireman/emt. now its a reloading room but most of the stuff like the sinks and maybe even some chemicals are still there along with some camara equipment.
>>2713387
>Stop having a theoretical discussion on the importance and validity of our shared hobby. I need more basic instruction that could be found on YouTube and Google. Someone start talking about gear. Maybe which enlargers are shit and how the one you own personally is much much better, despite being worse in almost every way?
-Translated by Bing!
>>2713389
It seems you are upset that someone came into your secret club. Better move to some obscure reddit board instead. That way you can just downvote newbies into oblivion.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:05:18 14:51:06 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 479 Image Height 680
>>2713390
What? We were having a good conversation, and you came here and told us to stop... Seems like
>you are upset that someone came into your secret club. Better move to some obscure reddit board instead. That way you can just downvote anyone not specifically entertaining you into oblivion.
>>2713392
For the sake of not ruining this thread further I won't be posting anymore replies. You two took your argument of film versus digital to an extreme. There are more film vs digital posts than there are about actual darkroom prints in this thread. Seriously. Make another thread and link your posts or trade emails but you hijacked this thread to have your debate.
>>2713394
Digital guy from before here - the most recent replies aren't me so it's more than just two + it's not like this was a vibrant conversation beforehand + a lot of the original topic of the thread can be answered via Google + it wasn't about digital vs film, it was about the nature of effort in photography (and art in general) and whether it matters, which I think is an important discussion to have
>>2713394
Digital guy from before here - the most recent replies aren't me so it's more than just two + it's not like this was a vibrant conversation beforehand + a lot of the original topic of the thread can be answered via Google + it wasn't about digital vs film, it was about the nature of effort in photography (and art in general) and whether it matters, which I think is an important discussion to have
I print everyday almost at my university! I monitor the darkroom and next year I will be the assistant director of the darkroom, I print on pearl RC... haven't gotten a chance to work with fiber yet.
Anyone here work at a darkroom in the nyc? I would love to continue working in a darkroom like in brooklyn after I graduate from college in CT.
>>2713188
Not him, but I innately agree with him. I've always felt that digital photography feels way too much like "cheating". I don't ever edit my photos, even though I now use a DSLR. I shoot what I shoot, and if it turns out to be shit, so be it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Ver.1.03 Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 39012 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 82 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:05:10 09:42:36 Exposure Time 20 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 6016 Image Height 4000 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 100 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Focus Mode MANUAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 100 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon G Series Lens Range 18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction FPNR Camera Actuations 355
>>2713362
You still favor a process though. And for more than 'results' You could shoot 8x10 film, digitally scan and edit it, and for many situations get significantly better 'results'. But people don't, because it's expensive and inconvenient. More the latter. Process related issues. 35mm is way crappier than 120, yet the miniature camera did amazingly well because of process issues. Even people's choice of which digital camera is a process issue.
>I say raw is probably a better choice because
it gives you the availability to make better pictures
Last I knew, Daido Moriyama shot a Coolpix S9100. It has no raw mode, and he doesn't care. 'better pictures' is very relative, and shows a process bias. If you really didn't care you wouldn't be curious at all, because you wouldn't care.
>Painting has a level to it that photography doesn't have which is the effort behind it.
I agree with you. It's the process. People still paint photorealism paintings which is literally 100% process. I also agree with you that photography are painting are two different things, but I see little difference between digital painting and tradition painting. A painting being a painting because a person physically and directly put the pigment on the paper is an odd distinction, especially in comparison to analog / digital photography.
I think people hold painting in higher regards because it's readily apparent when you can't paint. Even a child can push a button.
tl;dr I B SHITPOSTIN BB
>>2713363
>Some people may like the effort, some may not.
Agree with this, tho.
This is my grandma wearing a funny hat. Also a contact print of a 4x5 picture of a boat in the snow. In other news, that '60s era can of developer I just mixed up turns out to be "warm tone" which translates to "everything looks like you spilled coffee on it."
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot S90 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 6.00 - 22.50 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:12:01 20:29:23 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/3.2 Lens Aperture f/3.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 6.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Program Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative ISO Speed Rating Auto Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Red-Eye Reduction (Auto) Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 0.350 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Image Number 542-2128
>>2713561
>Last I knew, Daido Moriyama shot a Coolpix S9100. It has no raw mode, and he doesn't care. 'better pictures' is very relative, and shows a process bias. If you really didn't care you wouldn't be curious at all, because you wouldn't care.
I'm purely talking about simply the available options here. Raw just gives you more flexibility. You can create what a jpeg shot would've given you from a raw version of it. I didn't say it necessarily gave better pictures, just the opportunity to use it's flexibility. As per my own preference on raw v. jpeg, I said whatever worked for you in >>2713331
>but I see little difference between digital painting and tradition painting. A painting being a painting because a person physically and directly put the pigment on the paper is an odd distinction, especially in comparison to analog / digital photography.
I think there might be a communication mixup here, I was just saying you'd only by lying if you said "I painted this all with a brush and paint" when you really used a computer. Not that there was a grave difference between the two, just that you would've not been truthful. Like if you lied and said a glass of skim milk was 2%. They're pretty similar but either way, you're lying and you probably shouldn't do that (fuck skim milk though).
>I think people hold painting in higher regards because it's readily apparent when you can't paint. Even a child can push a button.
