/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
This is the thread for all of your stupid film questions, and to post your film snapshits without flushing them down the RPToilet.
It's OK to ask about film gear in this thread.
I'll start with
>http://petapixel.com/2016/03/03/shot-expired-film-daytona-500/
I came buckets.
[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 2015:09:25 14:24:58 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 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 Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030333132323837B46B815531323531 Resolution HI Autofocus Mode MF Focus Setting MF White Balance Auto Exposure Mode A Metering Mode A Exposure 0.6 Contrast -0.9 Shadow 1 Highlight -0.9 Saturation 1.1 Sharpness 2.0 Fill Light 1.0 Color Adjustment Infinite
What is film?
>>2783948
fuck these look so good.
>>2783948
How long until roll of 135 Velvia is at 20$ and a box of 20 pieces 4x5 is 200 USD?
>>2783948
I normally set my cameras ISO the same as the film ISO. But what will happens if pull or push the film, more importantly, what is pulling and pushing, and would would I need to do it
>>2783969
when would*
How unforgiving is Ektar compared to regular C41 film? I can usually underexpose things by a stop or two and get results that are fine if needed.
Going to be my first time shooting Ektar though and I've heard it's not as forgiving.
>>2783969
Some films handle over/under exposure well, and so to take advantage of that, you would adjust your ISO. For instance, Velvia 100 looks good when it's very lightly over exposed, and some people set the camera at ISO 80 or so, and then develop normally.
Pushing and pulling are the film equivalent of turning up (or down) your ISO on your digital camera.
For a whole roll, you can shoot ISO 400 speed film at ISO 800, for instance. This will give you half the light you need for a "good" exposure, but will allow you to use shorter shutter speeds, which may be necessary to get a good shot. Then, in development, you would increase the development time, which would "increase the brightness" of the images on the negative.
Pulling would be the opposite. Shooting ISO 400 film at ISO 200, giving it double the light it needs, and then developing for LESS time, to keep the film from brightening all the way.
However, I've recently learned that this ins't worth doing when you're just scanning your images, since it's just as easy and effective (and at a lab, less expensive) to develop normally, and brighten the scan in software.
>>2783975
thanks, so the moral of the story is, push your low ISO film if it gets a bit dark
>>2783969
Pushing or pulling is changing the development process, to either grow bigger silver clumps or restrict their growth.
Bigger=more visible grain=denser negs=pushing=longer development.
People rarely pull film in development, but of course it's possible.
When you set a different ISO on your camera than that of your film, you're just making a choice to slightly over or under expose the film.
You never need to push film, it's a meme process that digifags try when they first start shooting film because they don't know how it works.
It's only utility is to get a negative dense enough to enable darkroom printing.
>>2783978
No, fuckhead.
The moral of the story is hold your camera still and use longer exposures or a flash if it gets a bit dark.
>>2783978
You CAN push SOME of your low ISO film if it gets dark.
(Also, ISO 400 is high ISO film)
>>2783981
but, if you have parkinsons and your subject is far away, you push
>>2783981
Wow, lobbing insults from 12 years ago! Bold strategy.
Sometimes flash isn't desirable, or possible, and a lot of the time, stuff you want to take photos of moves around.
>>2783973
Slower negative film is far more contrasty than Superia, Ultramax, et al.
You will want to avoid underexposing it if you want quality results, but I'm sure that 2 stops under would still give you something to work with most of the time.
>>2783966
>bae...I...
>pic related
[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 1000 Image Height 705
>>2783988
400 ISO IS high speed film
>>2783994
>Kenneth recommends shotting Velvia at 40.
insane. but yeah, it works.
>>2783988
>Not knowing to shoot Velvia 100 at 80, and Velvia 50 at 40.
>Being condescending about it.
This fucking guy.
>>2783988
>400 is a high ISO film
Let's count the number of films that exist slower than ISO 400.
Now lets count the number of films faster than ISO 400.
About a hundred, to... what, ten? Maybe?
>>2783987
>picture
Wow. I feel so out of the loop.
Time to stock up the fridge again while the fun lasts?
>>2783988
>>recommending OVER EXPOSING a slide film
Velvia has pretty muddy shadows, so especially if you're scanning instead of projecting, overexposing 1/3 stop often turns out for the better.
>>2784010
>you shouldnt be afraid of prices going up. money comes and goes.
>you should be very afraid of labs not processing slide film anymore. its already happening.
This desu. The increasing cost of developing slide too is also what causes the problem. As this happens, demand for the film drops and prices go up on both ends. It's a sad and vicious cycle.
I thought you guys might think this was cool. It's a little Goerz 4x5 field camera from the early 1900s. It was given to me a few years back, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out where it had gone after my last move, but just found it.
Sadly, the humongous cloth focal plane shutter is shredded, but otherwise it's in remarkably good condition. Even the felt seals are nice.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 16:27:31 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -1.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784098
The ground glass is intact and scratch free, too. The leather hood around it is somehow still supple, as well. I guess they used some damn nice materials when they made this thing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 16:27:32 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -3.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784099
Here's a closeup of those shutter controls.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 16:27:33 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -3.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784010
>>2784037
I took the plunge and bought the gallon size arista rapid e6 kit.
>First roll of slides shot since the early '90's
>First roll of 120 slide film ever shot
>First roll of self-developed e6 ever
>First positives scanned with a6000
I decided to jump into e6 before it is gone and only in the history books. Not sure why, but I didn't expect results to be as good as they turned out to be. I was just floored when I pulled these out of the tank. I can't stop looking at these on a light box. Mind=blown. I feel like such an idiot for not having had a refrigerator full of this stuff. Credit card is probably going to get hit hard as I stock up.
If anyone is on the line as to whether or not to process their own e6....just do it. It isn't that hard, it isn't terribly expensive. And I can't imagine that lab results could have been any better than what I ended up with. JUST DO IT.
This scan matches nearly perfectly the original when held up to a white area on my calibrated monitor.
inb4 oldfag
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2784100
And the lens, a 135 f/6.3 I think. I looked it up a while ago and apparently they're pretty well-regarded. That crazy aperture and focus still work well, too.
I doubt I can ever fix the shutter, but if I can find a film holder that fits, I might try doing some photo paper exposures or something like that, where I can time it with the dark slide.
I also found my long-lost binder of 120 negs in the same box as this camera, so I might go grab a scanner and post some tonight. (I've been planning on getting one anyway, because I recently got a Hasselblad and want to do my own scans.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 16:27:34 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness -3.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784104
So wait, you don't currently have a scanner, but you are gonna grab one and post tonight? Do you live next door to B&H? lol
>>2784110
Nah, but I live close to Fry's Electronics, and they sell the V600.
Here's another interesting feature of this thing that I totally forgot about until looking it up, by the way. This action finder is cool as hell, it's actually a functional two-element lens. Coupled with a 1/80 max shutter speed (which is pretty insane for a piece of cloth the size of a postcard), this would have been the 1890s equivalent of a D4S!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Digital Camera FinePix X100 Ver2.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016-03-03T16:44:17+16:00 Exposure Time 1/35 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 1.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Image Width 1000 Image Height 753 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2784104
might want to consider a Packard Shutter
lens caps can also work surprisingly well
>>2784114
Yeah, either one of those could work too. The hard part really is just finding a film holder that'll work with it, I might have to make something myself. (Actually, that might not be that hard, I could probably do it out of sheet plastic or even cardboard.)
I could also probably put a lens with a leaf shutter in it, or put this lens in a more modern view camera, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
>>2784102
:3
[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 Lens Size 10.00 - 22.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF-S10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:06:09 13:41:35 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/3.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 10.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 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 Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2784102
>arista rapid e6 kit.
how much $?
how many develops does it give? can you devlop reusing the same liquids?
stored longevity?
I've read that wedding photographers as late as the 80s or 90s preferred shooting medium format, with TLRs being a standard choice for a wedding photographer.
Why is this? Seems like a 35mm SLR with a couple zooms, or maybe two SLRs with primes would be a much more versatile choice and allow for better coverage. A TLR seems so limiting for a wedding.
Are there any wedding photographers that still do this? Would it be viable as a specialty/niche thing for a wedding photographer today?
>>2784118
Gallon kit was $90 shipped (in the US)
Don't know how many develops yet. If this kit is anything like the the c41 kit, it will yield 60-80 rolls. I mixed up a quart worth and decanted the remaining kit into smaller bottles (no air). If it's like the c41, the working solution will last a minimum of 6 months, the concentrates much longer. That's the best I can say right now.
This shot was the only one from the roll I modified. I warmed up the color temp since it was in full shade.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2784122
35mm maxes out at 8x10 prints even with slow film.
If you want crisp, professional looking large prints, MF is essential.
TLR's are quiet.
Professional photographers aren't fuccbois like you, and don't consider an f/3.5 prime and manual focusing a handicap.
>>2784122
I can't comment on the TLR being a standard because I don't know, but medium format would of course be preferred for smooth tones and lack of grain in larger prints. This was before the lomo era when photographers tried to get the most out of film. And also was a time before momtographers with their Canon dslr and 2.8 zoom shot weddings. They were craftsmen.
>>2784124
well it looks pretty fucking good. nice job. what film?
i think ill get that kit, my shit country may drop the slide developing faster than i think, where did you get it? adorama?
>>2784124
Shot this roll of Ektar after the roll of Provia. Developed in the arista c41 chems that i mixed up last august. I think there has been like 18 rolls through these chems. I store them in 2 liter soda bottles (easy to squeeze the air out). Really good stuff in my opinion.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2784135
>buy a mirrorless
>use it to scan film
>>2784134
It's arista, so I think the only source is freestylephoto.
I've only shot one roll with a TLR. Hard fucking work.
Viewfinder the wrong way.
Focusing is hard even though I'm usually a manualfag.
Winding on the film and cocking the shutter are separate.
I fucked up a few shots, one double exposure, but I came out the other side a better photographer.
>>2784137
That's a side benefit. And it really does a nice job. In conjunction with the micro-nikkor of course. But the mirrorless gets used quite a bit outside of film. My library of Rokkors get used a decent bit in front of the lens turbo II. We live in a wonderful age.
>>2784134
>>2784138
I forgot to say that >>2784124 was Provia.
Also, have some dumpsters in Ektar.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
have this blue snap thing i made.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 28492 Image Height 3398 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 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 2016:02:10 00:39:24 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 1110
I still process E-6 in Ausland.
>>2784115
I'm guessing a standard 4x5 holder doesn't fit
>>2783973
I wouldnt shoot more than a stop under, if I could help it. It really depends on the lighting/contrast in the scene. The PNW is perpertually grey so I can get away with underexposure. Generally, i'm shooting 1-2 stops over for dat density.
prepare yourself for some amazing blues and highlights.
Shot a roll of retropan 320 and it came out underexposed. Knocked my camera down to 250 but it still looks faint as fuck.
On both rolls I kinda forgot about them for a while when they were fixing. Could it be that or is it just because it's a cheap slav film?
>>2784161
You can't overfix.
>>2784162
That's what I thought. Thanks.
I don't get it. I shot a few rolls of Fomapan 100 and it was fine. Not great but totally fine considering the price. This is supposed to be the same shit but with less of a layer to stop flaring (I can't remember the name of the layer) so it's like turning dehaze down.
Maybe it's a shit batch or the ebay seller has sold me some out of date shit.
>>2784164
Avoid anything that has "retro" in the title. Get fresh, name brand film. Get good with it. Afterwards, experiment with stuff that falls under the "lomo" umbrella.
What did I fuck up, besides over-exposing by a stop? I know there's something wrong with this shot.
>>2784165
I shoot Ilford most of the time but this was cheap so who gives a fuck.
>>2784167
Overexposure by 3 stops would not have changed the outcome. I think it looks great. It is negative film, overexposure by one stop means absolutely nothing. Now if you had raised the levels too high in post, that would be a different story. There is only 2 rules with negative film: do not underexpose unless there is no other choice, and do not grossly overexpose. And by grossly overexpose, I mean like 5 stops over.
>>2784167
I really like this shot.
I get 5 35mm roll for 4 dollars i live in mexico and let me tell you, is cheap
How much does film cost in Russia?
>>2784164
This stuff is brand new, it's not expired.
Did you develop it in the specialist dev they make for it too?
>without pictures your thread is useless
>>2784174
20 food stamps and a case of vodka for the local Party representative every Christmas.
>>2784127
that's not true though.
I'd recommend MF whenever practical, but you can do much better than 8x10 on 35mm.
Not that great a photo, but I found the subject matter interesting.
>>2784127
TLRs usually dont have great resolving power.
35mm is also 8x12, not 8x10 unless you crop it or print with borders on one side.
I dont shoot much 35mm, apart from testing various things that I may want to apply when shooting 6x7.
But I've printed 12x18" from my A7s which looks great, and I get more resolving power on T-Max, slide, Fuji C200, etc.
It all depends.
>>2784195
Mine chemical drainage?
If so, that could be a great activism-journalist-esque photo.
>>2784199
It's a sulphur spring from volcanic activity.
>>2784195
>TLRs usually dont have great resolving power
This seems ignorant enough to be a Cruz post, but who can tell?
A 50 year old Tessar will outresolve any film you can find to put behind it by f/8.
>35mm is also 8x12, not 8x10
Yes, sherlock, but practically all paper is 8x10, frames are suited to 8x10, and any portrait orientation photo you take should be cropped to 4:5 anyway.
>>2784194
>you can do much better than 8x10 on 35mm
Cool man, please upload a colour 35mm film picture that's sharp and fine grained at 11x14.
Even a tripoded landscape photo on modern Ektar or Velvia would be fine, even though one didn't exist in the 90's and one would never be used for a wedding.
>>2784208
I have a Yashica-Mat EM, it doesn't outresolve any film you put behind it at f/8, it is lacking in resolving power in comparison to Mamiya lenses.
You can't ask someone for colour film examples then say paper practically only comes in 8x10.
Those guys shooting weddings on colour film were not printing black and white in the dark room.
RA-4 came and comes mostly on rolls, to which it was printed to. jfc.
Pro 160S, 160C, Portra NC and VC, Reala, Agfa Portrait 160. Take your pic.
They all have similar manufacturer stated resolving powers, well above what I get out of my A7s, regardless, I get a very clear 60+ lp/mm out of them, and a less clear but still resovled 80 lp/mm. More than my A7s. I have only not tried the Agfa in that lot.
There's also Astia, Provia, E100G, E100GX, etc.
I had the chance to use RDPII (Provia 100 non f) next to the f version recently to try it out, resolving power slightly lower in practice than the f, grainier, but still above the 60 mark.
Most people shooting weddings would be more likely to use MF, unless they were todays $500 rabal wedding equivalent.
>>2784158
Not even close, unless there's some kind of standard holder other than the ones I used to use. (The double-sided ones that fit into spring backs.)
The space this one has to fit into is pretty thin, and the holder would have to be custom-shaped to slide into the "rails" that hold it.
>>2784010
Yeah, the best local E6 (and everything else) lab in my area, just shut down last year.
Cool old photo guy ran place mostly at a hobby a few days a week, but decided to finally call it quits when the lab was bringing in massively less money than what he'd get from just being on retirement.
Now i got to use the other lab whose quality is a much more of a crapshoot (occasional scratches and streaks on negs), or send the slides to the good lab next town ower by mail, but they don't do sizes over 120 :V
>>2784208
>Cool man, please upload a colour 35mm film picture that's sharp and fine grained at 11x14.
I have to wonder, while it might not be possible to optically print 35mm at 11x14 at high quality, you should be able to extract at least 16MP of data from a film scan that'd be good for larger prints.
>>2784117
I like slide. Do you like slide? Slide is the best!
>in b4 "go out and shoot something" you filmhog
Yes.
much film, so little time ;_;
>>2784221
Your Yashica is probably broken.
Mamiya also makes TLRs.
And in any conversation about TLRs, there's Rollei, and then there's everything else.
Notice I didn't say a 50 year old Yashinon, I said Tessar.
>>2784239
It is if that detail is on the film. The lens in the Flextight scanner I use is an enlarging lens, an ok one at that, not great, but not bad either (Maganon f/8), it resolves about 125 lp/mm at max enlargement when that much detail is on the film. That's well over 16mp.
>>2783973
I tried some Ektar last fall. I shoot slide usually, so can't compare much to "regular" c41 much.
What I did notice in the few shots I did was that underexposed/dark areas seemed to get this ugly blue-ish/cyan cast that you'll probably want to avoid.
Which is to say, personally I would rather err on the side of overexposure. I also did a few exposures with the sun directly in the picture, and they came out surprisingly well, so it ought to take it fairly well.
>>2784289
>jimfromtheofficeforcingasmilewhilehiseyesbetraythehopelessnessofthesituation.jpg
I asked the question.
I shoot a lot of film.
I use some of the best lenses money can buy.
I know that unless you're shooting slow black and white film, you will never get that crispness from 35mm to make digital-rivalling large prints.
To whatever idiot it is that keeps referencing their A7S as some kind of benchmark, wake up to yourself.
That thing is a fucking abberation; it's probably the lowest resolution digital camera released since the Canon 1100D, including $100 consumer compacts and smartphones.
>>2784127
>35mm maxes out at 8x10 prints even with slow film.
That may be true for color negatives, but b&w film can be enlarged to much larger print sizes.
>>2784161
Got the same experience with retropan 320. Developed in ID-11, came out underexposed and *very* grainy. I guess Microphen or that special developer Foma sells would work better.
They were certainly right with that name though - the prints look very retro.
>>2784331
GREAT EXAMPLES YOU BOTH ARE POSTING
Can I just say, now that spring's arrived properly, that fuck pushing any film at all? Certainly HP5+ at EI1600 in microphen looks surprisingly good, but like, expose at box speed. Don't push as a matter of course, unless it's two hours semi-stand of tri-x, or something.
>>2783973
Ektar is fine for overexposure by a stop, maybe even two. So if anything it's unforgiving about underexposure, but that's film fer ya.
>>2783975
I disagree about the push/pull processing part. Perhaps that's pukka for print philm (where pushing the silver shouldn't matter), but black & white definitely gains shadow detail under certain developers and techniques.
>>2783979
Pulling is, in fact, quite common. It's the reverse compromise from pushing, and generally helps deal with high contrast. Not sure if C-41 film can be pulled however.
Development time changes negative contrast. Development time DOES NOT CHANGE SHADOW DETAIL. Exposure of the film affects shadow detail. Film development time is NOT an ISO dial from your digital camera. Push development of film affects CONTRAST, not exposure. This matters if you OPTICALLY and CHEMICALLY print. It is MEANINGLESS if you scan. How many times does this need to be repeated before it sinks in???
>>2784356
How do you explain, then, that underdeveloped film loses shadow detail both in scan and print?
Also, I might want to print negs I scan, later, in a darkroom. Hence pushing, when appropriate.
>>2783973
>>2783987
underexposing any negative film will get really grainy really fast. This was on portra, not ektar, but you'd probably see similar results.
>>2784169
How do I do post? Are there any guides you recommend? I honestly have never tried post because I used to pay for scans, and I'd go for the cheapest ones. Like, if I was going to do post on that shot, what would I even do?
>>2784172
what brand?
>>2784358
You answered your own question. Underdeveloped means you went outside manufacturers recommendations and lost shadow detail. Developed as recommended you will get all shadow details that exist given the film exposure.
But if you plan to print, by all means get your negative contrast correct.
>>2784169
Here's the fuckup shot, though. I had one of those handheld 30 degree meters and it gave me wildly different readings all the time. Was not ideal.
>>2784142
Which micro Nikkor?
>>2784427
The older 55/3.5. My Nikon knowledge is poor so I don't know which ai that is. I've read that the 55/2.8 is even a tad bit better.
>>2784340
I don't have a suitable scanner right now (of I do but there are no drivers for it) but I'll knock something up with my camera later.
![Hubble3D_NASAPic02_555pxBLOG[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wZGmTHi.jpg "Hubble3D_NASAPic02_555pxBLOG[1].jpg")
Could anyone recommend a good MF camera suitable for hiking and hostile environments? Potential of getting bonked, wet, stuff like that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:10:06 12:24:56 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 555 Image Height 370
>>2784424
>those subtly crushed shadows
bretty nice
>>2784424
That's practically VSCO. Not bad if you're into that, but I'd prefer the shadows black instead of so crushed.
>>2784478
>I'd prefer the shadows black instead of so crushed.
What
>>2784478
>black instead of crushed
I took it and I feel the same way. It was a serious fuckup. I'm glad I finally invested in a spot meter. The problem when you're poor and into film photography is that the film $ eat into the savings that you'd normally build up for purchasing better equipment.
>>2784478
"Crushed shadows" When the light level in the shadows is so low that the image falls to black, with no detail.
Crushed shadows are by definition, black...
>>2784449
Knurled ring is pre-AI. Rabbit ears with PK-13 markings is AI.
>>2784340
after I bumped up the contrast.
>>2784340
>>2784524
And I'm the second guy and I don't have a suitable scanning equipment either. This is "scanned" using an old 1000D and a kit lens.
>>2784536
Actually about a month ago I tried mounting my DSLR on the enlarger and using the enlarger lens to scan - but I could only get about 1/10 of the whole frame in the shot.
Here's what Ilford Pan 100 looks like - mind you, it's about 1/10 of the whole frame.
>>2784551
And this is Foma Retropan 320, same enlargement
About to try out long exposures with 100 Ilford. I'm still fairly new to film, but I have a 6 and 10 ND filters, shutter release switch, and my tripod on hand. Any tips for a beginner? On digital you can keep retrying after shots and usually get a preview of what you're getting, but I reckon it'll be a more arduous task on film.
>>2784560
Use your digital camera to find the right settings.
3200 for 2 seconds to find the right aperture. That should get you in the ballpark for a 100 for 1 min exposure.
Once you've got that nailed, use those settings for your film camera.
>>2784553
sweet Klaymen bro
>>2784567
Thanks. I made it myself.
>>2784405
>How do I do post?
First and foremost you must have the original scan and ALL of the tonal range that was captured. If a lab scanned and processed it, they most likely threw away some of the highlight and shadow detail that you cannot recover. You need the raw scan data from a scanner that captured all of the tonal range that the negative contained. It should be in tiff format and be 16bit. If it is a jpg, forget it. If it is 8 bit, forget it. When you open this "raw" scan data in lightroom or equivalent, you will see a flat, lifeless photo that is extremel low in contrast. From there you have to massage in some curves, levels and contrast adjustments to get the tones to where you want them. It takes time to learn how to do this, but if you fiddle with the sliders long enough you will start to understand it.
I'm not familiar with labs because I am a diy kind of guy, maybe someone else can chime in as to whether some labs can or will provide a "raw" scan. But a raw scan is the only proper input to post production. There isn't much you can do to a baked jpg from a lab.
>>2784466
Maybe get a cheap soviet dingy POS like a Kiev that costs a penny (and your nerves)?
Not sure if there is anything actually weather sealed outside of Pentax' digital MF.
are there any polaroid cameras that take instax film? or is there a way to modify land cameras that originally took packfilm to take instax film?
or am I just fucked...
>>2784685
Instax comes out of the top of the cartridge. Pack film comes out of the side (and is also a lot larger, so you will be able to line up either the edge of the film expulsion hole, or the lens, but not both) Also, pack film doesn't have a drive to eject the film. You yank it out by the paper strip, which instax film doesn't have. You're fucked.
Why not buy an instax camera...?
>>2784687
>Why not buy an instax camera...?
because its a piece of shit compared to my nicer land cameras?
>>2784685
You can modify some to take instax but there is one problem as >>2784687 said, it doesn't have the rollers which are required for developing.
You basically have to take the shot on your camera of choice. Use a changingbag/darkroom to put the instax back into an instax camera and then take a blank exposure.
With the dead of FP-100c, It would be nice to see some engineer try and crowdfund an alternative system if possible.
>>2784406
Fujifilm iso 400 color film
Anyone know a good E6 mail-in service that has fast turnaround time? I got a bunch of expired bulk ektachrome and I'd like to test if it's worth taking on a trip in 10 days.
>>2784749
Well where the fuck do you live?
>>2784756
Upstate NY!
>>2784799
Dwayne's.
>>2784466
Mamiya TLRs are tanks, but I'm not sure how they would handle getting wet.
They also weigh about as much as strapping a Sherman over your shoulder, so they'd kind of suck to lug up a mountain.
>>2784685
On a semi-related note, I just realized that Instax Mini is 62x46, which is pretty damn close to 645. I wonder how doable an Instax back for a 645 or 6x6 camera would be.
>>2784615
I know I'm going to sound like a retard here, but what are "curves" and "levels"? As I said, I have zero post processing experience.
>>2784842
google them friend.
>curves tool post processing
>levels tool post processing
>>2784536
Are you sure this is retropan? AFAIK it's only sold in 17 & 30m rolls so it shouldn't have frame numbers down the side.
I found this review. I'm calling bullshit. I think foma sent him a roll of out of date HP5 in a retropan tin. With the grain I'm getting I might as well be making mosaics out of gravel.
>>2784857
Absolutely sure. Here's the original canister (+ some bonus Klaymen)
>>2784871
Well fuck me. I thought I'd read in a review blog that it only came in big rolls. Maybe the one I just tried to link to but got caught up in the spam detector.
>>2784837
It's 100% possible.
The problem is that existing backs don't have rollers. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to make.
>>2784884
I think I may try making one. I have a Hasselblad to use as a host, and will have access to a CNC mill and lathe and a 3D printer soon. If I can get it working I might do a kickstarter or something.
I wonder if I could make it modular so that it could be put on your choice of MF camera. A Pentax 645 would probably be the natural option since they're cheap, plentiful, and close to the format.
Scanning with Epson scanners is just too much frustration for me, it takes all the love I have for film away from me. I used the V330, then the v500 and both give me just sub par scans, hell even non film stuff. Now I'm scanning my prints with a fucking old canonscan lide, the one with that ugly adapter you put on the glass and I get results that are actually decent?
Well I guess I resold them pretty quickly so I didn't lose that much money.
>>2784915
Good for you. Thanks for making a new post on your blog. Maybe next time you could post some pictures so I don't feel like it's 1999.
guy told me he did this with 2+ or 3+ stops overexposed ektachrome 64. xpro.
>>2785004
And you all understand that it's *meant* to be a low contrast film, right?
So if you take hand held shots wide open of fag-enabling figurines in the dim muddy lighting of your room at night you're going to get bad results.
I just got a flatbed and scanned a few frames of old stuff. These were shot with Velvia on a very beat up Mamiya C33.
The scanner seems to be doing decently, I can see the grain pretty well at 100%, and this is with the stock 120 holder. The lens and my technique, not so much haha.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T19:34:47+16:00
>>2785012
I recently got a Hasselblad, and just bought a pack of Tri-X and chems to soup it, so hopefully I'll have some material to post in the next few days.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T19:36:01+16:00
>>2785014
And here's a snapshit from the same trip, with a Koni Rapid Omega. (I think.) That camera was kind of fucked, the RF needed work and the frame advance was off as you can see here. I probably won't post any others from it, unless I turn up something really cool.
This was also pretty badly underexposed on C41 of some sort or other, BTW. (I think it's shitty Kodak Gold 100.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T20:05:36+16:00
>>2785021
OOF areas look more pleasant than the mamiya one.
Here's another from the C33. Yeah, the OOF areas are pretty mediocre with it, it's a reasonably wide and slow lens so that doesn't help. (65/3.5)
Scanner is a Canon 9000 MkII, by the way. I was planning on the Epson, but the guys at Freestyle Photo all said they prefer the Canon, and it was cheaper anyway.
I kinda like the Rapid Omega images better too. I'll see if anything else from it is worth scanning. (On a side note, I need to get some damn batteries for my lightbox, holding negs up to the ceiling sucks.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T21:25:17+16:00
![gallery_inactive[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/eaUm9qL.png "gallery_inactive[1].png")
>>2785012
Because the images you posted are so low-res it's impossible to tell whether they look blurry because you took bad pictures or scanned badly. This is the kind of situation where it's appropriate to ignore the 1000px rule.
Another from the Rapid, this time on Ektar.
>>2785055
Probably a combination of both, but I think the photos are at fault more than the scans are. Here's a 100% crop from one of them, with pretty decent definition on the grain but visible blurring on the details of the photo.
I'm pretty OK with what this scanner can deliver, honestly. I don't really plan on using it for anything but web-size uploads, and if I print, it won't be bigger than 13x19. I plan on getting a better film holder and trying some better software, as well.
I think a trashed old Mamiya with a wide-angle isn't the greatest test, either, I'll be very interested to see what I can get out of the Hasselblad.
>>2785070
Fuck, and I forgot the photo. Oh, both of them actually, because I forgot that I was going to post a 100% crop with that one...
It's worth pointing out that these were all shot on one gloomy day, handheld and on relatively slow film, and with me guessing exposure because I had no light meter. A lot of the shittiness is handholding heavy, clunkly cameras with long shutter speeds.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T21:36:54+16:00
>>2785071
And here's the Ektar Rapid shot I meant to post.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T21:44:53+16:00
>>2785085
Yeah, I did what I could in post but it can't compare to the real thing.
For what it's worth, it was solid overcast and the sky still would've been grey, though. Here's one without a blown sky and it's not much better.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Created 2016-03-04T22:54:09+16:00
Hey guys, stupid question, but maybe somebody can answer.
I just bought an AP compact developing tank with reels. It has a kind of "wobbly" base on the spindle, and a key that goes through the funnel and lets you spin the reel spindle, which in turn makes the reels wiggle back and forth by a few mm. What's the point of this? It seems like more of a pain in the ass than normal agitation. Is it something for using these tanks when machine processing?
>>2784466
Pentax LX.
If you can't find that one, a MX is extremely robust as well.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:03 16:43:29 Image Width 2400 Image Height 1600 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2400 Image Height 1600 Rendering Custom
>>2785099
I guess its more gentle and makes your developing less contrasty and more even if you dont shake the whole thing cause you dont fill the whole thing to the brim
>>2785004
>This film isn't "underexposed" at all, it seems you don't even know what that means.
Thanks for sharing your insignificant opinion. Neither of us said the film was underexposed. We said he film was underdeveloped because its density came out far lower than that of a properly developed film. Which is btw soumething that you can hardly judge from our images with maxed out contrast and corrected levels.
Recently got around to scanning some negatives from a couple of years ago.
Having troubles with the scanner though.
Anyone with experience using a Plustek 7200i know why silverfast would crash after every scan?
>>2784161
>Shot a roll of retropan 320 and it came out underexposed.
>>2784331
>Got the same experience with retropan 320. Developed in ID-11, came out underexposed
>>2785158
Eat a bag of dicks, shitneck.
It's something I can absolutely judge when your 'scans' with 'maxed out contrast and corrected levels' show a massive difference between the film base and the minimum density on your photos.
Like, literally retarded. As in it takes you a lot longer than normal kids to grasp simple concepts.
>>2785023
>OOF areas
I think you are mistaking blown the fuck out slide film sky for lens characteristics my friend.
>>2785099
>key that goes through the funnel
Take that "key" and deposit it in the trash bin where it belongs. Use the lid and invert for agitation. I am saving you the aggravation of troubleshooting overdeveloped film edges.
Minolta srt 101 or a Konica t3? They both have 50mm f/2 lenses
>>2785203
that is bad ass looking. It's like rubbing my eyes on sandpaper.
Here's a black-n-white photo from Soviet 70s. What filter was used in front of what type of film, any ideas?
>>2785288
Svema (cвeмa), tasma (тacмa), maybe fotopan or orwo, if we're only considering east bloc films. Doubt anyone'd use a filter indoors on already slow films.
Love using my 4x5 but shooting regular film is so expensive (~$7 a shot when all is said and done), so I took an old film holder and converted it to take the Fuji Instax Wide film, been fun. Only have to darkroom to load and like 30 seconds to process afterwards, cost is like $0.50 a frame.
>>2785315
That's not a bad idea. You just stick the instax film into the film holder? What "conversion" did you have to do?
Want to buy a cheap rangefinder for purely fun shots
Around the €50 mark
Was thinking the Zorki 4K with a 50mm for a bit of fun
Will mainly be shooting black and white street photography
>>2785315
Would love to see a pic of this set up
>>2785108
LX is nice and has really good metering, but it is fairly expensive compared to the MX or ME super. It also is not medium format, which the guy was asking for.
Need a rangefinder, here's my specifications
-has light meter
-manual shutter speed
-cheap (under $100)
-reliable
I wanted the yashica electro 35 but the forced aperture priority is kind of a turn off when I want to shoot street photography at a constant minimum of 1/250
>>2785508
Try the Canon AE-1.
It has the most accurate framelines and focusing patch of any rangefinder out there, and it's really cheap.
Also, hot tip, the camera you're looking for doesn't exist.
>>2785508
Not technically a rangefinder but have a look at the Bessa L. You'll mainly be zone focusing at f8 for street anyway and you can find finders on ebay cheap.
>>2785508
honestly the electro shouldn't be much of a problem for you considering you're probably not going to be shooting film slower than 100 iso if even that slow.
not sure about any shutter priority compact rangefinders. but there are a a bunch of manual ones. Petri 7sII (45mm f/1.8) is a favorite little camera of mine
>>2785208
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm planning on doing. I did some more googling and found a post with people talking about it, and they basically said the same thing.
Where's the cheapest place to have colour film developed by post?
>>2785618
Where do you live?
>>2785618
>people still posting this question
>still not saying what format/process
>still not posting location
>still not giving a guide price of what they deem acceptable
I don't even live in a huge town but there are at least 9 places for me to develop C41/E6 or B&W neg in sizes from 110-LF from as little as £2.50 per roll. You fuckers need to start posting more information.
>>2785004
So maybe under-exposed was the wrong word. But the only times I've seen a negative look as faint as these is
a) When I've fucked up my settings.
b) When my flash has gone into sleep mode.
c) When I found a 25 year old of FP4 that my dad shot.
So a while back on one of these film threads, someone mentioned they hadn't seen 110 format slides. I was digging through some stuff today and found a few Kodachrome 110's from the late 1970's. I was really young on this trip, but it's possible that I shot these, but I really don't remember. Tried to scan these as they look rather than correcting the years of poor storage. So if you are out there anon, here's your Kodachrome 110 samples.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Capture One 8 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:05 19:28:51 Image Created 2016:03:05 19:28:51 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -2.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Compulsory Image Width 1280 Image Height 964 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard
>>2785800
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Capture One 8 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:05 19:29:25 Image Created 2016:03:05 19:29:25 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -3.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Compulsory Image Width 979 Image Height 1280 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard
>>2785800
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Capture One 8 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:05 19:30:02 Image Created 2016:03:05 19:30:02 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -2.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Compulsory Image Width 1280 Image Height 959 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard
>>2785537
My point was that anon "needs" a rangefinder like Elton John needs dicks.
He doesn't at all, but he is a massive faggot.
SLR's offer more accurate framing and focusing, and he can find one with all of the bullshit extraneous requirements he's after with an excellent lense and still be under budget.
>>2785526
not a rangefinder
>>2785532
not a rangefinder
>>2785537
because I have a background in digital photography and need a little help with exposure
>>2785569
I'll be mainly shooting 400 ISO film, I just wish I could set the shutter speed a little slower if I wanted to capture some movement, or just 250 and quicker to freeze motion altogether instead of letting the camera decide.
>>2786001
I said the Bessa L wasn't a rangefinder. Have you shot street on film before? Everyone I know who does zone focuses so the rangefinder patch is very rarely used. Good luck finding everything you want under $100 without compromise
>>2786001
>because I have a background in digital photography and need a little help with exposure
You can use that same background to git gud.
Print out a sunny 16 chart on a business card sized piece of paper and tape it to the back of your camera. Select a suitable aperture/shutter speed depending on the lens or ISO of the film you're using and push the shutter.
It's not incredibly hard, There's no odd shutter speeds on the dial. Usually you'll have B, 2s, 1s, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000, 1/4000. You really can't fuck it up that badly. You're more likely to fuck up an exposure by opening the back accidentally (because you loaded some 135 a week ago and forgot).
If you can't get this down with ISO400 film, then you may need more than a "little help with exposure".
Any cheap decent places in Dublin that develop film? I don't even need prints, just negatives and maybe scans.
Huge bonus if they do it someone quickly as well.
>>2786031
Do you have an ASDA in Dublin? If so. Asda do C41 135 for like £2.50.
velvia
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 6.50.007 (151023) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 663
>>2786033
This. Asda will put 5 films on one CD if you want scans which saves you some money. You could try Boots too but they are more expensive and won't put multiple films on a single CD.
Photo is a Boots scan
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Corporation Camera Model Frontier SP-3000 Camera Software FUJIFILM Corporation FEII software Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:04:30 13:59:29 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1818 Image Height 1228
>>2786035
And an Asda scan
>>2786040
>>2786035
Always glad I DSLR scan.
[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 2015:05:12 12:29:56 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 1181 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
>>2786033
Sadly no. Only the bad Ireland has ASDA.
>>2786033
>>2786035
>>2786040
Pic related, from top to bottom:
Asda Scan (they developed too)
Home scan (friends £150~ film scanner from Amazon, don't know model)
Final edit
>>2786047
Sorry, I thought you were in best Ireland. E-enjoy your freedom m8.
Google shows Conns and John Gunn as options but closed on sundays (like almost all non-supermarket processing places)
If their prices are too high or you don't find anywhere else then you're probably best mailing your film to a processing service or process/scan at home.
Sorry I couldn't help you out more.
>>2786050
My buddy gets his scans done at ASDA etc and whines about them. Even refused an older flatbed he could have used with better IQ. Usually the scanner just works it out as auto exposure, there can be some human input but people paid minimum wage to process photos generally don't care all that much.
>>2786050
Just fired up my V600 to see the difference and it looks like Asda managed to crop my image.
>>2786040
Default Epson scan settings, no post processing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 8469 Image Height 5567 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 6400 dpi Vertical Resolution 6400 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format
>>2785886
>My point was
Your point was that you're a retard.
>It has the most accurate framelines and focusing patch of any rangefinder out there
You called an SLR a rangefinder. Don't try and backpedal now.
>>2785508
Get a Yashica Minister
>>2786053
Oh you helped. Thanks, man.
I'm not myself Irish, otherwise I'd probably have some choice words for an Englishman who doesn't know which Ireland Dublin is in.
>>2786066
Oh, I forgot autists take everything vry srsly.
THE WHOLE POINT OF MY RECOMMENDATION WAS TO POINT OUT THE POINTLESSNESS OF RANGEFINDERS. SLR CAMERA HAVE MORE ACCURATE FRAMING AND FOCUSING THAN RANGEFINDERS. SLRS HAVE MORE FEATURES THAN RANGEFINDERS, SPECIFICALLY THE SHUTTER PRIORITY MODE YOU SAID YOU WANTED, WHICH THE VERY DESIGN OF MOST RANGEFINDER CAMERAS RULES OUT AS AN OPTION ENTIRELY.
NON-GARBAGE RANGEFINDERS ARE PRACTICALLY ALL PRICED OUT OF YOUR INFANT BUDGET AS WELL.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW, SPECTRUM BABBY?
>>2785363
The Zorki is cool, but after trying a bunch I prefer the Fed 2 for simplicity & lack of slower shutter speeds (won't break as easily).
>>2786075
My favourite SLR feature for street shooting is the thunderous clap of the mirror slapping back into place
>>2786090
Why would the street care about the noise of your mirror. It's not so loud that it disturbs residents, right?
You should take a medium format SLR out for a bit of street shooting if you really want a thunderous clap.
>>2786066
>Your point was that you're a retard.
Kek, good going calling someone a retard when you can't work out exposures on your own.
>>2786070
>I'd probably have some choice words for an Englishman who doesn't know which Ireland Dublin is in.
>Englishman
You already called me a choice word right there.
To be fair though, I know where fucking nowhere is in the UK apart from a few towns/cities.
Honestly I just use a v550 cause its convenient and having a capable LED flatbed was a good addition to the office I could deduct
>>2786090
My favorite part about rangefinders is the hyperbole regarding the benefits they provide.
>>2785337
I basically just added those sticky corners you generally use to hold pictures in photo books, taped them down real good (using one of the films as a guide). So like $5 for a junk holder and $1 for the corners.
I guess there's a decent amount of people online that use the Instax film similarly. Like the mini Instax works perfectly in so me TLR's / MF cameras. The hardest part really has been the processing. Some people put the film back into an instax and shoot with lens covered, others put it into old polaroid backs, and some just hand roll it with a pipe of sorts. I picked up a pasta press for cheap, works perfect, just drop it in and turn.
>>2785396
Camera looks identical to this. Literally the only thing I did was modify 1 film holder (as said above).
Quality's not that great, but it's nice to have more control (and tilt / shift / swing).
>>2786090
Which is OH SO IMPORTANT doing STREET when there is 90db+ constant background noise. Unless maybe you are shooting in one of those fabled ghost cities in China where there is no noise??
Fer fucks sake man, I shot an rb67 downtown last week. I Don't think a camera exists that has a louder KEER-SHEET-PLUNK than an RB. A person standing 3 feet away would have never heard a sound downtown.
>>2786180
oops
>>2786075
>Oh, I forgot autists take everything vry srsly
>Takes his opinion on rangefinders super seriously
If somebody wants a rangefinder, let them have it bro.
Rangefinder anon, the Ricoh 500 G is an option. They're cheap and they offer manual control along with shutter priority. Not sure how reliable they are. But they use an outdated battery (1.3v PX675), though you can find replacements — people say the px625 wein cell battery is a good one.
Save up more than $100 and you'll have more (easier to find) options.
>>2786075
>Calls other people autists
>Goes into an autistic rage about someone wanting a rangefinder
>Types an entire post in caps
>>2783948
I have a question. What's a good 35mm camera for shooting landscapes? Also recommend me a good lens, focal length etc.
>>2786240
Any working SLR with a wide lens
Your film choice is more important than the camera
Are there any good apps for tracking your film? I have only been able to find two, 'Film Roll' and 'Film Rolls' and they are both ass.
>>2786240
Any decent SLR will do, just make sure it has a bulb mode and shutter release available. I usually prefer to shoot on 135 SLR's that have higher shutter speeds available as it gives a bit more leeway to exposure.
Then try out a bunch of different types of film and especially try out slide film.
>Also recommend me a good lens, focal length etc.
Anything that's wider than 24mm.
>>2786240
35mm isn't really ideal for landscapes.
I would consider 645 to be pretty borderline as well. It's just difficult to get enough detail to be really satisfying, unless you use the very sharpest film you can find, and very good photographic technique.
If you insist though, I'd recommend a manual focussing electric Nikon. I use the EM. Pic related.
Its metering is great, and bang on for long exposures, and the self timer also flips up the mirror, reducing vibrations. The long exposure metering is crucial, because you will want to use the slowest film available, and when the light gets a bit low and interesting, you'll be looking at exposures going at least a few seconds.
The other consideration is that wide angle Nikkors from AI-S onwards are the best in the game.
But in all seriousness, look hard at a Fuji 6x9; they're so cheap for what they are and the IQ will blow your mind.
[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 2016:01:17 17:50:43 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 551 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
>>2786446
>The other consideration is that wide angle Nikkors from AI-S onwards are the best in the game.
*except the 28 and 35 AF-D models
>>2786446
I have an EM as well, it was originally bought in 1980 or so by my dad. It's ridiculously small and light, which is a big bonus for landscape shooters who want to haul it up trails and mountains and such.
It's a good little camera but I don't use it much, because I prefer the manual control and battery-free operation of my F2, and I find the finder a bit easier to use with glasses than the one on the EM.
>>2786525
I agree that the finder could be a little bigger and a lot more matte, to help with focusing off centre.
Actally a bit pissed, when I was in Japan, Lemon Camera in Giza had piles of EM dioptre adjustment lenses for cheap, and I didn't even think to check them out.
>>2786031
Try Gunn's on Wexford Street. They're terribly nice and obliging in there too, which is always a bonus.
Just developed my first roll in close to ten years, it's currently hanging up to dry. I was honestly a bit surprised to see it come out of the tank with actual images on it, I was pretty much positive I'd massively fuck it up one way or another.
It's a bit purplish, I guess that means I should have fixed it longer or washed it more?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model FinePix X100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 20:00:56 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Brightness -0.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 23.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2786822
Did you use a hypo clearing agent?
2 things have given me purple, moreso with tmax but also with tri-x: Fixer exhausted or not enough wash. Hypo clearing agent greatly reduces wash time.
>>2786838
I didn't use hypo, I have it but forgot to use it haha. I'll definitely have to make sure I do so next time.
I'll be scanning this film, so the purple tinge shouldn't be a big deal, and this was just a test roll of bullshit around my yard anyway. I just can't wait for it to dry so I can see how it actually came out.
>>2786838
how much of a difference does hypo make? I don't use it when I develop my x-ray shittily cut 4x5's, and Ansel Adams didn't say much about it in The Negative, which is my only formal education on the topic.
>>2786822
My lab gave me back a roll of deeply tinged TMAX too. Not anywhere near as bad as what you have. It'll be fine. I've heard it's because of not fixing enough.
>>2786858
For what it's worth, mine looks worse in the photo than real life as well. The X100 already favors purples so it doesn't help with the tinge.
I should have scans in an hour or so, only a few wet spots left on the film and then I'm good to go. Not promising that any of the shots are actually any good, though.
>>2786822
here.
So they came out better than I thought they did. This flatbed is also doing a pretty decent job with them, probably more than good enough for my shitty ability to judge focus on a matte screen.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 21:42:30
>>2786889
wew lad Zeiss Bokeh. (This BBQ starter thingy is my "standard" bokeh test target, by the way.)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 21:31:51
>>2786890
Missed focus a tiny bit on this one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 21:39:14
>>2786893
Stupid photo, but man this lens is pretty cool.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 21:53:51
>>2786898
I like this one for some reason. Maybe I'm just a pleb liking stuff more because it's film, though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 22:14:03
Anybody have any recommendations for an inexpensive MF Nikon 35mm or so prime, preferably f/2 or faster? I was given an F2 a while back, but most of my glass is modern stuff without an aperture ring.
It doesn't need to be the greatest lens in the world, as I only plan on using it for film snapshits that will be flatbed scanned, and not on my DSLR.
>>2786822
Tri-x is always a little purple, esp. traight out of the tank.
If it's not fixed properly it will be stained yellow towards the centre of the strip.
I'd say if it's your first roll in however long though, you're not using exhausted fix.
It looks fine to me.
>>2786951
The chemicals were all brand new and freshly mixed, so there's no concern about exhausted fix. This is actually the first time I've ever developed at home and I think the first time I've bought my own chems, back in the day it was all done in real darkrooms at school or work. I think I just needed to fix it longer, my memory was pretty vague on fix time and I only did about 5 minutes.
They came out pretty decently once I got them on the scanner, so I can't really complain. I'd love to make real prints and actually have a couple of enlargers, but nowhere to set up a full darkroom right now, so for now I'll be doing the "hybrid workflow" thing where the tinge isn't a big deal.
Might as well post one more shot while I'm here. I have to say, /p/ likes to shit on flatbeds, but I think this thing is doing a pretty passable job.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 22:16:57
>>2786954
Speaking of scanning, here's a 100% crop with from this shot, which was scanned at 2400dpi, with light sharpening applied. I'm not sure how much more detail I could really ask for, I don't think a shot from my 24MP DSLR would do any better.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:06 23:46:21
>>2786954
Decent flatbeds are only really limited if you're gonna be printing it in a large format or pixel peeping hardcore. For 99% of consumers they're perfect
>>2786957
Yeah, that seems about right to me.
I have a 13x19 printer and now I'm really tempted to make some prints from scans once I take some shit that's actually worth printing. I think that if it's not already good enough as-is, some better scanning software and an aftermarket film holder should do the trick.
>>2786956
it definitely could though, even without stiching
>>2786974
bought the yashica electo 35 gsn even though it's not fully manual, but whatever we'll see how it goes.
>>2787009
Should have gone for the Yashica Minister. Fully manual, great lens, and solidly built.
>>2787143
it's alright, was mainly for a bit of fun, I'm sure I'll be fine with the shutter priority once I get used to it
>>2786996
I meant a DSLR scan, just realized that it sounded like I meant the same photo taken with my DSLR.
I might do exactly that and compare, though I'd really need to take another film shot with cleaner film and a tripod if I really wanted it to be fair.
>>2787351
that's what I meant too, if your negative was actually in focus and properly developed, it can definitely render more detail than the crop you posted.
guy who bought the yashica electro 35 here
what kind of black and white film should I buy? I hear a lot about portra? I'll be mostly shooting street type stuff during the day.
>>2787357
Oh gotcha. My dev definitely needs work, it's a pretty tricky thing to pick back up after so many years. I'm going to try one of the Better Scanning film holders eventually too, which should handle the neg focusing issues.
Honestly though, even as-is I'm pretty impressed with what I'm getting out of these. I don't really have any practical purpose for files over 1000px or so, and won't be shooting subjects where sharpness is critical, so I'm already in the ballpark where I can use this stuff.
>>2787358
when in doubt, kodak tri-x 400
fast, almost impossible to ruin and that classic look everyone recognizes
>>2787358
Kodak Ektar.
>>2787358
Get a few rolls of HP5+ and a few rolls of Tri-X, shoot them both and pick your favourite. Portra is colour film
>>2787364
>I don't really have any practical purpose for files over 1000px or so, and won't be shooting subjects where sharpness is critical, so I'm already in the ballpark where I can use this stuff.
should probably stick with 35mm then
>>2787483
Buy in bulk. No more than £4.50-4.75 per roll desu.
>>2787489
found 5 rolls for €26, bam done.
>>2787483
I prefer Tri-X when pushing 1 or 2 stops but I think HP5 looks better at box speed (I dev in Hc110, I've seen HP5 look much better in other developers)
>>2787494
yeah moving from digital to film, going to have to learn what "pushing" means and uh.. yeah.. how to do it.
>>2787498
Purposefully underexposing a film to shoot at a higher shutter speed or stop down. Developing for longer.
Pulling is the reverse.
I was only joking before when I said you may have brain issue, but you really do need crutches to learn how to expose, don't you?
>>2787498
You under expose the film then develop it longer. A lot of black and white street shots you've seen will be triX or HP5 pushed to 1600 iso from 400,it makes it a lot more contrasty and generally a lot grainier
>>2787513
No.
It's advisable that you develop your own black and white film.
Not only will you learn something new and refine a skill, but your processing will be done just for your film. Not by someone who has no investment in how your photos turn out.
>>2787514
I understand that but am moving country within the next 6 months (other side of the world) so I can't justify getting all that equipment just yet.
perhaps I'll just shoot some here and not push/pull the film, get it developed somewhere, see what happens, then when I've moved I can look into developing my own film.
