Yeah I'm one of those newfags who fell for getting a film camera instead of a digital cam. Aside from getting the camera for $100 which can be had for $20, I also have a ton of negatives which I don't know how to digitize since I'm saving up for a DSLR to be able to scan them.
But enough about that. My problem now is how can you apply the Sunny 16 rule if it's already night time or if you are indoors. I usually shoot at this time and do night time street photography because I'm at work in the mornings and afternoons. The lightmeter on my camera doesn't give proper exposure and the contact on the battery slot broke so I don't have any lightmeter. I can't use my smartphone since I live in a 3rd world infested with thieves.
I'm shooting mostly with a Kodak ISO 200 film since it is the cheapest one that I can afford.
What are my options /p/? Can I be a master of exposure so I can exactly tell what proper exposure is needed on every scene without any light meter?
>>2719528
In short, nope.
Indoor light is so variable and your brain does so many internal adjustments that your ability to judge light absolutely is really quite awful.
Buy a light meter that isn't likely to get stolen, I guess.
>>2719528
>I live in a 3rd world infested with thieves.
you live in brazil, m8?
>>2719528
3rd world?
Dude, where the fuck are you from?
Because im from a third-world country and here, i can take out my dslr to the streets, look hipster as fuck at 1:00 am, alone, and nobody would try to rekt on me. You're not from a 3rd world, you are probably from a fucking shithole-world country
>>2719528
>buy a dslr to digitize film
hahaha
wat
did you listen to /pee/?
>>2719528
>DSLR to be able to scan them.
you got thoroughly meme'd, senpai.
>>2719570
Is there a better way, for the same price? Nobody on the internet seems to think so, except people with no results to show.
>>2719581
Buy a flatbed. You can get a second hand Epson v600 for $100 used.
It takes a while to scan and the results are more than usable for posting online but it's cheaper and a lot less time consuming than making a dslr set up.
>>2719539
Not brazil.
>>2719544
>Because im from a third-world country and here, i can take out my dslr to the streets, look hipster as fuck at 1:00 am, alone, and nobody would try to rekt on me. You're not from a 3rd world, you are probably from a fucking shithole-world country
Well I've never been robbed I'm just taking precautions. Also I'm living in a city with around 10 million inhabitants. Thieves can easily hide through crowded streets.
>>2719592
There are a ton of comparisons all over the place showing that DSLR scanning absolutely destroys the results from any consumer flatbed. The comparison that comes most readily to mind is against a V700, and it's night and day in favor of the DSLR scan.
And just to forewarn you, the people who never have any results to share? Their next line is always "Well that's shit scanning. My scans never look that bad that guy's a retard" and then when asked for results, they disappear.
>>2719592
>using a flatbed to scan film
Enjoy your 3 megapickle photos. Use your DSLR. It is cheaper and produces higher quality scans.
>>2719528
How meme'd is OP?
Film
>$100 Camera
>$200 for film (saying one roll costs $5 and he uses 40 rolls/year)
>$100 for developing costs
>$100 for a used Epson scanner
>$50 for lightmeter
That's already $500 and you still can't shoot unlimited times. Compared that to buying a digital slr:
>$300 for a Canon 5d
>$100 for a used 85mm f1.8 lens
>$150 for studio lights
For only $550 you can already have your own studio + camera on you own home. It also pays for itself because you can charge people for the pics. You can print the pictures on your office if you have work like I do.
tl/dr OP is a faggot for being meme'd hard by /p/. Film is dead. Deal with it.
>>2719606
>Canon 5d
well meme'd m'sir.
>>2719608
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqVBWTVgr8Q
>>2719611
>Called a meme
>Defends with DigitalRev
That's like buying a car because Top Gear told you to.
>>2719599
>There are a ton of comparisons all over the place showing that DSLR scanning absolutely destroys the results from any consumer flatbed.
>citation needed
Also using a DSLR to scan will take around 5 minutes per film. Not everyone of us are shutoff dwellers like you that has that much time.
If you will use DSLR to scan film, why not use DSLR in the first place to take the photo? Well of course you are a hipster.
>>2719611
Wow it's FF
It's also got 12 mp, shoddy AF, laggy and dated processor/menu system, and no video
You can get crop cameras today that are probably better than this, the only downside is you can't be a "FF user", which literally means jack shit.
>>2719614
>not getting the point that a Canon 5d only costs $300
>>2719618
Whatever. The point is that you can get a DSLR for $300 or less and which is ten times better than any 35mm film camera. The argument that film is cheaper and better is bullshit. Film will be no more after 5 years.
>>2719620
I don't think anyone likes film because of specs or any technical superiority.
Its rendering has some peculiar features that can look good.
But also the very fact of shooting with film, makes you consider your shots more carefully, and this limitation can help you produce better shots in the first place.
And some can also like chemical development and printing, getting something physical.
I don't even shoot film, but damn, you're a faggot.
Sunny 16 rule applies when the sun is out. Just keep shooting to learn how film acts in low light. Experience is the best way to do it. Learn to push film.
I recommend a flatbed scanner. The software really helps you and you can scan 12 frames at a time and go make breakfast or something. If you do a DSLR, you will take a picture of a negative and then figure out how to make the colors come out right. It is more involved than checking the "make negative" box in photo editing software.
Color film has a orange color to it that turns blue so you gotta figure out how to get rid of it. And because you have to manually do that for each picture, it isn't that fun. Yes you get higher resolution photos that way, but seriously consider the reason why you need higher resolution pictures. If you ever post on /p/, imgur, facebook, or anything online, then the flatbed is more than good enough for that. I get prints done from my flatbed scans and they look great. I use an Epson v600 and the software does all the cropping and color corrections for me and labeled the file names in order for me as well.
tl;dr - DSLR for scanning film is a jacked up workflow to ease pixel counters, use a flatbed scanner.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Photographer Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3287 Image Height 2080 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:12:11 09:27:04 Image Width 1000 Image Height 633 Unique Image ID 7f201efce9814d9acccc1bb9a42425ea
>>2719528
As a film faggot who also started with over paying for a shit camera all I can vouch for is iso 200 is generally too dim for night time and indoors. 400 has given me best results this far. If you use the same camera all the time and shoot relatively often it's possible to somewhat accurately 'feel' for an okay exposure but it'll cost at least a few rolls of experimenting and bracketing the fuck out of them.
Also 35mm film scanners are pretty legit and not too expensive, check if you can find one used. We use a Plustek one and it's okay.
>>2719650
I'm too poor to afford a $100 scanner but what do you think of this cheaper alternative?
http://www.dx.com/p/digital-35mm-negative-and-slide-film-scanner-black-177139#.VmsYUVXXfCQ
>>2719691
>http://www.dx.com/p/digital-35mm-negative-and-slide-film-scanner-black-177139#.VmsYUVXXfCQ
never buy something like that. You're better off using your smartphone camera and a light box that you make yourself.
>>2719597
>mexifag detected
not sure if you are mexican, but I am and I have the same problem, I just got my first camera and I fear taking it out for street photo, I think going to nicer neighborhoods should be safer but they are not as interesting.
I will try to scan my first roll with a 12 megapixel point and shit its an olympus, will this work or I need a big dslr?
Dat girl
>>2719847
All the good shots are in da hood though
>>2719620
>you can get a DSLR for $300 or less and which is ten times better than any 35mm film camera
ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
add another zero on there and you may be on to something
>Can I be a master of exposure so I can exactly tell what proper exposure is needed on every scene without any light meter?
no, but with experience you can get it close enough. being off by even 2 or 3 stops is no big deal with negative film.
>I can't use my smartphone since I live in a 3rd world infested with thieves
yeah, I guess you should've got a big honking $2000 dslr.
