/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
In which we discuss all things film, noobs ask noob questions about film, /p/ros post film pictures to share with the group.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA DP1 Merrill Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Focal Length Range 19 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 10:03:28 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 19.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030333132323837BA7CB45641464132 Drive Mode 2S Resolution HI Exposure Mode A Metering Mode A Exposure 5/15467 Contrast -1.0 Shadow 1 Highlight -1.1 Saturation 0.9 Sharpness 1.0 Fill Light 1.0 Color Adjustment 12601/1296517459 Adjustment Mode 0.2752
I'll start us off with some Tri-X developed in the Neofin shown in OP.
This is a highly inappropriate film/dev combo, but I was interested to see how it would turn out.
Dev time was something like 20 minutes with agitation every minute.
[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 2016:01:18 12:45:55 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 554 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
>>2760790
It came out with very grainy shadows but quite long highlights and good sharpness.
These next 3 are with an orange filter.
[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 2016:01:18 12:58:06 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 535 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
>>2760794
And by good sharpness, I mean pretty intense edge effects.
It looks pretty rough in 35mm, I imagine it could be quite interesting in medium format and the right subject.
Each vial of Neofin Blau is good for 2 films, I had already dev'd the Ortho 25 I had first up, so I threw this roll in to use it up and experiment a little.
Neofin's intended use is to tame the contrast of slow films, which it's great for.
[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 2016:01:18 13:08:00 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 544 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
>>2760790
>>2760794
>>2760819
Looks really good, did you shoot it box speed? How much fucking around in post did you do?
I have been experimenting the last few weeks trying to get Tri-X working for me at high speeds, with different developers and dilutions.
Finally I gave in and went with D-76 even tho I hate mixing powder.
Shooting at 1600 and devving for 1600 gave slightly disappointing results, but I devved two rolls for 1600 today shot at 800, and they look good judging from the negs hanging in my shower atm, so I'll try next to shoot at 1600 and dev for 3200.
But, on the 135 the edges are totally fucked, and I can't quite understand why. The reels are cleaned thoroughly, yet they are getting worse and worse to work with. I think I'm ready to go stainless steel, but how much more difficult are they to use? Is it worth the cost?
Pic related is 135, with fucked edges.
And here's the 120, which looks pretty good, even tho it's the same type of reel, and they should both be very clean.
>>2760819
This last one I've done a lot less post to, just a single curves adjustment, and resized a bit larger, so you can have a better idea of how it looks.
It's just a bit "nice from afar" for me. If you wanted to do a small print, at a quite low contrast, the tonal relationship is quite pleasant, but I prefer fine detail and high contrast, and this combo doesn't give the shadow detail or sharpness I'm after.
Does anyone else have interesting devs to share?
>inb4 x-pro C-41 as black and white guy, it looks horrible and your photos are garbage
[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 2016:02:05 10:37:18 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 800 Image Height 1202 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
>>2760832
>>2760833
Those 35mm negs are very thin, and even the 120 is too thin for me.
You need to realise that pushing your film in development doesn't make it more sensitive to light when you're shooting it. It just grows bigger darker clumps of silver in your highlights.
Th reason people do rodinal stand devs of pushed Tri-X is that it leaves the highlights relatively alone and works a little to bring the shadows closer to that level, but even then it doesn't look that good.
If you must shoot in the dark, use faster lenses and expose longer, or pony up for Delta 3200.
Stainless reels are harder to load than clean plastic ones. Stainless tanks are much leakier and slower to get chems into and out of. It's up to you to decide if you think getting the parts of your film you don't use developed properly is worth the extra hassle.
am I right that film has bo need for white-balance? or do you buy film for say day or artificial light? how does film manage to be more tolerant to white-balance than sensors?
>>2760832
>did you shoot it box speed?
And yes.
>How much fucking around in post did you do?
A lot, except on the last one.
I use a duplicate layer, set to multiply, and with a grayscale copy of layer as a mask, quite a bit. It recovers highlights quite nicely without bringing down the rest of the image too much.
>>2760850
thanks for the reply
I realize that, but I see people getting good results with his combo, so I'm a bit miffed I'm not able to recreate them as well as I want.
High contrast and grain is not a problem to me, I just want it to look not shit while achieving that if you know what I mean.
I tried one roll of Delta 3200 before and it came out absolutely shit, probably because I was stupid enough to dev it in Rodinal. Guess I could try it again with a different developer.
Tomorrow I'll scan them and see how it went, I'm also borrowing an enlarger from a friend, so I'll try to print a few of them.
>>2760857
Delta 3200 has far too little contrast in rodinal, use anything else. Tmax Dev is a good choice.
If you actually metered properly, for the ambient light, rather than just the cameras TTL meter that will only see the highlights in the frame, you'd probably find your exposures at 1600 will be where your camera would have put them at 400 anyway.
What is the cheapest color film dev setup?
>>2760853
>am I right that film has bo need for white-balance?
no
>>2760853
>do you buy film for say day or artificial light?
yes, usually daylight balanced or tungsten light balanced
>how does film manage to be more tolerant to white-balance than sensors?
it doesn't. except for the very recent kodak vision2 (portra being derived from it), color balance with film is a pita. especially with reversal films.
back in the old days of film prevalence, commercial product photography was very well paid bc it was technically difficult af to master tone reproduction according to films; this including color balancing (and lightening) according to emulsions.
>>2760880
either c41 or e6 chemicals cost roughly the same, price difference being mainly on roll prices. nonetheless, ra4, that is color paper printing, is way cheaper than both.
Just wanted to chime in and say that im a fucking retard, a literal dumbass retard because i shot a whole roll today, just to discover when i was rewinding it that i loaded it bad and the fucking piece of shit didnt advance. Im fucking pissed, i feel robbed.
>>2760923
Everyone makes mistakes at the start. I once snapped a roll in my camera trying to expose past 36 pictures. Then thinking i was throwing it in a bin, i threw a brand new roll instead losing 2 rolls
When you buy a shitty film scanner from the size of a slap chop, these are your results.
Still attempting to get the right procedure down for dslr scanning which seems to be the best route without spending too much.
What are your experiences with getting film photos into the digital?
Here's one of the slap chop scans.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Film Scanner Camera Model Filmscan 35mm Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2400 Image Height 1600 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 20:25:15 Exposure Time 1481089/16777216 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 0 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Exposure Index 1
>>2760780
What's the silver ringlike object to the bottom left?
>>2760966
That's a stainless steel developing reel for 120 film.
>>2760961
obligatory.
[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
>>2760961
The pic you posted is an interior artificially lit scene using daylight balanced film. That's not the best scenerio to judge a scanner's performance. Shoot some pics in good, well lit daylight and go from there.
[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 2016:02:05 00:48:17
This is how the slapchop does B/W it was kind of a mess of a scanner and the shots were big hit and miss sometimes. I've found some reading material for dslr scanning i'll be looking into it more.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Film Scanner Camera Model Filmscan 35mm Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2400 Image Height 1600 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 22:01:52 Exposure Time 1481089/16777216 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 0 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Exposure Index 1
Does /p/ try interesting techniques when they're developing? This one here I painted ilford devo quickly onto the paper. You have to cover all your subjects area quickly or else the burn will be uneven.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1500 Image Height 2100 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 22:14:44 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 714
>>2761014
Pretty fun idea. I might steal it.
>>2760832
>The reels are cleaned thoroughly, yet they are getting worse and worse to work with. I think I'm ready to go stainless steel, but how much more difficult are they to use? Is it worth the cost?
Get a hewes reel. the 135 reels are a lot easier to load than traditional steel reels and they don't bend or flex easily. They're a little more expensive than a standard reel, but that's what everyone recommended when i looked at getting one. My film was getting kinked on the plastic reels and ruining shots so I decided to try steel out.
they're still a little bit harder to load than plastic, but I didn't have any trouble with it in the dark after a few practice runs. Just watch some youtube tutorials on it and you'll be fine.
just finished a roll of ilford delta 3200, what should i load next?
>>2761161
in what lighting conditions/what kind of themes do you plan on shooting/encountering/working with?
Because, y'know, these films differ very much depending on that.
Guys: caffenol. the cheap/gimmicky/shit/awesome developer, anyone ITT used it? What's your opinion, what're your thoughts on it? ("it" is a loose term, there are many recipies)
>>2761250
No no, I'm a film gearfag. I don't pick film based on the photos I want to take, I pick photos based on the film I want to shoot.
>>2761256
You do realise, in your satire, that that's an actual legit way of going about photography sometimes, right? You wouldn't load up on delta3200 to shoot bokeh-rich midsummer noon portraits.
>>2761262
Try the t-grain ones, ilfrd delta or tmax (prolly tmax 'cos 2 stops faster eh) for the extra contrast in the dull grayish wintertime weather.
But moreso: post delta3200 pictures, faggot. There must be at least 1 non-snapshit in the 36ish you took.
>>2761272
i just unloaded it, i need to get off my ass and develop. maybe ill do that while im snowed in this afternoon
>>2761272
>ou do realise, in your satire, that that's an actual legit way of going about photography sometimes, right? You wouldn't load up on delta3200 to shoot bokeh-rich midsummer noon portraits.
It may be a "legit" way of doing it, but it's still fucking stupid. If you don't know what you're going to shoot, why would you pick a film in the first place? Why not wait until you know what you're shooting, then pick the most appropriate film, and then shoot it?
I recently bought an Oly OM-10 from eBay, I've never shot with an analogue camera but I wanted to try one. I'd like to take B/W pictures with it (also would like to try a Tri-X film) but I don't really know which film I have to buy and if they are so expensive or not.
Looking for some advice.
>>2761292
Buy Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-X 400. You want the 135 or 35mm stuff, should say 36 exposures.
Don't buy 120
>>2761292
TriX is super great. Very versatile, and works well at ISO 100, and ISO 3200. Most people love it. Film isn't cheap, and good film even less so, but it's a lot harder to screw up than digital, since it has so much exposure latitude (Still TriX we're talking about here, not ALL films)
Grab a box of rolls and shoot away.
It's also very easy and rewarding to do development at home on your own, but you may be intimidated by that at first. It saves you a LOT of money though, so definitely consider it.
Pic Related - TriX 400, 120 film, 645 shot, developed at home in XTol 1+1, scanned on a V500. Old shot, but I re-scanned it last night and this seems like an appropriate place to share it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1082 Image Height 1500 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 12:36:27 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1082 Image Height 1500
>>2761303
what camera were you using that records all of the exposure data on the negative?
>>2761326
Pentax 645N with the FA 150mm lens.
My favorite medium format camera I've used.
I just found a Voigtländer Vittoret in excellent conditions in an antique shop, but the focus ring seems almost loose, like very very quick to turn
Is that a normal thing or is it just this camera ?
>>2760915
C41 is what I'm most familiar with, what about keeping temps at 102? heaters? options outside of jobo
>>2760923
I always do an extra shot/advance with the back open on the camera to make sure that I don't do this. I lose a shot a roll, but never lose an entire roll.
>>2761329
>no wlf
D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D
>>2761340
I fucking hate WLFs. They're annoying, you lose connection with your model because you're staring at your dick, you have to remember to move the opposite direction for framing, it's harder to focus with wider apertures, etc. etc. etc.
Happy to have recently sold my Bronica WLF for nearly $200 usd though.
Anyone shot the Shanghai GP3 120 or the Shanghai 4x5 film? Tips? I have a box of the 4x5 at the house waiting for the weekend.
Ilford Delta 3200, shot at 1600 & developed in Diafine. Shot with a Kodak Retina Reflex S & Schneider-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 50mm f/1.9
>>2761332
How rapidly do you think water loses heat? Just stick your tanks and measuring jugs in a basin on water at the right temp.
>>2761346
>you lose connection with your model because you're staring at your dick
Just think of it as "giving them a hint" :^)))
>>2761346
wlf's are incredibly useful for composition and framing, they also make it easier to connect with people, since they can see your face, and you don't look like a creepy snapshiter
once you grow out of your bokeh phase, you'll stop shooting medium format wide open in daylight and start using it for its actual advantages
>>2761370
damn that's super grainy, no shadow detail to speak of either
if you're gonna use diafine, stick with tri-x @ 1600 for speed, classic combo
pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2761416
Why would it be difficult to compose and frame with a traditional viewfinder?
>>2761416
I found myself in a dark bar with just a roll of HP5 Plus and a roll of Ilford Delta 3200. I'd normally shoot tri-x, but just didn't have any.
>>2761458
Delta 3200 is weird. I like to push it one extra stop over what I shot it at
>>2761418
it's not hard, but wlfs allow you to visualize the end result much better
I'm getting a Hasselblad this weekend.
I shot a lot of 35 and LF back in school, but that was a decade ago and I had access to a real darkroom. Now that I'm in a small apartment with nowhere to set up real gear, what do you guys think the best way to actually USE the Hassy is? I was thinking of shooting B&W, loading reels in a dark bag, souping film in the bathroom, and then scanning the negs.
>>2761555
Why is that? Are you looking at the scene exactly the same way in both? (Also, in a traditional finder, it's not reversed)
>>2761556
Shoot it, home develop it in a dark bag, hang the negs in your shower, and scan them with a DLSR kit or one of the nicer Epson scanners.
>>2760832
>Shooting at 1600 and devving for 1600 gave slightly disappointing results
>>2761262
>what ever it is, ill probably push it 1-2 stops
>>2761416
>stick with tri-x @ 1600
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CAN YOU PEOPLE STOP?
The number on the fucking box when you load a roll of film isn't a fun joke they're playing on you.
It tells you how sensitive to light the film is.
It's that simple.
Nothing you can do in development is going to increase the amount of light that hit the film.
If you want good results in low light, keep the fucking shutter open longer and hold your fucking camera still.
Or, here's an idea... use a goddamned flash.
>>2761564
I push triX for the look
>>2761567
Great for you, dickhead.
Show us one picture you took where you loved "the look" of your pushed Tri-X?
>>2761564
yeah, I know, but films like tri-x have a ton of latitude, so you can underexpose them a stop or two and still get good results. pushing is really just increasing the contrast in the lower portion of the curve, which pushes the upper shadows into midtones.
and developers like diafine, or push developers like microphen are fine grain, low contrast, very active developers, so developing for a longer time doesn't exacerbate film grain and highlight density
Well I just got my first TLR camera on my birthday.
Still using my D90's meter as a crutch though.
Can wait to get my first roll developed!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software Ver.1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 848 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Left-Hand, Bottom Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 22:14:28 Exposure Time 0.4 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Comment Jaerder Sousa Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4288 Image Height 2848 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Image Quality NORMAL White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-A Flash Setting NORMAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 200 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Unknown Lens Range 50.0 mm; f/1.8 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 40554
>>2761250
It is a fairly weak developer. It's fun to make but it could end up being very messy. The resulting solution has a strong pungent smell to it and your photos will smell for a couple of weeks or so.
The images lack contrast and your developing times will be extended 3 or 4 minutes compared to an Ilford standard 90sec.
It will stain your stop bath so make sure you don't plan on using it again. They give your photos a true vintage look but it is not your method if you're trying to be precise with it.
Caffenol is a real rough and dirty kind of processing. You may even be adding more grains while your print is soaking.
This one is a print made in homemade caffenol and a homemade fixer. Unfortunately the fixer was using an ammonia base, was ineffective, and nearly poisoned me. I ended up having to take it to my college lab and fixing it there.
There is definite potential for real fine prints out of caffenol but it will take more effort than just developing with standard chemicals.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2481 Image Height 1763 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:27 18:11:59 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 711 Unique Image ID DE6F17290C064E91B7535B0BEBC582BC
>>2761588
good lord
>>2761564
>The number on the fucking box when you load a roll of film isn't a fun joke they're playing on you
Wow stop posting any time.
Opening the shutter and standing still is fine if your subject isn't moving either.
Using a flash is fine unless you want to capture the dim light that's already there.
Pushing Tri X 400 to 3200 looks as good or better, and is cheaper, than 3200 film.
>>2761564
Seriously though, the stops you can adjust with the shutter will be more convenient than adjusting stops with different development processes. plus you wont be ruining the rest of your frames. Just get a high contrast filter on your enlarger if you want that kind of look.
>>2761588
You did not take this picture my friend
>>2761564
u mad bro
>>2761624
>Daido.jpg
GEE I WONDER WHAT GAVE IT AWAY
>>2761560
Cool, that's basically exactly what I'm planning on. (I'll probably get an Epson V550 to scan with.)
It just occurred to me that maybe it wouldn't be the worst idea to go take a community college film photo class if they still offer them. Much of it will be stuff I already know, but it'll give me access to a darkroom and I'm pretty damn rusty with developing.
Is that film any good ?
I'm having a hard time not associating lomography with shitty film
>>2761656
I quite enjoy it, it's reasonably good. If you can get it for cheap then go for it
>>2760912
is it possible to correct white balance when developing film? if yes, enough to work with a daylight film under artificial light?
>>2761634
>>2761624
>>2761588
>>2761567
This fucking Moriyama aesthetic is all you fucktards have in your mind when you decide "i wanna push tri-x to 1600".
Hot tip, shit for brains:
>IT'S ALL DONE IN POST
That insane contrast is a printing technique.
That's why I asked you to post a picture YOU had taken that you liked.
It won't happen.
With digital post processing, you can apply this look to almost ANY picture at all.
By failing to properly expose your film, you're just limiting the information you have to work with on the negative.
>>2761660
Thank you then, I'll probably grab some
>>2761671
You are out of your fucking mind if you don't think daido didn't push his film.
>>2761685
He did, but pushing alone doesn't achieve that high contrast effect. It's a combination of pushing, developing and wet printing techniques which he honed over his years
>>2761671
Also, there is literally no picture that anon could've posted that you would've liked. I'm not saying that the photo doesn't exist, but like even if I exposed, developed and then sold a picture for a million dollars in front of you, you still wouldn't like it.
I don't know why you're even so upset about this?
>>2761689
>IT'S ALL DONE IN POST
>>2761694
you're responding to two different posters. no need to get booty bothered
Can't a tri-x neg shot at 400 and developed for 400, even in low light, be postprocessed in lr/ps after scanning to achieve exactly the same effect as pushing it to, say, 1600?
>>2761709
negatory
>>2761715
asking since all pushing does is enlarge the already existing/developed grains, effectively making them darker, making even faintly developed areas visible. It won't magically make new information appear on the negative. And you can easily up the contrast and gamma of the non-pushed, fainter thinner negative to achieve exactly the same effect.
>>2761709
Nope. Yet another advantage that digital has over film.
>>2761685
I'm not saying he did or didn't.
I'm saying that his images are not what pushed tri-x looks like.
The look of his images is the result of his darkroom work, and his style, composition and use of light.
Pushing tri-x isn't going to give you that.
On the other hand, shooting your film correctly, and knowing how to use gimp, give you the option to mimic the style with any film stock you like.
>>2761694
Pic related, cuntmullet.
It's from a Fuji 100ISO colour negative.
>>2761692
I said that HE liked. Specifically, he said
>>2761567
>I push triX for the look
That's the point I'm refuting. They push tri-x because they got terrible advice on the internet.
I got ragey because every time one of these noob-canoes has posted, it's to complain about how their pushed tri-x doesn't look how they want it to, is their developer wrong, etc.
NO. Their whole technique, and approach to shooting and processing is wrong.
[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 2016:02:06 12:00:13 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 672 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2761720
Feel very free to try it.
>>2761724
I like the look of pushed tri x
ima push Ilford panf 50 to 6400 to see if I can make you to a rage-shit.
>>2761669
no, it isn't possible.
that said, modern kodak emulsions (new portra, ektar) will tolerate different light temperatures fairly well; especially new portra under tungsten light, it looks good.
generally, reversal film (slides) won't tolerate even a bit of unbalance, looking a bit tinted in the end. there was fuji t64, which was tungsten balanced but still looked reasonably good under sodium light and warm fluorescent light, very unique.
>>2761724
[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 2016:02:06 18:51:32 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 538 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2761756
you're just gonna get a blank negative fucktard
>>2761923
Don't say that, I'd rather he wasted his time and money.
![SvemaMZ3[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CrdI1wC.jpg "SvemaMZ3[1].jpg")
Has anybody shot this? Is there a way of developing it as slides instead of negatives?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:05:14 00:50:16 F-Number f/2.8 Comment Camera+ recipe? ? scene Clarity ? crop Square ? effect Fashion (6%) ? border Dark Grit Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 645 Image Height 645 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2761954
It was nice of you to write all that but I asked specifically about MZ3 because it actually is a slide film. That's why the bits you can see in the attached photo are white rather than the usual black.
>>2761955
Sorry. The answer is yes, then. Very easily. Just google bw film reversal. Pointless to transcribe googlable content here.
>>2761958
I don't know why I bothered asking.
Yes, I did google it. No, it's not that easy.
You should have left the other post. Maybe someone else could have used that information even though I can't.
>>2761602
>Still using my D90's meter as a crutch
Using a light meter app on your phone would be less cumbersome
>>2761962
If you ever developed bw film (which everyone itt continuously claims is easy), you just add an extra four steps (bleach, wash after bleach, re-expose to light, re-develop) to the process, with very easily obtainable chemicals (potasium permanganate - otc substance, sulphuric acid - battery acid, again any chem store and sodium disulphite - the hardest of the lot, you actually have to use ebay or a chemistry store to get it, egads),
But if those scary big chemical names or extra steps are "not thaf easy", there are always ready-made reversal kits, kodak tmax, ilford's and european foma. So, you know, following instructions. Like in the googlable recipies I directed you towards. Tough luck.
Will it work with expired svema film not manufactured with the intent of being used in that chemistry? If anyone ever tried, they'd know, literally no other way of discerning that. Again, the emulsion might be old and flake off during bleaching, and the dev times will be different, again with no possibility to theoretically predict the interaction of over a decade (or more) old film stock with modern chemistry designed for a different material.
The best possible thing to do, you fucking lazy spoonfed faggot, would be to find the original svema-endorsed rev dev process or chemistry and either recreate it, use expired readymade kits shipped from russia by some Ivan or extrapolate dev conditions for contemporary chemistry. Faggot.
>>2761993
>>2761995
For the third time. It's not a normal b/w film that can be reversed. It's a positive film which was most likely developed in specialized chemicals completely different from the ones used for negatives, even reversed negatives.
I'd love to find the original recipe for that and I was asking because I had a tiny sliver of hope someone here might know them.
No, I have not been able to find it on google.
Maybe you have since you're talking so much trash, though.
>>2762008
>It's not a normal b/w film that can be reversed. It's a positive film which was most likely developed in specialized chemicals completely different from the ones used for negatives, even reversed negatives.
Haha wow, now I actually want to educate you to make you realise how wrong and stupid you sound.
"which was most likely" - so, without any prior knowledge, you're just guessing/assuming something? How does that work?
Look, your special snowflake white film looks like that because, being a slide/positive film, it has a clear, transparent base. Which has nothing to do with the actual photographic emulsion that's on it.
>specialized chemicals completely different from the ones used for negatives, even reversed negatives
No bumblefuck, there's no magic different way of making silver halides suspended in gelatin react to light, slide, negative or C41. It all works the same. I just googled the film name and the second result informs about the preferred developer type.
The film's whiteness? That's the same collodial silver antihalation layer nearly all films have and which'll dissolve during the bleaching I mentioned a few posts up.
Seriously, how can you have the audacity to post and argue here without doing basic research about bw slide/reversal process/materials.
>>2762017
Thanks for all your help.
>>2761950
I posted a lot on this board about my attempts to develop this both as negative and positive. That was a couple years ago I guess. Don't know if there are archives for that.
I did not find it as easy as kurwa did. Not at all.
Hey guys what the fuck happened here
For pet/wildlife and macro, is 35mm the most useful format?
I keep looking at MF systems (Mam 645, Pen 67), since bigger = better and muh details and muh bokeh, but I don't see much as far as macro lenses or shutter speeds higher than 1000, which is borderline too slow for running dogs or flying birds.
So what gives? Am I stuck with my baby cameras to have the most effective gear for these things?
>>2762043
yes.
>>2762048
A short, direct, non-fag-calling answer? On /p? On 4chins?
I need to go to hell, because It's apparently frozen over.
Ektar 100 @ 800. Potatoscan 2000.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Express 9.0 (Android) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:06 09:01:01
Don't remember what this was shot on. Potatoscan 2000
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Express 9.0 (Android) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:06 09:01:41
>>2762043
Most MF cameras are studio/architecture cameras.
There are some macro lenses, but I don't know how they perform (p67 135mm macro works well as a portrait lens, tho).
I've seen wildlife photography done with a p67, but it was rather large team, and more artsy stuff.
Nonetheless, contax 645 have a top shutter speed of 1/4000, it has AF, the lenses available for it are really top notch. I think you can't do better than that IQ wise. It's considerably more pricey than other MF systems tho.
>>2761353
Yes, the emulsion is very nice but the quality control isn't. Had problems only with the 120 version, tho.
There's a good thread on it on apug I think.
>>2762043
>macro lenses
a lot of mf cameras have bellows, which allow very close focusing
but using mf and film in general is dumb for capturing fast movement. stick with dslrs or eventually more modern 35mm film slrs, like late nikon f or canon eos cameras. they have fast shutter speeds and mounts that allow the use of modern zoom lenses
>>2762074
You aren't kidding about that Contax 645. Jesus... If that's the only system that comes close to the abilities of 35mm, I'm going to be rather happy to stick with 35mm. I can buy so much film for what those are running.
>>2762097
I disagree with you on the fast movement and film. I've shot sports and animals with an FM2, and N80 for a while. It can be tricky to figure out how to make usable images when limited by film speed, and using manual focus, but it can be done without problems most of the time. Just have to practice techniques and have the knowledge to expose differently.
I used to own an F5, and sold it for whatever nonsense I wanted at the time. So I know what the modern film cameras are capable of.
Just been trying to figure out whether to buy another F5 (or F6), or jump up to MF, hence asking originally, but it seems like the stuff I shoot is pretty incompatible with MF gear.
C'est la vie
>>2762121
There's also mamiya 645af, which has the same features of contax 645, but much cheaper. I think you can get a kit for under 1000usd.
The photographer who uses a p67 for wildlife is Nick Brandt. His work is really really good, but it's not done the usual way. He goes on a jeep on safaris, with a team supporting it etc. Flying solo might be trickier.
>>2762142
Don't forget the Pentax 645(n/nII) as well. Love mine.
>>2762143
Pentax 645 I've seen only did up to 1/1000 top shutter speed, not fast enough; while both mamiya and contax reach 1/4000. Great cameras, tho.
>>2762052
More of this, bigger?
Does anyone here know a way to buy a bolex? I used a bolex before and I love it. I will use it again but the only problem I have is I can't use light meters for jack shit. Other them that I'm fine with changing it in the dark and filming with it even though it's my buds doing the light meter work.
>>2762463
ebay obviously
>>2762465
I'm new to film and I dont want to get jewed out especially craglist.
>>2762097
Disagree with you that it's dumb. There are a number of MF cameras with fast shutter speed (hasselblad 2000 series for example). The zoom thing becomes an issue for sure though. Not sure I'd try to go out and shoot photos of birds flying on MF do to this, but for bigger scenes where standard focal lengths are okay fast subjects shouldn't be an issue if you have the shutter speeds available to keep up.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 259 dpi Vertical Resolution 259 dpi Image Created 2009:05:05 22:45:56 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 533
>>2762477
Kodak Gold 200
This one was HP5 with a red filter.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 502 Image Height 661 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 58 dpi Vertical Resolution 58 dpi Image Created 2016:02:07 09:21:45 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 466 Image Height 582
>>2762477
>>2762478
Realize these are pretty potatoquality.
Last one, buddy diving into a river. Portra 400NC
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:10:04 15:49:44 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 800
>>2761965
I'm testing some apps on android, but its values differ alot from the metering on my D90.
And Btw I totally fucked up on my first film (a lot of overlapping photos).
It appears that even after cocking the shutter (its automatically cocked on film winding) one must still continue to wind until the handle locks.....
Lets see how the 2nd roll of film goes.
>>2762764
Because the film gets wound onto a spool you have to wind different distances as the film gets wound on. The distance to cock the shutter is always the same though, so yeah always wind til it locks
>>2762478
Love this. Has a blue hue to it though, weird
Just won this sweet auction for 20 rolls of Provia. Im very happy for having cuckolded a bunch of snapshitting lomographers/hipsters, and for saving this awesome film from x-pro and what not.
Today is a great day for photography.
>>2762832
holy fuck what a steal
>>2762832
That's $2.40 USD a roll for anyone wondering. You got seriously lucky man
>>2762821
this is what happens when you dont RTFM of the camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D90 Camera Software RawTherapee Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2860 Image Height 4302 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:02:07 13:09:13 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.00 mm Comment Jaerder Sousa Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 800 Image Quality RAW White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-A Flash Setting NORMAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 800 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 OFF Camera Actuations 40557
>>2762836
I had the opposite problem with my Yashica, it thought the counter was 3 higher than it actually was so the spaces between the frames were huge
>>2762832
I got a similar auction last week (missed out on bidding this one because arguing with the wife). If this is the same then the film is prob about 8 years out of date. I'm going to shoot a test with +2/3 stop exposure and see how things go from there (probably more blue/purple cast than usual on overcast)
>>2762836
They look like snapshits anyway desu.
Learn to hold a camera still, niqqa.
>>2762849
I can correct color casts like a teen sucking on a proms night, pal.
>missed out on bidding this one because arguing with the wife
lmaoooooooooooo
You fell for the analog jew AND the complaining jew too. Holy fuck. Good luck with the alimony.
>>2762832
Be nice to the snapshitting hipsters. Some companies might have pulled out of the film market if not for their idiocy.
>>2760850
They didn't come out that thin, imo it looks p good.
I'm happy with these for shooting at 800 speed.
>inb4 flower macro a shit
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2762958
Most of the 135 came out pretty nice too.
I'll try to print a few these later tonight and see how they will fare.
>>2762975
They printed quite nicely. Had some issues with fogging on a few of them, not really sure what is the cause. Safelight should be more than far enough away, and the room is light tight as far as I can tell. Wondering if it may be exhausted developer, or reflections from the enlarger off my sweater or the wall behind it. Posting the three prints I made of that roll.
>>2763114
Do you think that amount of dust and hair is acceptable?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2763160
For a test print to teach myself how to use an enlarger (this is the first time I've ever touched an enlarger)?
Yeah.
For a final exhibiton grade print?
Probably yeah.
>>2763172
Dude, there are no blacks or whites on any of those prints.
Also, they're parlous snapshits of your crackhead friends.
>what are you doing niqqa?
If the answer isn't literally "killing myself", you need to quit the game.
>>2762041
underexposure
got a bottle of rodinal opened last september.. stored in shadow, dry place. chances of it being still active?
>>2763514
100%.
It is fine.
Even if half of the bottle has precipitated to solid crystals, you can still use it.
Rodinal is great.
I'm OP, the images at the start of the thread were developed with chemicals sold when Australia still used pounds and shillings.
Google it.
>>2763504
haha, there are full blacks and whites on all of the prints, maybe it doesn't come through on the iphone snaps
I can scan them later if you want to see my crackhead friends in higher quality
>>2763526
perfect, then I only need to get a fixer. thanks anon
>>2763528
>if you want to see my crackhead friends in higher quality
nope,jpg
But sure thing m8, keep making prints lke these.
>inb4 encouraging snapshitters to drive volume in film supplies
>>can't inb4 our last hope
>>2763532
I'm not saying they're perfect by any standards, but like I said this is the first time I so much as touch an enlarger. I'm quite happy with the results all things considered, but of course I hope to improve with practice.
I had a film developed and scanned. Part of the images came out with spots, stripes and other discolorations on the on them.
Any idea what caused it?
The lab said my film probably got wet at some point or something like that .... is that correct, can something like that cause the emulsions to go bad?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:08 17:13:46 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2763542
here is another with more damage ...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:08 17:16:38 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2763542
>The lab said my film probably got wet at some point or something like that ....
well, has it? You're the one who handed it in and made its journey from a sealed box to the lab, you should know.
Labs love to blame their mistakes on the user, it's often bullshit. I can't speak about the film, never saw that kind of damage, but you gotta clarify the "getting wet" bit to help figure out what happened.
>>2763542
I've had moist film developed. it doesn't look anything like that. that's missing emulsion
>>2763542
getting the film wet shouldn't destroy the emulsion. You have to get it wet to develop it ffs.
>>2763605
getting it wet won't destroy the emulsion.. but if you leave it long enough and the water isn't purified but contains minerals and salts ) and it dries.. salts overlay the emulsion and don't allow proper development. but that's not the case here
>>2763547
>>2763587
>>2763603
>>2763605
Thanks for the replies
> clarify the "getting wet" bit
My camera wasn't submerged or anything like that, but it's plausible that the film may have gotten moist.
I was in Indonesia and they have their rainy season now, so the air humidity was close to a hundred and at least once I had my camera in my bag when my bag got a bit wet from the rain. But it was nothing dramatic, and this kind of damage hasn't happened to me before. Then again I havent shot a lot of film, which is why I was curios about it and wanted know if someone else has had the same experience, if it's possible to have your film ruined bt something like this and if I can avoid in the future simply by taking better care of the camera.
>Labs love to blame their mistakes on the user
This is close to what I was thinking when I got the pics back
als, I had a closer look at the pics and it seems like the film has stuck together: the scratches look almost identical at least int the last two pics of the roll.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Pe te Image-Specific Properties:
I want to get into photography. Is an Olympus OM10 a good camera to start? I don't want to/can't spend huge amounts of money on a DSLR.
>>2763640
If you see one that's really cheap it's an ok starter camera, but there are better ones.
I found one a while back for something like £1. If you see a deal like that you buy it. Don't go on eBay and $50 plus shipping for one when you could be getting an OM1 instead.
>>2763657
I bought one for 14 pounds. If I'll get tired of it, I can probably sell it for triple as much in my country.
>>2763632
Yep. Either something sticky got on that film or it got wet and then rolled back into the canister. I can't think of any situation in a lab that could have caused this. Once they pull it out of the cartridge, it is never rolled onto itself again.
>>2763632
Yeah, the film's layers got glued together when it was rolled in the cartridge tightly while being moist - when they tried to unspool it in the lab the bits that stuck together just got ripped away from the base. Not their fault, not yours, I suppose.
Maybe there's a procedure to salvage film like this i.e. wetting it b4 unspooling carefully or something, we'd have to hear from someone who experienced this.
So i've just started shooting my first ever roll of 120, using an old Zeiss folding camera. Any advice?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D5300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 858 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:08 22:08:00 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2763796
if the camera was moist inside.. the damage was most probably done in the camera's spool not the catridge. that's where the film layers are tightly close. Did you go through the film in one day anon?
Getting the film wet and being gentle with it would work.. but in c41 minilabs it's done automatically by machines. if you developed the film by yourself ( quite a complicated task in c41) and unspooled it by hand, you'd definitely feel it if it was stuck together in the catridge
Is there a sort of guide to film, with what to use and what they'll produce, with what the differences are in different brands? I'm trying to find a starting point in shooting film photography but the film itself is a whole another avenue of research where I don't know what to look for.
>>2763866
Get cheap C41 colour film like fuji superia, kodak colorplus, agfa colowhateverit'scalled etc, shoot a few rolls to learn how film behaves, how it handles in your camera, how it reacts to underexposure and overexposure, what sort of image you get etc, and once you think you got the hang of it consider what you want from your film - speed(iso), grain, color rendering, black&white photography - and look for films that match your criteria, try them out.
This whole photography buisness is ridiculously subjective and prone to faggots going on about "striking skintones" and "a unique, film feel of the grain", basically, whatever subjective bullshit sounds best. Flickr is only so much help once you realise that to be viewed on a computer screen, the film must be somehow digitised where the colour balance and basically every image parameter is subjectively set by the person doing the digitising. Even scanner "raws" are biased from the start.
So, basically, get your own experience, use different films and find out how they work for you.
The cheap C-41 process colour films I've recommended at the start have the bonus of always being processed in the same way, meaning all the variation will be a result of your actions and learning process, not development mistakes/changes - the less variables to work with at first, the better. Shit's confusing, don't even start me on b/w film and development. But ultimately it's worth the effort - film is gud, anon, enjoy it.
>>2763801
dont shoot any film over iso 100
>>2763946
that's dumb, if anything, he should shoot faster film so he can stop down and have a wider depth of field, to make guess focusing easier.
>>2763951
>guess focusing
how's that holga workin' out for ya
>>2763813
>if you developed the film by yourself ( quite a complicated task in c41)
Sorry, can't agree with that statement whatsoever.
>>2763918
Thanks mate, but could you give any advice or recommendations for shooting at night and indoors?
>>2764200
Film with a high ISO rating. That's it.
And a fast (f/2, f2.8 tops) wider angle (<40mm) lens (for indoors at least)
You've mentioned the two situations film's worst at handling. Indoors consider using flash always, unless you're shooting still life that can handle long shutter speeds w/o moving around.
There's grainy shitty Lomography Color Negative 800, Two flavours of Fujifilm Superia X-tra - 800 and 1600 iso, obv go for thr higher one, every stop counts. Put their names in flickr to see how they look grain-wise etc. Kodak Portra 800 is the best-quality but most expensive C-41 process colour film I can think of.
As for b/w? Ilford Delta 3200 (actually iso 1000 film but you "push" it - develop it longer and it works like a shitty higher iso film - there's an entire discussion ITT if you scroll up, with names of favourite pushable films) - but bw film depends on developer choice and a lot of other factors not really newbie-friendly.
Hope I helped, if anyone knows any better or I said something incorrect, please chime in.
>>2764200
Fast, wide lenses (the wider the lens the less effect your hand shake has on the image) and fast film.
Ilford Delta 3200 at 1600, Portra 800 at 1600, Fuji Natura 1600 (expensive but so worth it) or Fuji Superia X-tra 1600 would be my recommendations for low light.
If you don't want the grain that high ISO film brings then you need to increase the light coming in on another side of the exposure triangle. Buy a very fast lens (f1.2 or 1.4) or buy a flash and learn to use it, or buy a tripod and use longer shutter speeds.
>>2764212
Thanks! I'm guessing shooting in the dark/indoor areas is going to be a crap shoot. If not is any way to sort of plan or review your shots, maybe use a digital camera on the side?
>>2764238
A lot of people use digital cameras as pseudo-lightmeters for their film cameras. So if you take a photo at 1/30th, ISO 1600 and F2.8 on your digital camera and it's exposed correctly, you can be reasonably sure that if you use 1/30th and F2.8 on your film camera with 1600 speed film it will expose correctly also
>>2764212
According to my photo guy Superia 800 and 1600 is the exact same emulsion, just with different DX-codes, so it shouldn't matter which one you choose if you can set ISO manually without fucking around with faking DX-codes.
Haven't tested it out yet, but I just had my first roll of 800 devved and were surprised at the nice look of it, and I have a 1600 in my camera now that I will try to shoot at a mix of 800 and 1600 to see.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2764200
A tripod.
>>2764259
I've come across ridiculously numerous old wives' tales of companies using the same films under diff names, god. Ilford HP5+ and Pan, Fomapan all being the same speed, now this. For bw film it makes more sense since if the manufacturer tells you it's an X speed film and to dev it as such, evrn if it's a slower film you're effectively pushing it to act as said X box speed.
But superia's a C-41 film, they'll all dev'd identically, lab-wise ofc, so I can't see how they'd pull that rebranding trick off. Shoot x-tra 800 as 800 and 1600 then x-tra 1600 as 800 and 1600 in identical conditions to verify, I suppose? This sounds a touch too paranoic/absurd/conspiracy theorish, lying about film speeds like that. Esp. since manufacturers like to advertise their c41 films as having wide exposure latitude i.e. Ilford XP2 can be shot as iirc 100 up to 800 speed.
>>2764275
Yeah, I'll do a couple side by side shots with one stop difference and see how it turns out.
>>2763955
huh? the folder he's using doesn't have a coupled rangefinder, so you can only scale focus
>>2763955
I guess empty vessels really do make the most noise.
>>2764297
Hotshoe attachment rangefinders are a dime a dozen, nigger. There's no excuse for focus guesstimating once you shell out for a MF folder. Srsly.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 20D Camera Software QuickTime 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2005:06:09 20:32:02 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 6 sec F-Number f/14.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/14.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Partial Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3504 Image Height 2336 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2764308
>shell out
Most people could get one for free if they asked around, they aren't expensive
>>2760923
Have done this multiple times, I stare at that rewind knob after each frame now
Is this not the most sketchy film you could buy online?
http://m.aliexpress.com/item/32218036752.html
I'm half considering it for my fed 2.
>>2764356
probably just rebranded expired c200
>>2764358
27 shot rolls. I've never heard of that though
>>2764455
I think I've seen disposables with 27 shots. Or rather "24+3" so it looks like you're getting 3 extra ones.
found this camera on my grandmother house...is this an ugly version of MJU?
So I just got this beast. It's been 10+ years since I last developed film. I have a tank, beakers, and darkroom thermometers, but no chems or film.
What does /p/ recommend for my first few rolls? I'm looking for film and chems that are relatively forgiving on the developing side and that I can work with in my bathroom, preferably without dumping anything too toxic down the drain. I plan to soup the negs and then scan them and do the rest of the work in PS for now. (I got a nice enlarger setup with it too, but currently have nowhere to set up a real darkroom.)
Also, it came with a roll of 125 Plus-X that expired in '04. Should I even bother trying to shoot it, or is that too far gone?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D610 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:02:09 16:42:53 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2764818
TriX and XTol
>>2764819
Tri-X is definitely on my shortlist, but it's a bit fast for daylight work with a camera that only shoots 1/500. Any advice on something ISO 100 or less? (Even 25 or 50 would be good.)
>>2764455
They're usually labelled as 24 shot rolls, but if you load them right you've got 3 shots before it starts shooting from '1'. They're usually labelled 000, 00, and 0 if I remembered correctly
>>2764834
Tri-X is one of the easier films to develop yourself. Buy a cheap ND filter kit off eBay or just stop down a bit
>>2764837
ND is a little tricky because of the Hasselblad-specific mount bayonet mount, but I suppose I can probably get an adapter that lets me use the ones I have for my 35/DSLR gear. (Plus I don't want to take glorious Zeiss glass and shoot it through some shit filter.)
Stopping down is definitely an option, but part of the allure of MF for me is the way shallow DoF works, and you lose that when you have to stop down to f/8 or whatever to shoot in daylight.
I'll probably grab some Velvia and other chrome and shoot that too, and that's nice and slow, but I have to send that out for processing.
>>2764847
You could also try Ilford Pan F+ 50 and T-Max 100. T-Max is a little trickier to develop than Tri-X, you just need to be a bit more precise.
Slower than that you can get Rollei Pan 25, but it needs a special developer
How do I figure out the filter threads on my LF lenses? These fuckers are so in danger of being smudged, and yet, the potential of "muh vintage" prices on fucking filters is putting me off. Do they use standard threads, more often than not, or do they usually take bullshit idiosyncratic threads?
>>2764852
Which lenses?
>>2764856
150mm Fujinon W
210mm Schneider Symmar-S
90mm Schneider Angulon (I know this has a bullshit center filter that is mad overpriced)
Slide film for night time.
Can i use a blue filter over the lens and expect to get similar results to tungsten light type film?
>>2764847
>>2764847
>and you lose that when you have to stop down to f/8
No you don't; THAT is the actual point of using larger film formats. You get the f8 sharpness, but still have that definition of the focal plane from the rest of the image.
Shooting an 80/2.8 wide open isn't going to give you fantastic sharpness.
Also, f8 and 1/500 is at least 2 stops over for Tri-X, in Australian daylight anyway.
>>2764851
>you can get Rollei Pan 25, but it needs a special developer
Need is the wrong word.
You can develop it in anything, but if you want a pictorial tonal range in hard light, special developers can help.
If you're shooting a low contrast scene, a slow film can reveal detail that would be entirely lost in the midtones of a TriX or FP4 shot.
>>2764910
>special developers
Like what, Rodinal?
>>2764910
>special developers
How special are we talking? Some people think anything that isn't XTOL is "special". Is Rodinal "special"?
>>2764910
>If you're shooting a low contrast scene, a slow film can reveal detail that would be entirely lost in the midtones of a TriX or FP4 shot.
Is that a rule of thumb for all slower films? And if so, do you know what's the physical/technical reason behind that? Is it to do with grain size/density? (bigger grain in faster films so less resolving power for midtones?)
film noob here, just developed and "scanned" my first roll, Tri-X 400. Critique?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D5100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 862 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 450 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2239 Image Height 1506 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2016:02:09 21:18:09 Exposure Time 1/13 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 300.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 933 Image Height 628 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2764961
Contrast seems really high and unpleasant. What was your development/scanning technique?
>>2764964
my fears have been confirmed.
developed at box speed with D-76, "scanned" with a DSLR, being the poorfag that I am. How could I have made this better? Any scanner recommendations?
>>2764968
Your dslr scan should be fine, merely turn the contrast way down in your camera (if you're shooting jpeg) or expose correctly when shooting raw. There are a few places you could be messed up. If you exposed the film poorly, those hightlights might really be gone. if you developed in a way that gives too much contrast, they might really be gone. but if it's just in scanning, all you need to do is expose correctly, and not add so much contrast in PS.
>Scanner recommendations?
35mm? - Plustek 8100
MF? - Epson V550
LF? - Epson V700
>>2764969
thanks so much! gonna save up for the plustek senpai :^)
>>2764969
now that you mention it, I really didn't pay attention to the exposure during scanning, thanks for the tip!
>>2764968
For scanning:
Go to your local university, find the library. Walk in, find the media department. See if they have a slide collection, or an archivist. Claim you're a student, ask to use their scanning equipment.
I've had about a 50% rate of success doing this. It depends how friendly they are, how relaxed in general the department is, and whether they even have a department like that or the equipment.
Sometimes you luck out and it's some old lady or dude who has a boner for kids (re: anyone under 30) doing what they used to do.
Otherwise, you're looking at spending a fortune on scanning equipment. You'll spend so much that you'll be wasting money better spent on good equipment.
>>2764976
What in fuck's name?
>>2764913
>>2764912
>"special developers"
like Technidol or RLC.
As in developers that are specially formulated for extending the tonal range of slow film.
Rodinal is not special, it's common as muck, however it does have some unique qualities.
>>2764926
No, I don't know the chemical reasons for this.
But yes, I'd call it a rule of thumb.
This is some Rollei Ortho 25 developed in the same Neofin Blau as the Tri-X at the start of the thread.
See the difference?
[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 2016:01:18 11:16:27 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 531 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
>>2765095
And a crop.
As you can see, the resolution of the film is well in excess of the 18mp Rabal sensor.
>tfw a7r prices are nearing $1000
>SOON
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 801 Image Height 555
>>2764910
>If you're shooting a low contrast scene, a slow film can reveal detail that would be entirely lost in the midtones of a TriX or FP4 shot.
yeah, this is bullshit
>>2765103
>>2765103
>>2765103
Sure thing, buddy.
Except, you know, I posted image examples and shoot film all the time.
The gumtree in >>2765097 is light grey, with the darker bits of bark a brown colour. There was a bit of sidelight, but that is a low contrast scene.
Pic related, on the other hand, is Tri-X in T-Max Dev.
This is another 100% crop; even though the crops are different sizes, each pixel is covering a broadly equivalent amount of film.
That's a salt and pepper coloured dog in soft light. With the contrast boosted to cover a full pictorial range, detail is lost because
a) the film grain is much larger, and
b) the tone of each individual grain is often more different to its neighbour than the tonal difference of details in the picture.
This is because fast film compresses the tonal range of a scene more than slow film.
Which means you can fit higher highs and lower lows onto the one piece of film, but you obviously lose fidelity in the middle.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1572 Image Height 1136
>>2765118
And the full image.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1148 Image Height 800
Looking to jump into film. See these on my local craigslist.
>Olympus OM-1 MD
>Kalimar K-90
>Canon AE-1
>Konica Autoreflex T3
All come with a couple of lenses, but glass is cheap enough, worried about which body ends up being the best/easiest to fix.
>>2765150
how much is the ae-1
I picked up my ae-1 at goodwill with the 50 1.8 for 5 bucks and have been using that ever since
Ilford Pan F Plus 50 developed in Diafine shot on a Kiev 60.
dont think im getting an answer in the gear thread so im asking again here before i make a thread
shooting with an rb67 but want something small for low light late nights. so with a budget of ~300 for a 50ish 1.2 + body, what lens and body would you pick up?
first thought was an om1 since it's small but heard great things about the konica 57 1.2 and canon 50mm 1.2 and theyre cheaper (i think?).
also thinking about selling my x100 for an x-e1 + adapter so maybe i'll be buying into a legacy system
any rangefinders combos for this price? the shorter flange sounds appealing if i do decide to adapt them to a digital body
>>2765453
A cheap 1.2 is kind of hard to come by. You might check out the Canon 50mm f/1.2 in the FD mount.
>>2764903
halp.
Delta 3200 box speed in xtol
>>2765484
fleabays got mostly canon 1.2s in FD and FL mount around that price. there are a few rokkors and nikons too. heard that the OM bodies are nicer than canon and minolta bodies though. got any experience with that?
Lomochrome Purple
Lomochrome Purple
>>2765520
beautiful colors
>>2765504
>>2765484
>>2765453
My experience is only with the Canon FD 50L and the Nikkor Ai-S, which are well over your budget, but for what it's worth, the Canon is much better wide open.
>>2759181
>>2752398
>>2751639
^^^ pics related.
My actual suggestion is to get a Konica T3 and AR 50/1.4.
The T3 is one of the nicest pro bodies out there, with full mechanical shutter speeds
>and a dank feeling wind
and that 50 is one of the sharpest f/1.4 lenses wide open.
Both of those things are ridiculously undervalued as well.
>>2765453
I'd stick with a 1.4 and shoot Portra 400. The way that stuff pushes is stupendous.
>>2763542
When I swam out to these sea caves with my waterproof Nikon I just stuck loose rolls of film in my swimsuit pockets. Water isn't going to damage your film nigga.
>>2765520
A E S T H E T I C
>>2765611
Read the rest of the thread, "nigga."
Film got wet and dried again, sticking together in the canister.
>>2765588
thanks for a solid suggestion. since i'm pretty much going to be using this exclusively at night and pretty much always wide open, how useful is that extra half stop? also, hows the rest of hexanon lenses since im thinking about buying into the system more in the future; you wouldnt consider another system to be a better value?
>>2765592
i was considering a 1.4 since it's so much cheaper, but thought the extra half stop would be useful. didnt really like portra last time i shot with it and i dont think my local lab pushes color. was thinking about sticking with bw
>>2765731
The f1.2 is way more about the look than it is about the extra light.
Generally there's nothing too special about Konica SLR lenses at least.
The 40/1.8 is neat for being such a fast pancake design, and is meant to be quite sharp.
The 57/1.2 is a collectors item.
The wide angles are shitty, especially the 28/1.8, and especially compared to Nikkors.
All tele lenses are good from all manufacturers, so there's no real reason to go Konica there.
My recommendation was based on the low price and high quality of the camera lense combo.
If you use a T3 you'll understand.
live in Sweden, fairly cheap hassys on sale, should i try MF or is film ded
>>2765772
>should i try MF
do it or youre literally dead inside.
Got a yashica 108 mp. What affordable prime lens would you recommend (portraits and shit)?
And what lens would you reccommend for street photography?
>>2765772
how cheap we talking here?
>>2766139
850 us for 500cm with 80mm, as new
How many exposures would I get out of a regular 36 exposures 35mm roll on a 120 medium format camera?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties:
>>2766243
What format does the MF camera take, does it load vertically or horizontally. My Xpan takes between 20 and 21 and it is close to a 6x7 negative in length
how badly am I about to fuck up?
>>2766402
It depends on what you're trying to do?
I've been having a lot of fun shooting the Direct Positive Paper in my 4x5.
I mainly shoot Tri-X, but since buying a new compact I've been shooting drunk snapshits with flash quite a bit. Thinking about trying a 100 speed film in these situations, because although I like the contrast & grain of Tri-X it is a bit much with flash.
So T-MAX or Across? I develop in XTOL.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:10 23:07:59
>>2766474
A C R O S
C
R
O
S
>>2766482
Any particular reason? And any thoughts on just pulling Tri-X instead?
>>2766455
Oh man, that actually sounds pretty fun.
Stop making me want to get another 4x5.
I'm about to get one of these. Any reasons why I shouldn't? (I'm mostly interested in street photography, candids, general snapshit stuff)
>>2766647
Why would you blow through 120 film for sniping pavement? Use the better quality for landscape or macro or nature or working.
>>2766665
Not really into that kind of stuff, unfotunately. I guess I just like the way cars and people look on 120.
>>2766647
I have a C33, which is pretty similar.
It's not a terrible system, but the glass isn't the greatest in the world and it's literally like carrying a brick around. If that doesn't bother you, then go ahead, they're cheap. Be aware that if something goes wrong it'll probably cost more to fix than the camera is worth, though. (That happened on my C33, the mechanism that counts frames and stops advance in the right place broke, and it wasn't worth fixing.)
>>2766676
Is it really that cumbersome? 1.7 kg is roughly as much as 5d plus a 24-70 lens.