Right, that's what I was saying. My original point (way way way back at >>2713144), was that you can do things harder for better photography (maybe you like the dynamic range of film, etc), or you can do things harder just for the sake of it being harder (putting more effort into it, the physicality of it, etc), but they don't elevate the art being made above others simply because it took more effort. Some people may appreciate the additional time and effort it took, but as for the art standing alone, it really just matters what you made in the end.
>>2713599
Thats really cool, do you have any more?
The rest of this thread though.
>>2714016
I messed up the film on the left one, it wasn't completely dry and it scratched when I put it in the enlarger's film holder.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot S90 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 6.00 - 22.50 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:12:03 07:49:34 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/3.5 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 7.49 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Program Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative ISO Speed Rating Auto Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Red-Eye Reduction (Auto) Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 0.500 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Image Number 543-2133
>>2714359
Really cool stuff m8. The damage looks kinda interesting to be honest.
>>2713555
>I don't ever edit my photos, even though I now use a DSLR. I shoot what I shoot, and if it turns out to be shit, so be it.
As I've explained twelve million times before on this sub, with digital there is no "no editing". Either you let some software engineer that coded the jpg compression do it for you or you shoot RAW and do it yourself. Color prints come out a finished product most of the time. Digital doesn't have that luxury.
>>2714916
with film there is no "no editing". Either you let some lab worker that mixed up the chemicals and chemist that designed the film do it for you or you get your own chemicals and enlarger and do it yourself.
>>2714916
>compression is somehow akin to editing
does that mean mp3 files are edited versions of the original songs, and I don't actually have to pay for the copyrighted IP?
>>2715322
No one contests that. Why are you retarded?
>>2715322
Development, especially with color film is a standardized process. And if exposed correctly and you're not trying something specific, you can also do your prints pretty much standardized. Yet they come out a finished product. Not editing a RAW file looks like shit. Because it's not meant to be unedited.
>>2715348
If you want you can look at your camera's jpg and RAW files side by side. You'll see the difference. It's not just compression, the camera does standardized processing when creating jpgs.
>>2715458
>the camera does standardized processing when creating jpgs.
you dont have to let your camera do it. shoot in raw, convert to jpg on your pc. you dont have to process it
im too poor and amateur to really get into actual film cameras and darkrooms and shit.
I really do like it over digital though, especially when you see originals in person without having it go through digital processing to be posted online.
I don't know though, I guess I could go for any photography medium. What matters to me is composition and an eye for lighting and atmosphere. I couldn't care less if it was taken on a shitty disposable camera even.
>>2713144
3/20
>>2713286
There would be people. Wouldn't hurt to put up an ad if you have the supplies anyways, make an extra buck or two
>>2715549
>you dont have to let your camera do it. shoot in raw, convert to jpg on your pc. you dont have to process it
You could also buy a calculator and use a sharpie to do long division on the back.
>>2717215
im not saying ones better, he just thinks that because the camera software edits his photos before compressing them that is always has to be that way.
I print sometimes.
This is some verrrry old kodabromide.
Aside from some mould and discolouration, it printed pretty nicely.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:01 09:52:18 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 7.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1812 Image Height 1200 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2717215
topkek
>>2713097
printed and toned like 12 FB 8x10s today, and now I smell like shit
>>2713097
my feat still fucking hurt from tipping those fucking tubs back and fourth for three hours today.
>>2713599
clean your fucking negatives you goon
>>2717222
>im not saying ones better
I'm saying one is idiotic and misses the point of RAW and the other is letting a software engineer from halfway around the globe decide what your photo should look like. If the latter is your thing, so be it, but the former shows a lack of understanding of why RAW file format exists.
>>2718217
this is a darkroom printing thread. please stick to the topic and grow up. thank you.
>>2718248
You're right. It's pretty much dead though.
What's the advantage of printing with an enlarger VS. printing from high quality scans?
Selenium toned for the first time the other day. Apparently this shit is highly toxic! Whoops!
>>2718696
Well with a good enlarger lens and technique, there is virtually no loss of quality from the neg to the print at any print size.
But additionally. you really just need to look at a real print vs a computer print and compare. Truly infinite subtlety of tone and rendering of fine detail, the image is in the paper rather than on it, and with proper processing it can last virtually forever.
Hi guys, I develop and print 35mm and 120 at home. This is my Beseler, I'll post a few more photos. Sorry about image size, phone pic.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software N900AUCUEOC2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 21:42:52 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 125 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 0.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID D13QSGI01OA
8x10 test print from a 6x7 negative, needs some burning around the edges. Sorry about image size again, don't see a resize option in snapseed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software N900AUCUEOC2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 21:52:18 Exposure Time 1/31 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID D13QSGI01OA
>>2718745
Invest in a cutter. Tearing your testing stripes apart like that will lead to paper remains in your chemicals and on your prints. You've spent all this time getting your negatives dust free, don't ruin it with laziness.
>>2718696
1.more fun
2.the paper is generally higher quality. I'm sure you can get digital prints on nice paper, but even the cheap shit is super nice waterproof plasticky stuff.
3.you can do your editing in REAL LIFE
>>2718806
does it really matter? you're agitating the trays and wash the prints in the end, I can't imagine that would do any harm.
>>2718725
It's also a very important nutrient. Just don't drink too much.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software http://www.idimager.com Image-Specific Properties:
