/film/
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
ITT: General film thread.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 70 dpi Vertical Resolution 70 dpi
my question, anybody knows this brand of film in thread picture?
>>2751468
Prymax Color
>>2751469
Are you serious, aren;t you? Go be funny somewhere else!
>>2751468
if you got a roll of this you could check the DX code at http://dexter.pcode.nl to see if the emulsion is sold under different brands/names. This might give you an idea of what it looks like.
>>2751468
It's Prymax, but it looks like they've renamed to Primax and only make x-ray film.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050507173723/http://www.primax-berlin.de/e/index.htm
Website back in 05 mentions colour film, but the current website is x-ray only. http://www.primax-berlin.de/e/index.htm
>>2751472
from 24 exposure roll:
DX = 013623
from the dexter.pcode.nl:
>manufactured by
>Ferrania Imaging
>
>original emulsion
>Imation Color HP200
>
>also sold as
>
>with 24 exposures
i will check the 36 exp roll in a moment, i have loads of it from flea market btw.
>>2751472
whoa, didnt know about this site, this'll help so much with the mid-millenial film rebrands I come across, merci beacoup seignor.
I just bought a Minolta Pocket camera...It apparently takes 110 film. Is 110 film still made?
Anyone have any experience with Labs fucking around with your scans? I just got 2 rolls back from a professional photo lab with a nice Noritsu scanner and they've all got this weird effect (similar to what it would look like if you dragged the shadows slider to +100 on lightroom on a digital image), meaning I had to unfuck all of the photos myself. The film was all fresh, professional grade stuff exposed at box speed so it wasn't that. Really quite annoying
>>2751873
You've really got to wonder how fucking retarded a person could be to post this kind of question without an example image, hey...
>>2751833
http://shop.lomography.com/en/films/110-film
Got my first b&w film back from lab and it was blank. I also let them develop colour film which turned out fine. What went wrong? Did they fucked it up?
>>2755362
more likely that either you fucked it up or your camera is not working properly.
>>2751873
It's rare that you will get a super awesome scan from a noritsu. They are made for high volume scanning and automatically will do all sorts of stuff to try to 'fix' your photos. Think about your camera's meter for a second, and how it's possible to fool it. The noritsu can and will make a similar poor judgment call.
>>2755362
is it solid or is it blank?
>>2751467
shooting on old ass estate sale ektachrome
Only four shots in and I did all with flash at 250 f5.6
what stop and shutter speed should I shoot this on with and without a flash unit?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 1136 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2755362
Your camera shutter might be fucked up, when you have it on B setting can you look thru the rear and see thru the lens? if you can they probably just fucked up developing
did they give you a refund? every lab I go to that a roll doesn't turn out they always don't charge me for it
>>2755433
this is a retarded question. It depends entirely on the lighting of the scene
>>2755364
>>2755437
I shot colour roll before b&w one, which turned out well.
>>2755394
>>2755431
Pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model D6503 Camera Software Capture NX-D 1.3.0 W Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:29 20:26:16 Exposure Time 1/32 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 64 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.90 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 750 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2755787
you gave them a blank roll lol
your cameras aperture does not open
>>2755846
Spot on, the lab fucked up tremendously.
I'm going to start developing my own shit. I have a tank that was my mother's from years ago. The lid with a tube stuck to the inside has gone. How fucked am I?
>>2755913
If your tank is like picrelated & you're missing the part in the middle of the pic, you won't really be able to use the tank without it.
The purpose of that piece is to allow liquids into & out of the tank without letting light in - so you can work with the tank with the lights switched on.
>>2755787
If I had to guess, they ran your black and white film through the color processor. This happens at film places more than you'd realize.
>>2755922
Because one of the steps of the colour C-41 process is to bleach/remove the metallic silver that makes up the image in b/w film to only leave behind the colour dyes, yeah.
Do they really do that that often? Not have basic knowledge of the material they're supposed to work with? Seriously?
>>2755926
The real question is
>do people really pay labs to dev black and white?
>seriously?
>>2755926
Shitty places do. It's way more likely than them messing up on the machines. It doesn't take much to run a noritsu. Also places that only do color will gladly take B&W film and fuck it up.
The biggest hint was when he said he gave them a color roll, too.
>>2755787
>>2755884
Holy crap, are you me?
I went to Jessops in the UK, and the idiots royally fucked up my B&W film too, then had the audacity to say it's a "light-leak" from my camera.
I'll post what I sent them a long time ago - I kicked up such a fuss they refunded me back the £50.
I got so discouraged from doing any more film shit, that I was about to sell my gear. I kept it up because of my gf at the time.
Cut to about last year - and my mates got me a Patterson Tank, and being a uni sciencefag, I made some Pyrocat HD in my lab using dirt cheap chemicals. It worked like a fucking treat.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Motorola Camera Model XT1032 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.8 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.4 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 28 dpcm Vertical Resolution 28 dpcm Image Created 2014:10:13 22:35:26 Exposure Time 3/40 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Brightness Unknown Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 3.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2592 Image Height 1456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Low Sharpness Soft Geodetic Survey Data WGS-84
>>2755928
Yes, yes they do...
They usually get sent away to some thick cunts and you receive shit like in the pic.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon DIGITAL IXUS 860 IS Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.8 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 70 dpcm Vertical Resolution 70 dpcm Image Created 2014:10:13 22:47:11 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2755932
Final picture.
Don't go get your shit done in a shop. Full stop.
It's expensive as fuck, and you get mediocre results.
FP4 + Pyrocat HD is your ticket to noob developing with great results.
>>2755931
>I made some Pyrocat HD in my lab using dirt cheap chemicals. It worked like a fucking treat.
Explain please.
>>2755928
With their first rolls of bw film, before they get to see how it works for them? Sure. Hell, I'll hand my roll of tmax100 in when I use it, 'cos I got it for the possibly small grain (save for microfilm or v. low iso ones, obv) and don't want to fuck it up with my lolcaffenol poorfag lo-fi dev idiocy.
Stop acting like it's an abhorrent perversion to not immidieately own a patterson/developer/fixer/stuff setup the moment you purchase your first bw film roll. Plus some people just have the money and lack of interest in dev process control to pay someone to do the dirty work for their snapshits. Autist.
>>2755935
http://www.pyrocat-hd.com/html/mixing.html
Scroll down to "A. Pyrocat-HD (For one liter of Stock Solutions A and B)".
All that shit can be bought from Sigma Aldrich for funny prices - and you can basically develop a 1000 rolls for 3p each! Less than a nickel if you're in the US.
>>2755917
It's not that bit. After looking through some bits it looks like it was a lid and with an agitator rod clipped to it.
The rest of the developing gear is at my ex's house. I found that plastic lid on its own and threw it away. Only today have I realised what it was from.
God dammit. I was just getting over my hoarding. Now I'm going to spend another 10 years keeping useless bits of plastic, bus tickets and ball-bearings in case they're vital to the space program.
>>2755940
That just looks like there wasn't enough developer in the tank, so the film was only half submerged.
>>2755937
is it a free formula for developer? film developer or print developer? Any toxicity risk? Is it ok for total noobs?
>>2755934
i actually dig that photo
you should say thanks to the lab guys
>>2755947
Yep,
It helps a lot if you have a chemical lab at your disposal, and a way of getting the ingredients.
The chemicals will have a MSDS (material safety data sheet) - so they will tell you how toxic the stuff is. Obviously don't breath anything in, don't EAT or DRINK anything, and just use common sense.
I recommend doing solution A in dim light, and quickly - with distilled water - because it tends to oxidise. However at high concentrations, it's rather stable.
Keep it wrapped up in tinfoil and just store it in a dark/cool place and it should be fine.
It's only OK for total noobs if you have had some lab experience.
>>2755943
>>2755944
Yeah, how fucking amateurish is that? The pitfall with a patterson tank is that it tells you that 350 mL is enough - its not! You need at least 400 to cover one film, and 650 to do two.
>Look on the brightside, it improved you shitty subway photo.
Leave your stupid comments in your pocket
>>2755787
Anon, Process B&W at home if you're capable of loading the film onto a reel by yourself. They've only fixed your negatives.
>>2755947
If you are a noob, I'd recommend getting yourself a bottle of Rodinal or HC-110. They are cheap as fuck, really hard to screw up unless you are a total dunce, work very well, and not hazardous. I could understand using pyrocat if you have done hundreds of rolls and you are looking for a trivially small difference in look. Myself? No thanks. Not gonna source all those chems and deal with that process as long as HC-110 is available dirt cheap. Also, shelf-life on rodinal and hc-110 concentrate is, like, nearly forever.
>>2755956
Yeah, Pyrocat-lad here.
Don't really bother making it, I did it for a fun with a mate and got great results. I'll keep using it cos i have a shit load, but I would just get what this chap said and maybe ID-11 or whatever.
>>2755953
Do you know where a total noob can start with home film developing and printing?
maybe videotutorial or something like that where i can actually see how it's done.
Thanks
>>2755956
thanks for the advice
Could you tell me a little more about scanning photos?
>>2755963
There's a few videos. I buy film in bulk and only started in the last 6 months at home myself.
I used these two videos, but it's really very simple. I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and can still do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I41UExVJWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6kwkvDm_YM
Matt Day's video is kind of long but takes you through the whole process.
You'll need the following for 135 film:
A darkbag/changing bag.
Film retreiver (if your camera rewinds the neg into the casette)
Scissors
Patterson/Jobo tank
A thermometer if you're really paranoid about water temperatures, these can be found for pennies on eBay.
Something to measure chemicals/water in. I use a £1 jug and a syringe/measuring spoons.
Chemicals:
Developer: Rodinal/HC110 are good starters and cheap. Rodinal is one shot (one use per mix), never used HC110 myself.
Fixer: I haven't tried many, I just use Ilford Rapid Fixer. This is reusable for a while and is the thing you'll probably buy the most of.
You don't really need a stop bath (used between dev and fixing) or photoflo (used at the end). Water can do the same job for both. Stop Bath is reusable to a point and Photoflo is one shot.
You can get development times here. Select your film/chemical. Agitate for 10s every minute for standard processing and 1m constant for stand development.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?
Stand Development:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?
This is just basically a weak rodinal makeup that you leave sitting for an hour or so depending on the film. Very easy to do.
Get a tank that can take both 120/135 film if you can, keep your chemicals in the fridge or somewhere cool and dark. It's really very easy. If you have any questions just ask in the thread or start a new /film/ general.
[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 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:03 22:09:01
>>2755964
If you are in the states, check this out:
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10190-LegacyPro-L110-Liquid-Film-Developer-1-Pint-to-Make-2-Gallons
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/16241-Arista-Universal-Liquid-Rapid-Fixer-to-Make-1-Gallon
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/72202-Foma-Fomacitro-Stop-Bath-250ml
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/6170-Arista-Flow-Wetting-Agent-4-oz.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12311-Arista-Hypo-Wash-to-Make-1-Gallon
This is all you need to get started chemical-wise. More than you need, actually. The stop bath and Photo-Flo can be substituted with household chemicals, and the hypo-wash can be omitted in exchange for longer wash times.
Go here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
for all of the data you need to make things work.
>>2755977
thank you a lot!
Really helpful, thanks again
>>2755952
>The pitfall with a patterson tank is that it tells you that 350 mL is enough - its not! You need at least 400 to cover one film, and 650 to do two.
All the Paterson tanks I've used all quote 290ml for 135, which I've always just rounded up to 300ml to make the maths easier. Never had a problem.
>>2755977
I posted the wrong links for stand dev:
http://jbhildebrand.com/2011/tutorials/workflow-tutorial-2-stand-development-with-rodinal/
http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2013/10/black-white-film-development-lazy-people/
>>2755978
are them better\cheaper to agfa rodinal\fixer\... ?
>>2755973
bump
>>2755998
The developer that I linked is a housebranded HC-110 (they call it L110...it isn't syrupy like the genuine Kodak stuff, but mixes the same and works just as well). I didn't put Rodinal on the list because it has "ORM-D" shipping restrictions and I avoided that on all of the chems in my list. I don't want noobs scared away because of scary shipping restrictions!
>>2756000
Honestly, it is time for a new film scanning thread. I might just start one since I've had some success on some new-to-me dslr scanned color negative processing...problem is the amount of pure HATE that gets spewed in a scanner/scanning thread on this bored!!
>>2756005
lol why?
>>2756006
>>2756005
Just post it in this thread desu. Discussions are never that detailed to require their own thread.
>>2756005
LMAO
>>2756008
yas
i've got a yashica 108 mp.
Is there any way to manually set the iso for pushing/pulling films?
>>2755984
How is that possible? I remember measure it out, and you needed well over 300 mL for a scare-free development.
>Stop Bath
Get some acetic acid (1-2%) and use that. Works fine.
>mfw I have a chemical lab at my disposal and can get basically anything.
>>2756035
make custom DX labels. It's not super difficult. Make a bunch at once of all different speeds so you won't have to do it again
>>2756011
Ok, you talked me into it.
So I've been pissing around and trying hard to come up with a method of dslr scanning color negatives that is both quick and provides a good starting point for further post-processing in modern image editing software such as Lightroom. I've tried manual inversion coupled with curves/levels, and you can get a good result after alot of manual work. I tried using ColorPerfect. Still wasn't the starting point I had hoped for. Got discouraged. Was away from film for a few months. Came back last week (you can check out, but you can NEVER leave). Found out that my PrimeFilm7200 shit itself and is now a useless brick. Fuck. Thought about replacing it, but goddammit I'd much rather put that money toward an a7rii. Soooo started pissing around with what I have on hand. And I think I found something worthy of further investigation. Short story, we have a6000 w/Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 > MakeTiff > VueScan. I am positive I tried this in the past and it didn't work, but I tried it today and it did. Quite well. I'm going to post a couple pictures and then I will explain in further detail how this process works.
cont.
>>2756140
So here is sample #1. Same Gold 400 Negative, shot and developed yesterday. Left is from HP G4050 flatbed using VueScan. I set VueScan to default and Auto-levels. So basically no user intervention. Also, no sharpening or additional post-processing. And before we get the scanner shitshow argument going, I have had an Epson V600 sitting beside this G4050 and their results are indistinguishable. A V700/750/800/850 will, without doubt, have better results than both, but that's not what this discussion is about.
On the right we have the a6000, with a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 , using a Droid Bionic for illumination. ISO 100, f5.6, .4sec. Didn't expend much effort on negative support, thus the somewhat soft left side of the frame. Take the RAW and pass it to MakeTiff (free download). Take the Tiff and open it in VueScan (not free). I have the professional version of Vuescan and I can't answer whether or not this function is available in the cheaper version. So you set Vuescan source to "File". Select your Tiff. Press preview. Adjust. Press scan. Done. All of Vuescan's features are available within this process.
So here is a down and dirty quick test:
[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 550 dpi Vertical Resolution 550 dpi Image Created 2016:01:29 21:34:21 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 667
>>2756158
And, of course we must provide a crop....
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Jane Image-Specific Properties:
>>2756163
By /p/residential Order,
>flatbed scanners
to be renamed
>S H A T B E D
>H
>A
>T
>B
>E
>D
scanners.
>>2756187
Where is the fucking scanner thread meme photo???? I can't find it anywhere! It's the pic of of dude blowing his stack....best I can describe it.
>>2756158
Thanks a lot for the write up. I've been trying to scan with my LX3 on the macro setting, and while the images are sharp and detailed enough, I can never quite get the colors right even after a ton of work. It's been driving me nuts.
Did you use anything in between your phone and the negative? If I put my negative right on my tablet I can see the pixels in the scan so I elevate it a bit.
>>2756198
Yep, elevated by some genuine ps2 SingStar disk cases.....
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-G900V Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:29 23:43:23 F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program Lens Aperture f/2.2 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Focal Length 4.80 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Night Scene
>>2756200
Nice I was using some old VHS's. Sneakers and What About Bob.
>>2755934
I just did my first DIY roll today, used Ilfosol 3 and Ilford Rapid Fixer. Was stupid fucking easy and I'm really pleased with the result.
Pic related. Film was actually Fujicolor 200 shot about 2 years ago, accidentally rediscovered it and decided to use it to practice my b&w process.
>>2756163
I might also add that the scan on the left took a minute and a half, the one on the right took less than half a second
>>2756209
Better scanning could improve this. But also, c41 is no substitute for proper b&w film. And I say that as one who spends alot of time doing color c41.
>>2756214
Yeah I've got a pile of 400TX I'm going to use from now on, but decided an old color roll I don't care about would make great practice.
>>2756214
Also may as well mention that I scanned this with the cheapest shatbed with a transparency unit I could find. (Epson V370)
>>2755952
i have gotten away with 500ml for 135.
>>2755977
no photoflo? are you dense? (puns) really though, its great if you live in a spot with really hard water that can spot up your negs.
>>2756248
Dish soap, does the same shit and doesn't cost $30 a liter. Put one drop in with your last rinse.
>>2756248
Aha, sorry. I completely forget about water hardness. I have soft water where I live in Scotland so can get away with rinse/agitation cycles. You can also use washing up liquid to do the same, but I do use Photoflo for my MF negs tho.
>>2756200
>>2756158
>>2756140
Nice. I bought extension tubes, a backlight and am capable of scanning negs but the space required/setup time is not worth the trade off in quality. Nice to see you got good results tho.
>>2756209
>>2756214
I use C41 often to just test a camera or lens out at low expense. Based Poundland providing AGFA vista 200 for £1 a roll.
>>2756256
I'm having fun. I'm sure some other setups could do better, but this is good enough for me. Fujicolor200 on this one...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:30 01:46:57
>>2756075
Different model of tank maybe? The 650ml you said for two reels wouldn't even fit in the 2-reel Patersons I use, it would overflow.
So, you scan the negs with a scanner or with a camera, right? Is scanning a print a complete wrong process to avoid?
>>2756307
Scan negs with a camera (or a dedicated scanner if you have one. Convert either with something like Vuescan, or Lightroom and a keen eye
what about monobath?
>>2756229
c41 as b+w comes out very dark/hazy so it is particularly hard on scanners. actual b+w will do much better.
Why is the Japanese auctions no olympus mju II? On ebay there and in Japan there is no
>>2756363
They are being hoarded all around the world by evil art-fag hipsters. It's just a pocket compact 35mm camera that takes shitty photos. There are tens of dozens of other brands and models to choose from. If I go to my local goodwill they will give me a box full of them for pocket change. I picked up a Pentax IQZoom 130m for 2 bucks that takes nice shitty photos, just like the mju!
>>2756379
But after all mju II glass excellent and good quality. You understand what I'm talking about the version without zoom ?
how does a pushed bw film look like?
how does a pulled bw film look like?
how does a pushed color film look like?
how does a pulled bw color look like?
need to see
>>2756545
If only we had some sort of means of searching the internet's contents, say... a search engine of some kind, where you type in phrases or keywords and get both text and image results...
Now, wouldn't that be an amazing world, eh?
>>2756545
bw tends to push/pull pretty well (pushing typically gives a lot better results than pulling)
some color negs can be pushed with good results (portra tends to get really vibrant when pushed 1 stop and it looks great) but i don't know of any that are worth pulling.
>>2756611
you got it mixed up son
>tfw take your first roll of cheap as black and white fuji to walgreens
Am I a photographer yet
>>2756558
still prefer to ask real people and have an actual discussion
>>2756611
I read somewhere that "underexposing a film 1/3 of stop gives you more saturated color" (the topic was of coure pushing/pulling)
not sure about two things:
- underexposing in this case means pushing, right?
-a full stop is like the half, right? so if I have 400 iso, I should set the camera to 500?
Also, talking about the bw I read pulling gives you lower contrast and fine grain (Pushing hard grain and more contrast), but what about the color? does it give me desaturated colors?
>>2756761
>-a full stop is like the half, right? so if I have 400 iso, I should set the camera to 500?
sorry I typed wrong
- a full stop is like the double (400 to 800), right? so if I have 400 iso, I should set the camera to 500 for 1/3 stop?
sorry for the poor english
>>2756749
dont respond to shitty trolls, bud.
>>2756761
but what about the color? does it give me desaturated colors?
my experience with pushing color neg is that it boosts the color, also grain is more noticeable. if one wants pastel tones with color negs you overexpose the film, say 1 or 1 1/2 stops, so when you scan it you get this livid image with faint colors, you drag the curve down and bam muted but even colors, not unlike technicolor.
Can someone redpill me on illford HP4 vs HP5? I can get HP5 for 20% less than HP4.
Is there any other affordable b&w film I should consider for home developing? Should I get a few rolls of absolute shit just to get used to the process or what?
>>2756777
TRI-X?
>>2756786
Can confirm, cheap as fuck but still looks great
>>2756800
Scratch that. I was comparing 24exp to 36exp. Kentmere is a lot cheaper per shot.
>>2756800
Also replace HP4 with LP4.
Spot the newfag.
>>2756804
I mean FP4 obvs.
>>2756817
I'm not uptight, I'm just shattered from a long workday and getting my sick kid to sleep. Now I'm excitedly trying to get all the info I need to order the right stuff before I fall asleep.
Apologies if my enthusiasm outstrips my current competence.
>>2756209
I'm back... Did another dev today. This roll was Kodak Ultramax 400, expired by 5 years. Came out a lot better than the previous one, imo...
Can anyone explain what happened to this film? I sent it to the developer, and it came back green colored, smelly like vinegar, and sticky.
I was able to scan the film and all the colors were washed out and bleak
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4S Camera Software 6.1.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:04:10 13:59:47 Exposure Time 1/20 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Brightness 0.6 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.28 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 750 Image Height 1000 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2756878
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1671 Image Height 1012 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format
>>2756879
That doesn't actually look all that bad, but my guess is that they didn't fix it properly.
>>2756879
thats very fixable dude.
>>2756884
>>2756889
I'm just wondering what happened. I was able to recover the photos, and they wern't for anything important so no major loss, just artefacts
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4512 Image Height 2762 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:01:30 21:32:10 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4512 Image Height 2762
>>2756879
hnnng that fucking color!!!11
>>2756913
yeah, some anon a few months ago had some foul green sticky piss smelling negs back too, it's definitely a developing fuckup and you should definitely get your money back and a free roll.
>>2756913
get your fucking money back. this is some fucking amateur league shit. money back + free roll and developing for said roll. just ham it up about how they were important photos or something
Redneck gravesite/10.
Tried the new scanning routine with 6x7 today. So the process goes: a6000 RAW>MakeTiff>Microsoft ICE>Vuescan>Lightroom. Honestly this negative didn't come out as sharp as it should be, but I was hand holding an rb67 whilst playing peek-a-boo with the sun and clouds.
The BIG take away for me though is I had forgotten just how fucking awesomely film handles saturated reds in direct sunlight. Had I been shooting digital i would have had to massively underexpose to keep those reds under control.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Generic Camera Model Transparency Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:31 19:06:13
>>2757676
weird colors for ektar. i like the picture a lot.
>>2757676
Any more details on the routine?
>>2756200
what's that thing to put the film in called?
Also is the phone essentially just a white background?
>>2757684
Thats a VERY shitty film holder from an HP G4050 Flatbed scanner. It sucks balls. Think I'm gonna try the Lomography Digitaliza holder for 120. I use the Pacific Image holder for 35mm and it is excellent and also available very cheaply from BHPhoto and others.
And yes, the phone is the backlight. I just ordered a nexus 7 pad to do this job (and also be a tablet). The Nexus 7 appears to score high on brightness and looks like a good deal. Now understand that you have to elevate your negative above the phone/pad, else you will see the pixels in your scanned image.
Nothing worse than a warm day in the middle of winter....everthing is still dead and gray.....
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Generic Camera Model Transparency Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:01:31 20:52:16
Any recommendations on wide angle (28mm) lenses for M42 mount? What brand should I look for? My budget is around 40€
Has anyone ever use the fuji klasse s or klasse w?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 45 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:29 00:04:48 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 7.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2758212
I've had a look at that article before. How do you personally find the camera? How are the optics?
>>2757679
Agreed. It's got old color negative feel to it, instead of the pumped up reds and greens Ektar can give you. Or maybe the grass was really that grey looking.
Quick question for the brain trust-
I shot a roll of 400H and after "scanning" them with my camera, I've found that the results come out way too blue in post process. Even after fucking with the hue and white balance, I'm still getting a blue cast over everything.
wat do
>>2758229
>he fell for the dslr scan jew
post blue photo. ill help.
>>2758229
You are shooting raw, aren't you?
>>2758221
>How do you personally find the camera?
Expensive & slow, but it looks & feels so good to me that I find it a pleasure to use & that was really my goal when buying this particular camera.
>How are the optics?
Honestly, I can't really judge it. I've shot maybe 7 or 8 rolls through it so far, but nearly all of that has been in poor conditions for assessing optics (lots of flash indoors, cheap or pushed film) & I scan on a flatbed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:01:19 20:42:30
>>2758237
>Yes? Isn't that what you're supposed to do?
Yes it is, I just wanted to be sure.
Generally, a really easy way to deal with the color cast is to just do a white-balance eye-dropper on the orange mask (or blue mask, after you've inverted)
>>2758226
It really does look that dead in person. I second guessed myself on this cause I thought there was something wrong with my scanning. Went back and looked and the grass has hardly any green in it at all. It's closer to straw colored. I'll grab a digital shot and post it later, although I don't expect to see the sun again this week :(
>>2758238
>expensive
Isn't it only like £200-250?
I've asked in the gear thred but it seems legit to ask here too. Anything I should know about buying a light meter? I would like to get a cheap one as I am a poorfag.
>>2758279
They sell for ~£400 if you want as new/boxed condition. Mine ended up costing me just over £500 after import tax/fees.
does anyone use the New Jupiter 3+?
what about the Minitar- 1?
>>2758290
Yeh fuck buying a new one
>>2758290
>Mine ended up costing me just over £500
Hahaha what?!
Oly Stylus - $1
Fuji HD-M - $30
Konica AR TC w/ 40/1.8 - $30
Fuji GW690 - $240
>tfw buyers remorse
>>2758327
Even second hand they go for substantially more than £200-£250. The most recent one to sell on eBay was £288.33 delivered, which is £360 after tax & fees.
>>2758290
>Mine ended up costing me just over £500
what a cuckold.
>>2758290
>Mine ended up costing me just over £500 after import tax/fees.
OH SHIT IT WASN'T EVEN THE F/1.9 MODEL!
>maxed out kekkonning
First roll of film I've ever developed. I have no way of scanning it yet, so I've digitized it with my DSLR.
should I overexpose the film when I'm using redscale films, or should I pull it, or should I overdevelop it?
what are the bare essentials if I want to start developing bw at home?
>>2758237
You can get decent results for most purposes out of a $99 shatbed. Either a brand new Epson V370 or a higher model used.
Pic related. 35mm 400TX scanned on my V370 at 2400 dpi. Top is the full frame, bottom is a crop at raw resolution.
>>2758426
Here's the spreadsheet I made when I bought all my bw stuff. If you're broke you can get away with ditching the beakers and the media bottle. Also the scissors, bottle opener, negative sleeves, binder, thermometer, etc. if you have suitable ones (or want to rough it). Really all you need is the tank, changing bag, chems, and probably a 120 mL graduated cylinder.
>>2757676
How...
Is MakeTiff necessary? Any difference from the tiffs from Camera Raw?
I ask because I can't get this to work. Closest I can get in Vuescan is a really blue image. Mode: transparency, media: color negative. Everything else auto.
I've had scans on my computer for two weeks and all I want is to get the colors right, but nothing I can do will get me there. Driving me crazy.
>>2758439
>I've had scans on my computer for two weeks and all I want is to get the colors right, but nothing I can do will get me there. Driving me crazy.
upload the fucking things you retard.
>>2758442
>upload the fucking things
What do you mean
>>2758450
I can't tell if you're retarded or if you're trolling. Assuming the former, show us what is wrong so we can tell you how to fix it.
>>2758450
Post a pic here to the photo-sharing site that you are posting these words to and we will crowd-source a range of possible solutions.
>>2758452
>I can't tell if you're retarded or if you're trolling.
I think the former, I can't get any scans to look anything like the prints.
The colors always look shitty (especially if there are people in the shot) and it looks like someone used a bad "retro" filter on a digital image.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Panasonic Camera Model DMC-LX3 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:01 20:30:53 Exposure Time 1 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 5.10 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 781 Image Height 1000
>>2758471
your dlsr scan rig is retarded as fuck. get them scanned for you by proper means, i dont know why youre doing this to yourself.
>>2758478
>get them scanned for you by proper means, i dont know why youre doing this to yourself.
I got them scanned at a shop and they looked terrible.
>>2758482
then show us. retard.
>>2758471
1) did you shoot the photos correctly, on non-expired film?
2) What does your DSLR scan process look like? because this is fucked....
>>2758483
>>2758486
1) Portra 800, prints look great
2) It's not a DSLR it's a Panasonic LX3 in macro mode, on a tripod, on glass above a tablet.
>>2758386
Well done.I like the shot too. Add some contrast or GTFO.
>>2758487
holy shit. this might not be your week.
have you considered that the print is small and you cant pixel peep/grain like youre doing here? portra 800 isnt supposed to be that smooth to the eyes.
now that i think of it, this looks like a scan of a print. i dunno maybe the guys are retards. get the neg scanned in, say a v500, and report back if its worse than the two youve shown.
>>2758496
>you cant pixel peep/grain like youre doing here?
The thing is that some of the scans with my camera have good enough details it's just that I guess I don't know enough about post processing to get the colors to look like they do on the prints.
>now that i think of it, this looks like a scan of a print. i dunno maybe the guys are retards.
It's possible. There doesn't seem to be many options in my city but I'll look around some more.
>>2758503
your scan has lens aberrations, a half is darker than the other, its very soft.. its overall shit man. its not the processing.
>>2758506
Yeah, I had some which were better in terms of the issues you bring up but were of my friends and I didn't feel like posting them to /p/. Suffered from the same processing issues though.
>>2758503
>>2758487
>>2758471
Set a custom white balance on a scan of a blank frame.
That's a good start.
Then when you upload the raws to your computer, inver the image, and fuck around with the white balance adjustment some more.
then once you've exported a jpeg, adjust finally with curves.
[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 2015:10:28 08:08:19 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.6 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 2138 Image Height 795 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2758534
Thanks for the tip, I think half of my first exposure on that roll is blank so I'll try that soon.
>>2758349
Hmm, I guess I'm in a pickle. I do want a compact film camera. It's a tough decision
A local store is selling expired Kodak film (24 exposures) for a $1 per film. Is shooting expired film worth it? I mean I haven't shot expired film before but with that price are they worth getting? Or is it already too much for an expired film since the photos will look like shit when using expired film?
>>2758679
how far expired? But pretty much yes it's worth it. Get as much as possible.
Expired film has weird color shifts. I've noticed expired colorplus has quite a washed out color palette, which I appreciate but you might not. Every roll of expired film is different. I
>>2758550
Dipshit, go to any second hand store.
Buy the first one you see with a prime lens, autofocus (NOT "Focus-free"), and that runs on AA's.
Don't spend more than $10.
It's really that simple.
They all take the same photos.
>>2758682
make sure to test it though because you can be sure the teenage stoner behind the counter didn't
>>2758679
Yeah, buy all of it.
Cheap film is great for parties, or just practice.
Standard operating procedure for expired colour neg film is to overexpose by one stop at least.
Should I overexpose the film when I'm using redscale films, or should I pull it, or should I overdevelop it?
>>2758688
what type of redscale? Lomo redscale or did you load it yourself?
>>2758550
>I do want a compact film camera.
You don't need to spend £350+ on one though. There are great film compacts that can be had for <£20 used.
Pic semi-related, they usually sell for a bit more than £20 in the UK.
>>2758688
You should follow the fucking directions that came with it.
If it didn't come with instructions, you should do your own fucking experimenting and work it out yourself.
>>2758471
You aren't keeping it flat and your LCD light source is way too close to the film. There's a moire pattern from the pixels and the color/brightness shift from the panel. Processing won't help until you address these
>>2758697
Calm down the titties, I'm talking about diy redscale
>>2758712
of what film?
>>2758716
Superia 400 in this case, or maybe a gold 400
>>2758720
Oh good point, there probably aren't dozens of tutorials or examples of using babby's first alternative process on the most common colour film stock in the entire fucking world, hey.
Typing "redscale superia 400" into bing would probably be a total waste of your time.
>>2758725
You probably need some vacation or maybe just some sex, don't you?
for everyone else:
From what I understood I should overexpose it but then I'd like to know how should I develop the film. Like a normal 400 or as a pulled film (200 or whatever)?
guyse, did any of you try the New Jupiter 3+?
>>2758696
I dream about it
Really nice
>>2758731
It doesn't have as much manual control/options as the Klasse, but it's a super fun camera to use when out with friends & the smooth & tiny design means it really is a pocket cam (which the Klasse is not, at least nothing smaller than a jacket pocket). If you see one for a decent price, I thoroughly recommend you pick it up.
Some of my all time favourite snapshits-with-friends have been from a Mju - they aren't 'good' photos by any stretch of the imagination, but they're good memories.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2011:07:08 17:11:40
>>2758746
Yes, when ruble exchange rate a little shaking stops , then immediately buy.
Although it is now possible to buy for $ 40 , but in terms of rubles it's expensive
>>2758769
>I read you should overexpose by one stop for every year it expired. Is that true?
No, that's retarded. ISO100 should be fine, but if it's not you'll know after one roll.
>>2758682
I have one already. I have an olympus XA2. Although I very much enjoy shooting film, so I'd like to UPGRRRRRAADE
>>2758769
rule of thumb is 1 stop per 10y, depends on storage conditions (higher temperature/temp variations faster deterioration), c41 film likes to be overexposed anyway so you're safe off shooting 1 ev over box speed (i.e. meter for 100iso instead of 200)
Question for all you film users out there: What's your personal experience (can attach pic examples, would b. cool) of working with Ilford HP5 400 and/or Ilford Pan 400? How do they render gamma/contrast, what's the grain like, how do they behave push/pulled, anything really.
I'm curious what wisdom all of you can impart.
>>2758696
Where'd you get a mju 2 for a bit more than £20? I found lots of mju 1s for 20 to 30, but I've seen 2s go on ebay for closer to 80.
>>2758435
100000% Autism. I don't know if it's worse that you bought bottles and beakers for so much, that you bought a label maker or that you somehow managed to spend $100 on a scanner.
Looking to get a macro lens for scanning film, any specific qualities i should look for in the lens?
>>2758822
low distortion, edge sharpness, prime so you don't get dust sucked in, has a lens profile in your photo editing programs
>>2758794
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-Mju-II-Ultra-Compact-35mm-Camera-/161964779511?hash=item25b5da67f7:g:3uQAAOSw5dNWrm9U
???
>>2758842
Thank you, but these bids tend to shoot right up. I've been keeping an eye out for a little while.
where can I get an electonic timer to use with my opemus 5?
>>2758786
Sorry, didn't see that. You're unfortunately probably going to end up having to make a tough decision & take a gamble, because things like the Klasse range aren't really common enough that you'll find anybody that will let you try theirs out first. On the positive side, they will probably maintain their value quite well so you can sell it on if you don't like it?
If you ever visit London, you may find things like Contax T2/T3, Konica Hexar, Nikon 35ti, GR1, etc. in shops that will let you handle them, but I've never seen a Klasse in the wild.
>>2758794
I bought 2x maybe ~5 years ago. One from ebay, the other from preloved, I think I paid just over £40 each for them. I stupidly dropped one on some concrete stairs though :(
Another place to look as a UK resident is the classifieds on rangefinderforum.com (they're not limited to just rangefinders).
I can change any zenit/fed/zorki on mju ii lol
>>2758924
>I stupidly dropped one on some concrete stairs though :(
Sorry to hear that, man.
At least it's just a camera and not a person's life.
>>2758822
Why are people such dumb niggers?
WHAT FUCKING CAMERA ARE YOU USING?
IT'S THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS DECISION.
>>2758917
From the bin at a garage sale.
In seriousness though, your Opemus isn't very good.
You're far more likely to find a timer attached to a better enlarger in a set that someone's selling.
>>2758924
>Konica Hexar
Not a compact.
>i want one tho
>>2758786
Like I said, anything with autofocus and a built in flash.
All you gain by spending hundreds of dollars on one of the "luxury" compacts is aperture control, and the fear that you'll drop it/lose it/get it stolen.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 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 2015:04:26 20:46:42 Exposure Time 1/90 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 533 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Center-Weighted 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 Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2758989
I got it for free few years ago.
I have really no money to spend in enlargers and they are fucking expensive
>>2758995
>All you gain by spending hundreds of dollars on one of the "luxury" compacts is aperture control, and the fear that you'll drop it/lose it/get it stolen.
As I said in >>2758238 I find it very enjoyable to use, more so than other 35mm compacts that I've used. In terms of functionality & performance it may be no different, but as one of my main criteria was to find a camera that I really enjoyed using, I was happy to pay more for that. When you're shooting primarily for fun, features & performance arent the only things to consider.
Hey guys, what is the absolute best film scanner I can get for under $400 AUD?
>>2758822
>Looking to get a macro lens for scanning film, any specific qualities i should look for in the lens?
Tokina 100mm f2.8 Macro
Cant even imagine the happiness of all you brits with your poundland
[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 2592 Image Height 1936
>>2759259
Eos M, adapted vintage macro lense, flash on an extension cable.
>>2759332
>1 pound for all the stuff I could have bought at $1
America strong!
>>2759334
What manual macro lenses would you recommend? I have a Canon 6D.
>>2759334
Why can't you just use a lens reverse ring or an extension tube together with the nifty fifty?
>>2759348
>go to poundland
>find scumbag worker
>ask them if they have any of the film still wrapped in 24 packs
>take to youngest person on the tills
>tfw 240 frames for £1
>>2759397
Packs of 10* I wish they came in 24 packs
Seriously, noone ITT shot Ilford HP5+ or Ilford Pan 400?
>>2759423
I shoot both, working my way through a brick of Pan 400 at the minute. I like it, not tried pushing it past 800 yet though.
>>2759440
No due to demand they got it back. Cartridges are now pink but it's the same stuff.
http://www.poundland.co.uk/agfa-vista-plus-camera-film-200-24
>>2759423
I shoot HP5 but I'm thinking of switching to triX as it is a lot less grainy at 1600 when developed in hc110
>>2759356
It's not a macro lense, it isn't sharp enough and doesn't have a flat enough field.
>>2759354
Literally any *real* macro lens. Lots of the old 50mm macros like the canon FD, the micro Nikkors, the pentax 50/4 are cheap as shit.
Really though, for ease of use, and also general versatility as a portrait lens, etc, the Canon EF 100/2.8 Macro is the way to go.
It's what I use, it's wonderful.
I've seen them going for as little as $325 AUD.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:03:15 11:23:56 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/9.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/9.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5074 Image Height 3412 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2759423
HP5 is great. It's my preference in fast black and white.
This is red filtered.
I love the skin tones unfiltered in low light, but unfortunately I don't post people on 4chan.
[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 2015:12:30 07:54:45 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 532 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 Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2759423
I shoot mainly hp5
Here's a street snapshit, I don't have many pictures on my phone
What about expired instax films /p/? I saw a good deal for $20 for 2 boxes of 20 films. That's roughly $.50 per film.
Is there a difference between expired Instax and non-expired ones?
>>2759501
Depends massively on how expired and how they were stored
>>2759468
http://phogotraphy.com/2015/12/02/poundland-discontinue-agfa-vista-35mm-film/
Sad but true senpai
Why should I develop BW400CN in c-41 color processing?
>>2759512
That was December they have since restocked and the cartridges have changed. Read my link "back by popular demand".
You can even order it in packs of 100 on the website
>>2759474
Would the 85 1.8 with extension tubes be better than the 50 1.8?
>>2759520
Because it's a c41 process film, so if you do some other process it won't look like it's supposed to.
>>2759504
Around 6 months? They were stored in room temperature and not inside the freezer.
>>2759525
>it's a c41 process film
Why digital truth doesn't have the c-41 chart for BW400CN?
>>2759626
Delta and hp5 are different grain structures I think. I use delta 3200 for night stuff and I like it but the grain is much larger than hp5
>>2759626
go to apug fagtron. any info you're looking for is already there
>>2759440
They haven't. It was marked as discontinued because AGFA changed the branding. It's still in stock and steady.
I have about 50 rolls in my fridge that I'll probably never use.
>>2759626
Purely from my own experience:
I'm fairly sure HP5 and Pan are different emulsions, I've heard people say they're not, but it's a negligible difference in my opinion. Some people have said Pan 400 is the beginnings and end of the big HP5 rolls they manufacture at the Ilford factories where the quality control is a little less than with the consistent results they get in the middle. Not sure whether I believe that, but the differences are small enough between them that it's plausible.
The difference between HP5, and Pan 400, is far smaller than the difference between HP5 and FP4 for example (which I guess you'd expect since HP5 and the Pan are both 400 speed, and FP4 is 125 I think). I notice a little larger grain with the Pan, but it dries about as flat as the HP5 which was always one of my favourite things about HP5. The grain looks spookily identical to Delta 400. Dynamic range is roughly the same but Pan is a little bit more picky about the exposure. If you're bang on they perform about the same, but if you're too far under you lose shadow detail on the Pan faster than on the HP5.
I do think the quality of the actual plastic bit of the film (not the emulsion) is a little lower, it seems to snag a little easier when loading it into the reels for the development tank. Aside from that I treat it exactly the same as my HP5. If you're going by the box even the development times are the same.
I use Ilfosol 3, my Canon A1, and before it broke my Olympus XA. So things are consistent.
All in all I think they're similar enough that you can just treat them identically. I'd definitely recommend it as a cheaper alternative to HP5. I'm looking to try Kentmere 400 after I'm done with my Pan. Kentmere's a little easier to get hold of here in the UK. Gotta support the home team though innit.
>>2759626
>bait/10 kill yourself
Why
>>2759662
Awesome mate, cheers! It's people like you that make this board a genuinely cool and informative place.
>>2759645
I did, queefqueen, I'll still want to hear what people around here have to say, QED the britanon above.
>>2759666
Because the C-41 process is by definition standarised and automated, with no room for variation unless you're into some kinky hue shift shit. The whole idea is to dev films of different speeds and with very varying exposure conditions on them at the same time in the same chemistry.
C-41 bw film is for lazy convenience of having bw pics cheaply and dependably dev'd at a photolab. Read up on stuff you post about b4 you post about it, dingus.
>>2759690
i never understood c41 bw. it is more expensive than normal bw when you factor in home dev.
>very fine grain
>unparalleled latitude
>unique tonality
>can get it dev'd anywhere
>>2759705
If you don't homedev you can still take it to most chemists and supermarkets to get 1 hour processing. I think that's literally the only reason it exists
>>2759705
It's for people who don't do home dev.
>>2759706
>looks worse than real b&w film
>>2759705
Basically, >>2759707 , >>2759708 and >>2759706 summed it up. Dye clouds look/behave differently than silver grains, giving it a very fine look (then again it's usually iso 400 film) and like all C41 films, it loves overexposure even by several stops. Basically the bw film for people who want the look but not the extra effort/knowledge required.
