/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
Film General Thread, aka FGT.
>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you touch fixer
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.
Starting a new one because OP of the other one running at the moment is a moron, and doesn't appreciate the need for an on topic OP image and text to generate engagement.
[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 30mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:16 09:07:14 Exposure Time 1/45 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 1 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 731 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Flash Exposure Compensation 6 Sensor ISO Speed 224 Color Matrix 129
>>2793883
>>>2788666
>>2793883
there's 100 posts of engagement in the current film thread
>>2793887
The one before maxed out in 6 days.
Keep with me guys. I just turned in my first roll to be processed by fujifilm. I want to eventually develop my own stuff. What is the over all consensus on infrared film?
>>2796897
Is there any reason to take ir photos instead of "im a unique snowflake who takes ir photos" ?
>>2796915
different tonality. plants become white, faces tend to smooth out from being brighter, sky darkens. it's neat and doesn't have to be used as a crutch like in photos where the only thing interesting is that it's IR.
>>2793883
Hi /p/eople, can someone please link me that site which sells analog gear and paraphernalia?
Saw it on this board a dozen times but I can't remember the name ^^' thanks!
>>2797234
kek.com
>>2797234
apug
>>2797234
lomography.com
>>2796915
If it's color IR yeah, if it's B&W ir It just looks really distracting imo
Are there any benefits of going 50mm f/1.4 over f/1.7? Should I drop the extra $40 for some serious bokeh or is f/1.4 just a meme
*whispering*
redscale when
>>2797530
I have this lense, and have taken about 3 photos with it.
It seems reasonably sharp though...
>>2797530
anon it's just $40 more to get a real lens and not a failed attempted at one
>>2797531
Make it yourself.
Anyone here use Agfa Precisa 100? I shot and developed a roll and it came out really dark and curly as fuck. It was almost impossible to scan. maybe I got a bad roll?
I used a good working camera and I have shot and developed lots of slide film before (mostly in medium format)
>>2797677
show scan.
>>2797530
If you are talking Hexanon, the f1.7 is sharper when stopped down but pretty soft wide open. The earlier version of the f1.7 has closer focusing distance and is marginally heavier than the later version of the f1.7. The f1.4 is nice but like most lenses of the time it's kind of soft wide open. Stopped down it's pretty sharp but the f1.7 is a tiny bit sharper. The earlier version of the f1.4 is also marginally heavier than the later version. The later version of the f1.4 has 8 aperture blades that makes the out of focus area look better than the 6 bladed earlier version.
I use my f1.7 most of the time because it's lighter and smaller. The f1.4 I save for shooting people because I think it looks nicer for that purpose. Look at the 57mm f1.4 if you want "krazy bokeh".
I'd say get both. If you can't get both then settle for the f1.4. It's a nice general purpose lens.
>>2797677
Underexposed or under replenished first developer.
It's Provia 100f (RDPIII)
>>2797695
precisa is provia?
>>2797677
>>2797681
>>2797695
I actually developed some in the same tank as some Astia, Astia 100F and Trebi 100C, and it also came out a lot darker than the other 3.
For my next dev I did two Precisas only, and ave them a little more time in the first developer, and they came out a little brighter.
I'd say the true ISO of the film might just be closer to 80 or 64. Results in the Ja/p/an thread, the waterfall, yellow train, blurry ladies on stair and the Cadillac.
I had no problem with curling though.
And now filthy casual op film thread is kill, mine can rise like a phoenix.
I hope objective-provia-san posts in this thread and we can continue our pleasant discussion.
Is this the "Tri-X Look"?
[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 712 Image Height 1000
>>2799814
Filthy casual op reporting in. Carry on.
>>2799814
It's tough to say. The "Tri-X look" really shines with lots of tonal variance across a gradient, so when there's a lot of dark with some speckles of light, you can't really tell.
>>2799863
You're a clown.
Pls stahp.
[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 1191 Image Height 800
>>2797665
C R O P
R
O
P
P L S
L
S
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 848 Image Height 604
Just developed my first roll of film. Most of the shots were missing from roll, I might have exposed the same frames multiple times. These two are the only ones that turned out usable.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2799934
What camera? When you mean 'missing', as in blank film?
>>2799937
Yeah blank.
Its an old no-brand-name TLR, the front just say reporter. Had it since I was a kid as a toy camera. I only realized it was functional when I got interested in photography last summer.
Recently got into b&w... Have only tried 400TX, what should I try next?
>>2800036
Everything.
>>2799934
where you using a light meter ?
as if not you might of over exposed them.
post a pic of the camera ?
certain styles of camera are more prone to issues and might be helpful.
>>2800036
Hey I recently got into wood working. I have only tried a fillips head screwdriver. What should I try next?
You pick tools for the job, not jobs for the tool.
>>2800043
Well I mostly shoot landscapes... what are good films for that job?
>>2800044
Provia. Ektar. Velvia.
>>2800044
S L I D E
L
I
D
E
velvia 50 my man. or provia. or ektachrome. youll be blasted away, trust me. your eyes will pop out of their sockets and never recover.
search for alex burke in the /p/ history. that guy does some sweet landscape work with slide film.
Is there any differing technique when shooting very foggy scenes going to film? I took my new camera out on a real foggy day to test it out and thought I was on full auto but I was on shutter so these turned out obviously pretty bad but at least I know it works and has no leaks
Going to go out again when it's foggy to experiment but is there anything specific I should try?
>>2800047
You missed the part where I was asking about b&w...
>>2800057
You missed the part about choosing the right tool for the job, but fine, TMax or Acros will be good if you can keep your textures simple and wait for really nice light.
>>2800057
not him, but okay, no fun allowed, etc.
i think youre doing wrong with the trix. because landscapes are there for you all the time, you dont need "speed". you need a slow film o you can get beautiful fine grained photos with deep blacks. try pan f 50, or even slower films like ortho 25. tripod will be needed.
recommend me a place to mail in e6 for develop and scan (usa)
i've brought my film to local shops (nyc and hk) and been disappointed compared to diy but i'm too lazy to keep doing this
Hey lemme ask about IR film. I have some Agfa IR film, MF, and I want to know how to metre for it. I have an overpriced sekonic spotmeter and I want to know how to get good bearings. Saw someone get some good results with a yellow filter last thread?
>>2800078
Set camera/meter to film speed, and then use a red filter on both.
This will intensify the IR effect, but will also reduce the amount of non-IR light that the meter will see and react to.
>>2799814
>I hope objective-provia-san posts in this thread and we can continue our pleasant discussion.
wew lad. still hurt. sweet.
you want me to color correct more of your shitsnaps? i dont have time for that, buddy bro.
>>2800109
>i dont have time for that
>>>browses4chan
kek
Just made some 11x14 prints from a 6x7 negative, The tones are fucking delicious.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2448 Image Height 2448 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 2016:03:24 01:53:53 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 1200
>>2800126
Try cleaning the neg next time sugar.
>>2800127
Honestly, I'm offended you would think I'm sugar, I can't possibly be him though because I actually took a photo and printed it.
Anyway, that one little spot you're probably seeing is a defect on the negative, it must have gotten scratched somehow. I can fix it by spotting, as well as a few other small dust spots. overall though the print is pretty much dust free.
>>2800124
>>2800109
>>2799814
You're both faggots. I love your interactions, the down-to-earth sensibility vs the I-read-too-much-shoot-too-little autism. You're making /p/ a pleasant online experience.
Does anyone here shoot T-grain or slow (50iso>) films? It seems everyone is going for the grainy, hp5/tri-x, ugh, pushed look rather than the opposite. I'm asking about general experiences, sample pics, preferred developers, etc~ I could browse flickr 's t-max/ilford delta tag all day, but I'd rather have one anon's personal experience posted than a 1000 flickr badly tagged snapshits.
>>2800137
T-max is sharp, but kind of bland, low-contrasty. It scans very well, and most Kodak films are very flat. Basically it looks fine in good, contrasty light, but anything else will come out just flat. Fuji Acros 100 is sharp, and very contrasty, perfect if you want to do only a little editing after scanning or printing. It curls like a bitch though. I've never shot the Delta films, but I've seen some great stuff from it.
I use XTOL 1:1, and I've used D76 stock. Xtol is better for most everything, but D76 will never fail you.
>>2799814
oh you thought i was gonna leave you just like that? i was only pretending.
here, have an edit. now, i know you, as the ""author"" have total authonomy to make your snaps look as bad as you can, but really, that gross red cast got on my nerves, and i had to edit it out, along other nasty stuff, couldnt help it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:23 20:13:18 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 731 Image Height 1000
>>2800147
FIXED.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2800149
whoa, now it has true "expired film tones(™)".
>>2800150
I'm selling the lightroom preset for the low price of $9.99.
>>2800151
so you think you can compete with MY presets? ill blow your crusty ass out of the water.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:24 04:18:06 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 731 Image Height 1000
>>2800155
Homes, you can't beat my names...who gives a damn about the look.
Like this one is kodakrema. All the hipster bucks are mine son. All of them.
>>2800156
The look matters so little I didn't even have to post that shit to get a thousand sells after sharing that name.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2800156
>kodakrema
sounds like an icecream flavor.
well, beat this, what you saw in my last post is called: Kinôchrome 64.
it gives you gaspar noe tonalities in slide film format. develops in redbull. ur already out of the bussiness kiddo.
>>2800158
The o with a hat is just low man.
>>2800160
says who.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:24 04:31:51 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 731 Image Height 1000
>>2800164
Alright...here's vivektar
The sensuality of Vivian Meyer infused with a heart of lilac and pumpkin spice.
>>2800169
I'm failing hardcore at attaching images.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2800170
alright. this one is the Bill Henson Special. it gives you insta low key photos, for the special snowflakey artsy guys out there.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:24 04:48:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 731 Image Height 1000
>>2800085
This isn't reliable because normal light meters aren't calibrated for IR. It could be roughly correct or it could be way off and you wouldn't know without testing.
>>2800039
They might have been overexposed.
The camera have no shutter or aperture control, and the shutter is very old and may fire at different speeds.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2800137
I've played a bit TMax100 and agree with everything >>2800141 said. I'll add that you have to be very careful not to overdevelop tmax. I use hc110 and overdevelop almost everytime. I gotta take better notes and sort that out. Also, TMax will murder your fixer. If you get a purple tint on the negs, it's time for fresh fixer. Some say the purple can be washed out but fresh fixer is the only thing that has worked for me.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model PS7200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:03:09 21:23:21
>>2800265
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model PS7200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:03:09 21:24:08
>>2800265
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model PS7200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:03:09 21:24:33
>>2800265
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model PS7200 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:03:09 21:23:54
>>2800261
Or might not fire at all (or get stuck open), which would explain blank frames. I have one cheap MF camera I got from my grandfather that I haven't tried with film, because the shutter gets stuck open after firing.
But honestly you have to overexpose a shit ton if you want to blast a frame of negative film into nothingness.
>>2800265
is there an anti-halation layer you're not washing off, that's destroying your fix?
>>2800261
>>2800039
Ok, I'll do it because someone has to: A blank frame means an UNDEREXPOSED shot. Overexposure gives a very dense, dark negative. You need light to form an image, if there's too little, you get a blank frame.
>>2799934
Given the visible shadows these were shot in full sunlight. Box cameras, assuming no mechanical issue with the shutter, usually have a speed of 1/25, 1/30 or 1/60 and an aperture of f/8 and up (f/11 being the other common one). Since you used delta 100, stuff shot in subpar lighting conditions - indoors, evening/night shits - might not come out at all due to underexposure.
If the camera has uncoupled film advance, if you shot more than 12 pictures you must've had multiple exposures - the frames would be very dark, never blank.
Open the camera back and fire the shutter several times looking through it at something bright - everyone should do that with any new camera they get before loading any film in it, you're never sure with old tech.
>>2800141
>>2800265
Cheers guys, you're awesome, thanks for the advice and input!
>>2800277
Not on 35mm. The fixer issue is well known and I believe even documented by Kodak.
>>2800279
Thanks for clearing that up bro. It's been a while since I shot the roll, but the missing frames could all have been shot indoors. I'll stick to well lit scenes or try a more sensitive film next time.
>>2800177
sheet
guess I'm glad I bought 3
>>2800284
There's some info on your camera online, it's german, made around 1951-54 and, well, this guy covered it best, sadly still with little tech detail:
http://westfordcomp.com/classics/imperialstahl/
With a fixed shutter and aperture you're stuck with the exposure latitude of whatever film you put inside - C-41 process color negative films have the best lenience for overexposure here so your best bet would be an iso 400 or even 800 film. Shooting indoors without flash is impossible, don't waste frames.
If you want the vintage black and white experience use Ilford XP2 400iso film, it's C-41 process and has good overexposure tolerance. Same rules apply to normal BW films. With a 400iso film you should get usable images anywhere from partially cloudy 9am to 3pm or fully overcast 11-2, or indoors with very strong lighting (stores etc).
Enjoy your half-century-old photography experience and remember to make it a habit to advance the film after every shot.
>>2800265
>dat Kodak purple
Shit happens all the time. The fix time and strength is definitely important. It does wash out if you make sure to keep fresh water going over the film. I use a small Tupperware, turn on the faucet, and let it flow over the negs for 10 minutes, I dump out the water every minute to make sure everything is being washed away.
>>2800130
Here's the final spotted print. Sorry for the size, I'm on my phone.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
Brand new to this, any idea what these marks are from? Are they internal issues in my camera or outside source like exposure?
I have just finished a few rolls of Ektar and want to start developing myself. Will the Tetenal C-41 yield good results? Anybody got experience with this?
>>2800501
Maybe something sticky on the film or a manufacturing error. Doesn't look like anything I've ever come up with. Nothing I can think of points to the camera. Problem is with either the lab, the manufacturer or you got something sticky on it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:24 18:31:09
>>2800541
Yes it will give good results and isn't hard to master. But in my opinion, it is overpriced. If you are an ameridumb or can order from the us, get the arista c-41 chems from frestylephoto. Elsewhere look for the unicolor/jobo kit. My current arista kit was the 2 liter kit that I mixed last August and has dozens of rolls run through it. I use 2 liter soda bottles for storage. As long as you don't cross-contaminate the chems they really take a beating and keep churning out good results.
>>2800550
Oh wow, thanks for the fix, and I'll keep an eye on my future pics for it.
>>2800557
Correction: The last kit I got from freestyle was the 2 liter Unicolor kit (powder). I will replace it with the gallon Arista kit after having such good luck with the gallon sized E-6 kit. Powder kits are fine for the smaller sized kits. The gallon sized Arista kit is liquid and is better if one wants to mix up smaller batches.
Just picked up a Minolta Freedom Dual and a Fujifilm DL-400 Tele. New to photography (took a photography class in highschool mainly using a Pentax K1000, but I didn't learn TOOOOO much desu). I know both of these are point and shoot (right?) but I'm still pretty excited. :)
Ordered some batteries and film off amazon, woohoo.
Captian Planets got nothing on me when it comes to going green
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1718 Image Height 968
>>2800651
>dat mercury streetlight
Be glad you don't have sodium lights, green's better than reddish orange. Such is urban film long exposure.
>>2800056
if you are runnin anything with filter threads, try coloured filters. Im not 100% sure on the process but i think either blue or green filters make mist look really ghostly and cool
>>2800670
I'm running a canon a-1 so I can put a filter on. I'll see if I can ghetto rig something up to test with
>>2800662
It was sort of my bad for using Superia because greens can infect the image like the plague under certian conditions (ex. this one).
Also funny how you mention the whole "such is life" thing considering I ran a rusko out into the snow on a shitty small collapsible table due to having no tripod adapter piece. Walked 2 blocks just to get a photo that is exposed decently with everything in focus yet bad subject matter and a greener world all around me.
Utterly disgusting.
>>2796938
a lot of which can be achieved with color filters, so yeah...
>photos where the only thing interesting is that it's IR.
Quick question, better here than the gear thread.
I have a mamiya 645 and I was looking into square format MF cameras. The Bronica SQ-Ai looks pretty good, is there anything I should be aware of before buying? Anyone have this camera?
>>2800699
No. Just get it.
What do you think of expired film? I happen to find one selling here for about $1 per 36 shots of ISO 100. Is this some win or should I avoid expired film at all cost? It said it should be developed by 2011.
>>2800692
IR:
>sees through atmospheric haze, enabling very very distant landscape shots
>doesn't render freckles or skin blemishes, giving people in portraits uncanny, doll-like velvet skin
>renders the sky as night-black (the longer the vis bandwidth cut the more prominent this is - ie more on 850nm filters than 720nm ones), accentuating clouds greatly
>makes some dyed, opaque plastics transparent, absorbing ir and reflecting it differently giving an old, known scene an entirely new look
Also, yeah, vegetation. You've got a medium that lets you see the world in a spectrum invisible to the human eye, nigger, get creative and appreciate its uniqueness instead of waiting for others to spoonfeed you ideas what to do with your own camera and film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015-02-03T19:44:15 Flash No Flash, Red-Eye Reduce Image Width 3543 Image Height 1772
>>2800716
stolen from http://nickspiker.deviantart.com/art/UV-Vis-IR-79604901
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA SD14 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 51 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2008:03:10 01:56:20 Exposure Time 1/2 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 580
I have three Nikon film lenses that all came with a skylight filter. Does this mean that whenever I shoot film, I should have a skylight filter? I remove the skylight in digital because it makes my whites look orangy.
What would I need to be able to have the same style as Twin Peaks?
>be digifag
>think "I'll try this film business, might be fun"
>buy B&W film, a camera, and chemicals, have some fun for a while
>fuck my entire life up and don't shoot for six months
>come back, shoot a roll, then find my developer is a goopy brown color
I presume that means my chemicals went bad over the time I left them on the shelf, since the bottles were already open, correct? (Ilfosol 3 liquid concentrate, if it matters) My stupid question is, what do I buy to replace it that won't have that problem? Google tells me Rodinal doesn't go bad on the shelf, is there a fixer that has that same property? Do I want some kind of powdered stuff?
>>2800713
Slow speed film is fine when it's expired. 2011 is only 5 years old. Just shoot it as fast as you can. No reason to let it expire even more. It wont be exactly the same as fresh film. It might have slight color shifts. Unless whatever you are doing requires exacting standard, slightly expired film should be fine.
I have shot very little fresh film. Most of what I shoot is expired and it looks fine. My rule of thumb is to avoid fast films (anything faster than 100) and anything older than 10 years old. It's been working for me so far. After I shoot all my expired film I'll try some fresh film.
>>2800721
No. If you notice the sky doesn't look right. You might want to try putting the filter on. Might cut some long distance haze.
>>2800724
The intro looks like what happens when I shoot daylight film in artificial light. Try some warming filters. The show looks like it was shot with some pretty saturated film and warming filters. Very bright reds. It also has to do with the colors they used though.
>>2800304
Once again thank you! Nice to know which camera it is.
>>2800755
> My rule of thumb is to avoid fast films (anything faster than 100) and anything older than 10 years old.
Why? Is there a reason for this?
I'm only about a year or so into photography so I'm still learning and I will be using these expired film for my streetsnapshits since they are cheap.
>>2800757
>No. If you notice the sky doesn't look right. You might want to try putting the filter on. Might cut some long distance haze.
Oh so should removing the skylight filter even when shooting film, be the norm? Or with film is it okay to just leave it there?
>>2800795
Faster films, both bw and colour, are less stable and degrade faster. It's a general rule based on the chemical nature of film and it's common knowledge based on experience that bw film keeps better than colour and slow speed films better that faster ones. With colour C41 films a very broad shitty rule of thumb is overexposing one step (ie. treating box speed 100iso film as 50iso) for every decade of expiry - but that doesnt factor in advances in film technology rendering films more stable and the storage conditions - films that were refrigerated or kept in stable temperature conditions in a dry environment - ie. a cuphoard - will be way less decayed than ones that were subject to large temp variations or heat, i.e. in warmer countries with hot summers. Generally overexpose any expired film by at least one stop, more if it's higher iso or kept in bad conditions. It helps if you buy expired film in bulk, where all rolls are equally expired - after shooting one you'll know how to work with the rest of it. With single rolls from diff. makes and exp. dates, you can only guess. Not really a fun or reliable medium to commit your precious shots to, given the risk - use only for practice or snapshits.
Hope this helps.
>>2800802
>With colour C41 films a very broad shitty rule of thumb is overexposing one step (ie. treating box speed 100iso film as 50iso) for every decade of expiry
Since the films were expired around 5 years ago, does that mean I should overexposed by half a step? Like treat ISO 200 film as ISO 150? Or is this too much?
>in warmer countries with hot summers
I live in a hot climate.
>>2800982
Better just to go the whole stop. Print film, color especially, is very resilient to over exposure.
>warm climate
Keep your film in the fridge, especially if it's expired. Put it in a vegetable drawer with a low humidity setting, if you have that option. Pic related, my stash.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
Do any of you use x-ray film? I keep getting scratches all over my negatives. Not sure if I'm just cutting the 8x10 sheets too wrecklessly, or something else. I develop with the emulsion facing upwards, so it can't be scraping on the bottom of the trays, can it?
>>2800718
Does UV film exist?
anyone know the general range of flange distances for disposable cameras such as the fujifilm quicksnap?
>>2800724
i want to say a strong pink skylight filter rather than just something yellow because, now it's been a while since i've binge-watched twin peaks, i remember it leaning toward purple rather than green on tint.
also sneak in some blue light sources, even if it's just in the background. i remember blue lights like in the scene with the crazy guy in the bedroom toward the end of the series, not to be so specific as to spoil anything.
>>2801216
googled a little and i was correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episode_1_%28Twin_Peaks%29
>Dunham retained the frequent use of static cameras seen in "Pilot", something he saw as a hallmark of Lynch's directing style; describing the result as "like framed pictures". He also continued the use of a "warm" reddish tint to the footage, using soft coral filters and carefully selected props and costumes to obtain this coloring. This tint was considered important enough that Lynch sent a representative to the network to ensure they understood it was deliberate and not a mistake, for fear that they might correct the saturation to be more "realistic" before broadcasting it.
>>2800268
PITTSBURGH!
I used to work top dead center of your scene
>>2801222
Indeed! I'm about 45 mins outside of town but like to visit downtown once in a while. Always happy to leave by the end of the day though lol!
>>2800724
https://shotonwhat.com/twin-peaks-fire-walk-with-me-1992
also found this info for Fire Walk With Me, figure it's about the same for the whole series. however since it says "Panavision Panaflex Gold Camera" and you see a "Panavision Panaflex Platinum" in a behind the scenes photo of Twin Peaks i'm a little worried about accuracy.
i'm not by any means an expert on film stock for, you know, films but the 250D / 250T / 500T seems to refer to ISO and light temperature
i'll look for something close to the fujifilm f-series for stills
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/ServiceSupportProductContent.do?dbid=698407&prodcat=234676&sscucatid=664273
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/support/ServiceSupportProductContent.do?dbid=698403&prodcat=238647&sscucatid=664273
>>2801235
so i'm looking at the data sheet for F-250D and so far anything superia (except superia reala) is not close. their green sensitive layers extend too far below 500nm and they have a cyan sensitive layer that adds yellow not present in F-250D. velvia is also wrong, provia is wrong, sensia is wrong, astia is wrong.
fujifilm c200, the old film that superia replaced, might be closer but i haven't found a datasheet so my logic is just that it's old fujifilm 35mm and i can't think of anything else. you can still buy it and if you find agfaphoto (not agfa, but agfaphoto) vista plus 200 there's a real good chance it's fujifilm c200
the one film whose datasheet i've looked at that i think is the closest from fujifilm is superia reala, but it looks like reds and greens are about equal in sensitivity to blue, unlike F-250 seems to be in the chart. i could be reading it wrong since it doesn't make sense for it to be this lopsided. also, superia reala doesn't seem to have any negative effects from being expired.
maybe someone else can find film from another company.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-03-25T21:51:38+20:00 Flash No Flash Function Image Width 688 Image Height 687
>>2801258
well, attaching a pink filter isn't hard, so they probably put a lot of effort into lighting, sets, costumes, and props and that's where the troubles came from.
since anon probably won't want to do all that, and i can't blame them, it's probably better to just start with a warmer film with a pink filter. when i think warm film, i think kodak. fujifilm is all blues and greens. portra won't be good, it's too low saturation. you could post process it on a computer but in the interest of getting it right in-camera, there's got to be a better option.
>>2801258
idk dude just remembered him talking about it
>>2801213
If you think about the lens which is usually around 35mm with a simple design then the flange distance should be around the focal length of the lens. The film is pretty far back and the lens is pretty far forward in the camera.
It says the quicksnap has a 32mm lens.
>>2800699
Have you looked at the other cameras in Bronica's lineup? The ETRS is an exceptional camera, and the GS-1 outperforms both. If I were you, i'd ditch the constraint of a 6x6 and look into the GS-1.
>>2801071
>Print film, color especially, is very resilient to over exposure.
Newbie here. I've shot film and when they get developed the highlights were blown. Does this mean I can still recover them if I scan them with DSLR and use the "recovery" slider?
>>2801071
>Print film, color especially, is very resilient to over exposure.
Umm, no. It's better than digital and slide, for sure and arguably slight over-exposure improves the look of some color negative films, but black and white is where the "very resilient to over exposure".
>>2801378
nope
Colour film has far more durable highlights.
B&W film blocks up to solid black far sooner than colour does.
A colour neg, on the other hand, even when it blocks up to the point where detail can't be discerned, still retains colour information.
>>2801377
>when they get developed the highlights were blown
You mean on the prints they gave you?
Yes, that's because they did crappy machine scans and didn't post process them before printing them.
If you DSLR scan and know how to correct colour and balance exposure, you will find a lot more detail can be extracted.
>>2801377
>Newbie here. I've shot film and when they get developed the highlights were blown. Does this mean I can still recover them if I scan them with DSLR and use the "recovery" slider?
totally. just do a low contrast scan and youll get HEAPS of information, without even needing "recovery", youll get all tones in the frame readily for use, because film captures them like that. cheap lab prints lots of times just blow.
>>2801394
>Colour film has far more durable highlights.
>B&W film blocks up to solid black far sooner than colour does.
If you've got blacks in your highlights, you dun fucked up
>>2801406
Quick question buddy:
What colour is an over-exposed B&W negative?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 120 dpi Vertical Resolution 120 dpi Image Created 2004:06:22 13:40:40 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 320 Image Height 446
>>2801413
>What colour is an over-exposed B&W negative?
lmaooooooooooo
this is autism.
>>2801413
Quick question for you, what color film has a higher dynamic range than tri-x's 10+ stops?
>>2801417
Not him but it was pretty obvious from his earlier post that he was talking about the negatives turning black from overexposure.
Don't know if he's right about b&w vs. colour but your diagnosis of autism doesn't seem so sure a thing to me, doctor.
>>2801475
It's also pretty stupid/autistic to talk about black highlights in reply to someone who mentions color negative film, b&w negative film, and slide film.
Also, there's some good signs of autism in replying seriously to someone who uses
>dun fucked up
![14_Fire+damaged+camera[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fZuvyOy.jpg "14_Fire+damaged+camera[1].jpg")
OK, in the context of filmfaggotry, what's the balance point of image quality vs general practicality? How far can you push film size/IQ before you're stuck with a niche camera?
Is it a 6x9 camera like GW690?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Photographer Photo:Jonathan Eastland Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 800 Image Height 568
>>2801482
Yes
>>2801482
it depends
>>2801378
>>2801394
Actually here's a photo of the film.
Is it underexposed or overexposed? If it is overexposed, can I still recover the data since as they say film can recover highlights more than digital.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.6 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 5010 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4288 Image Height 2848 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1711 dpi Vertical Resolution 1711 dpi Image Created 2016:03:26 19:56:21 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/8.0 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.01 m Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2021 Image Height 1347 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2801517
It's obviously underexposed ya dumbass
>>2801535
Sorry man. As I said this is my first roll so I have no idea. Does that mean it is already fucked?
>>2801539
whether you think a fixed wide angle lense on a camera with no meter that's bigger than most asians and only takes 8 shots on a roll is 'generally practical'?
>>2801552
ok, i like you
>>2801252
>>2800724
So, Twin Peaks was shot on the following
Fujifilm F-Series F-250D 8560/8660 Neg. Film
Fujifilm F-Series F-250T 8550/8650 Neg. Film
Fujifilm F-Series F-500T 8570/8670 Neg. Film
Fujifilm F-Series F-64D 8520/8620 Neg. Film
Fujifilm F-Series F-64T 8510/8610 Neg. Film
Fujifilm F-Series F-250D 8560/8660 was replaced a few times by other iterations of F-250D and the last was Eterna 250D. The spectral sensitivity curves are close, just that green is too strong now but you can bring that down in post with curves on the green channel.
http://www.bokkeh.com/product/eterna-250-daylight-8563-cinema-film-35mm-pack/
This is Fujifilm Eterna 250D shoved into 36exp rolls so you can shoot stills with cinema film, about 5 dollars a roll.
>>2801565
http://www.bokkeh.com/product-category/cinema-film/ There's Eterna at other ISOs and temperatures as well, just so people don't assume that's the only option.
>>2801565
what's the difference between cinema film and still film anyway
>>2801596
Different processing needs, different resolution needs, different stresses on the hardware.
Welp, I ordered my first analog camera. I got a decent deal on a Zenit EM with a 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8. Got it from an auction. Paid 30 euros including shipping and auction fees. Now all I need is some hipster-looking notebook and I'm good to go.
>>2801596
Movie film has an extra layer on the back (remjet) to facilitate running through the camera at high speed.
Modern movie film tends to have a flatter, lower contrast appearance than still photo film because it's expected that it'll undergo substantial postprocessing.
Movie film arguably has more dynamic range or latitude (depending on your definition of those terms) than available still films, but that's not been conclusively proven.
Movie film can be developed in C-41 but might have some minor color shifting. Normally it's developed in ECN-2. If it's developed in C-41, you need to be careful of the remjet coating which should generally be removed before processing so it doesn't fill your chemicals with black specks.
>>2801625
>a Zenit EM
>not even one with a Helios
Nope, this was a terrible mistake.
ANY japanese SLR is what you wanted.
How fucking hard is it to listen to reason?
My girlfriend has a Retinette and I'm jealous so I'm getting an SLR with the aim of starting an M42 collection to use with my BMPCC. So: Zenit E w/ Helios 44-2 or Praktica TL3 w/ SMC Takumar 55mm f2?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Corporation Camera Model FUJIFILM Corporation FEII software 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 2015:11:19 13:22:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1818 Image Height 1228
>>2802281
Zenit: cloth curtain shutter (unglues, tears, rips with age, use) times 1/30 - 1/500, 67% coverage viewfinder with clear ground glass focusing screen, self-timer, uncoupled wide angle (imprecise) selenium (degraded a few EVs by now at best, no low-light capabilities, even indoors) lightmeter.
Praktika: metal leaf shutter (virtually immortal) times 1s - 1/1000s, 90~% viewfinder coverage, fresnel lens (brighter, more evenly lit) with microprism and split image range-finder focusing aid, coupled, through-the-lens metering CdS (low light capability, doesn't deteriorate with age, requires 1.35v mercury battery or replacements) lightmeter, self-timer.
Decide yourself, lel.
Lenses? Irrelevant, m42 ones are abundant and cheap and you'll amass a collection of preferred glass with time anyway.
The Zenit E feels very vintage and old-techy to operate and seeing the , well, central 2/3rds of the image as-is w/o the usual focusing aids, like it'll be on film, is extremely fun. But at the price of actual usability - speaking as a Zenit and Praktika owner myself.
>>2802298
Did I mention I'm physically incapable of correctly spelling the name of the camera I own and use?
>>2802298
Thanks man, really appreciated. I'll see if I can find any other Praktica models while I'm at it.
>>2802310
Just realised I made a mistake there, the TL3's max shutter speed is 1/500. The only technically better models are those with 1/1000 and a 1.5v battery for the lightmeter. Everything else will be the same. I'd recommend the MTL5B for the aforementioned two reasons.
I want to try shooting 120 film and I happen to find someone here selling a Yashica Mat 124g for roughly $100. Is it a good camera to start with? Also what are some good cheap options for a colored 120mm film?
Alright, been shooting film for a while but never really processed it myself.
What do I need to get started with processing 35mm film (mostly C-41 color, occasional B&W too)?
Thanks m8s
>>2802362
its a pretty good camera,c heck that it works properly.
>cheap c41
expired portra
What is the difference between REVUE SC4 and SC4-m?
And in general, would you recommend Cosina CT-1 Super and its clones/rebrands as a beginner film slr? I would like to pick one up since it's one of the few film cameras i found that have shutter speed higher than 1/1000 and it's the cheapest at that.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016:03:28 14:57:16
>>2802402
I don't know about C-41 chemicals but google or another anon should be able to help you.
You'll need the following at least for B/W:
Chemistry: Developer (rodinal, d76, HC110 etc), Fixer, Photoflo (not mandatory), Stop bath (not mandatory).
Storage bottles for fixer/stop bath/developer. I used "value bleach" bottles after rinsing/washing thoroughly. Then I store in a cool dark place.
Something to measure water volume/mix in. I use a cheap measuring jug.
Something to measure smaller amounts of water/chemicals (syringe, cooking spoons etc).
Development tank
Changing bag/darkroom
Scissors
At least 2 clothing pegs.
Luxury bonus: Water thermometer from ebay
Most of those can be picked up for very cheap. Excluding a changing bag, tank and chemicals, it'll cost around £10 max.
If you're thrifty, you can pick up a 2nd hand tank/reels for free or cheap, same with the changing bag. Chemistry is the only real re-occuring cost. Photoflo can be substituted for something like washing up liquid. A stop bath isn't 100% required but will prolong the life of your fixer if you rinse properly.
Then once you've got everything, watch a youtube video on how to process if you're unclear and trash a roll of cheap film to learn how to load film onto the reels.
>>2801551
it means it will look really dark and grainy. probably won't be able to recover much.
Here's what I got from messing with your scan a little. you might be able to get a little more out of a raw scan, but it still won't look good.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:28 09:15:25 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 682
>>2802402
If you're looking to do c-41 get chemicals from here
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10123-Unicolor-Powder-C-41-Film-Negative-Processing-Kit-1-Liter
here
http://filmphotographyproject.com/store/unicolor-c-41-development-kit-1-liter-kit
or here
http://www.amazon.com/Ultrafine-Unicolor-Powder-Developer-Liter/dp/B00OU6LXUG
b&w chemicals are easier to find, so just google it. a lot of people here like rodinal because it lasts forever.
You'll also need some kind of bottles to store the chems in and a thermometer to monitor the temp.
You'll also need a developing tank. most people would probably recommend the plastic patterson tanks because they're easier to load in the dark than steel ones, but that's a personal preference you'll have to figure out.
as far as developing goes, just look up tutorials on youtube for c-41 or black and white developing. there are a ton of them for both.
>>2801730
Do I look like someone who can afford that?
>>2803069
Yes, they are just as cheap if not cheaper
Are there any other than fujica st801 m42 cameras with 1/2000 or faster shutter?
I recently got a shitty 4x5 cambo monorail for 150$. I have a few questions: Are there are ways to make this fucker portable? I can't find any manuals online showing me how to disassemble.
I've seen some special 4x5 development tubes online, but I'm not sure if they're worth it. What are the available methods? I live in a small 3 1/2 apartment, so there's way I could set one up in my bathroom. The place is too damp and definitely not light-tight. It would be a pain in the ass to make it light-tight. Development methods that require trays are out of the question.
I can't even find properly equipped darkrooms in my city. I live in one of the biggest cities in Canada and yet this place is so depressed and shit that there's nothing. Scanning the film is also cumbersome, as schools won't let you use their equipment unless you're in the photography program specifically. There is only one lab in town that even has a scanner that can do 4x5, and they charge 4.50$ a photo.
>>2803187
Most EOS film bodies with an ef-M42 adapter.
People seem to forget that you can adapt lenses to film bodies as well...
As far as native m42 goes though, the Fuji's are lovely cameras, I would recommend seeking one out.
I have an ST605W. The meter is a peach to use, especially with Fuji lenses with their Ai tab, and the shutter is quite smooth.
>>2803204
Sounds like you've made a series of awful decisions.
My suggestion is to just take photos (it won't be many, because you lack the clarity of purpose, commitment and organisation required to successfully shoot LF) and leave the developing and scanning for later in life, when you're not such a garbage human.
>>2803231
Wow. Just wow.
>>2803245
Yes, If you rent or own your own house and can dedicate a room to it then that works too. Make sure you have enough room to comfortably move in the room too without bumping a door open.
A good way to lightseal a room is to cover things like LED lights etc with baking foil/pvc tape. I cover the windows in my room with Baking foil and large sheets of card and I use thick towels to block light from coming in under the door.
>>2803248
alright, I have my bathroom where I can just do this. There's very minimal light coming in through the door crack, but I can just block that out with something I guess
>>2802402
i develop both b&w and color and here's what i have in my closet:
changing bag (can be substituted with a windowless room that's been lightsealed)
patterson tank
ilfosol 3 + ilford rapid fixer
unicolor c41 processing kit (from film photography project - they were/are having a sale where it came with 2 rolls of film, check it out)
three one-liter bottles for c41 kit
empty bottle for old b&w fixer, since you can reuse it
graduated cylinder for measuring chemicals
thermometer
scissors
chip clips to hang negatives
that's really all you need. all in all, i spent $60 on my setup for developing b&w. that includes the patterson tank, which is $40 and is reusable. the c41 stuff cost me another $30 with shipping, which really isn't much. start with b&w before you try color. it's a little bit more straightforward, and the temperature isn't as critical.
if you get water spots on your negatives, you could try getting a film squeegee, photoflo, or i've heard that a little bit of isopropyl alcohol mixed in with the final rinse of the film acts as a wetting agent and keeps water spots from forming.
>>2803231
If you're going to berate me for my decisions, keep it to yourself. I'm looking for advice. If, for example, you think I lack clarity of purpose, then maybe provide some information that would help to guide me. Being a haughty piece of shit on the internet isn't worth anyone's time, your own included.
>>2803231
I mean what the fuck is my organisation/commitment issue here? That I'm not rich enough to own all the required equipment to develop and scan at home? Would you suggest I move to another city to facilitate this shit?
I've taken dozens already, and most of them have turned out fine. What kind of fool thinks that they can judge a person's ability and character from three small paragraphs? Please, choke on your ego asshole.
>>2803342
>Hey guys I bought a broken track-only car that's not street legal to learn to race, but there aren't any tracks near me and I can't afford to trailer it to where I would need to go to use it. What do I do?
Don't get mad at us simply because you didn't think it through.
>>2803358
Your analogy is shitty. It's more like having a street legal track car but you have to work on it on your driveway and parts a little difficult to source so you have to diy a bit
All of which are perfectly reasonable if you're into cars and in this guys case, large format
Quit being a faggot
>>2803375
Thanks.
I just wanted to learn. It's interesting, and surprisingly cheap right now with all the old users dying. I can't get a decent MF camera for 150$ and then a lens for another 150$.
Besides, some of these problems in their analogy aren't an issue. I don't have to "trailer it". All I need is someone to link me to a resource for disassembling it, because my involuntarily personalized google results aren't giving me anything. That would solve the portability issue.
As for the dev, I've been developing in a local dark room, but I'd like to start doing it at home. I wasn't such an idiot that I chose to get this camera where I couldn't even develop myself.
I am looking for more information on the special equipment that allows you to do it at home, without trays. I figured maybe someone in this thread might have experience.
The scanning is the only serious problem. I was going to ask if anyone knew of resources in my city, but I'm wary now that I know there are douchebags lurking. I live in a city of millions of people, though. There have to be some private resources for scanning here, like a workshop or a club I haven't heard of. The club I am currently a part of doesn't have a scanner that works for 4x5.
These aren't unsolvable lapses in judgement.
>>2803375
Except he said it's not feasible to set up a room in his house, and can't find a darkroom/lab to work with. So the "work on it in your driveway and drive it on the street" doesn't hold up, since it's not portable and he can't work with the photos once he does manage to take them.
>>2803402
It's in fine condition and can be portable if disassembled. That is how they are normally transported. It's obvious that you're baiting here. You appear to know nothing about 4x5 cameras.
Developing at home isn't impossible if you're working in a bag, or at night and using drums. Like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrZyGjzvodw
>>2803397
You can get an RB67 and a lens for that if you're smart.
>>2803411
>smart
more like lucky. 150 US or CDN?
>>2803397
I use a MOD54 in a Patterson tank to develop 4x5.
It's very simple, and when I do stand dev in Rodinal it's almost free.
See if you can find some photography club, or even a facebook photo group for your city, there's bound to be someone who can help guide you.
>>2803416
USD
HA! SKILL, NOT LUCK!
It's entirely possible, even hear in yuroland.
>>2803532
What skill is involved? I don't see how I could charm someone into selling me a camera like that in good condition for that price. Although that is definitely 200+ in CDN.
>>2803500
Do you have issues with scratching or bent negatives? Those things look good. Since they're expensive, I want to ensure I'm not making a mistake in getting them.
>>2803562
>What skill is involved?
Waiting, setting up filters
>>2803562
>I don't see how I could charm someone into selling me a camera like that in good condition for that price.
That's exactly what you do. When you see a camera on eBay, in a local store or craigslist, you tell them why the price is too high. Usually if you're not a dick and you ask the right way you can barter with them. You may pay a bit over, but it'll certainly be a lot closer to regular prices.
The key to doing this is patience. Patience and filters.
CC please
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot SX510 HS Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 4.30 - 129.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:01:03 21:21:54 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/4.5 ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 1080 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Tv-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Center-Weighted Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Superfine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 1.050 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 149 Image Number 113-2506
>>2800137
I'm trying some low-sensitivity stuff right now, bought a few rolls of FP4+ and 500ml of rodinal. Gonna let you know how it played out.
>>2803566
>>2803563
Filters as in lens filters? Or search filters?
>>2803566
>>2803566
how did you get so much shadow detail on film?
>>2803612
i used various lighting techniques.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot SX510 HS Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 4.30 - 129.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:01:29 19:28:07 Exposure Time 1/20 sec F-Number f/5.0 ISO Speed Rating 3200 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 10.62 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 2.040 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 320 Image Number 101-0706
>>2803612
Just do as Father Ansel said.
Developed my first test roll of Portra 400 last week, pretty satisfied with the quality although most of the shots came out like ass as I was testing both the film and my new camera
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software QSS-32_33 8.01.002 2006.09.28 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1819 Image Height 1224
>>2803653
im digging those sweet numbers.
>>2803654
Quartz Date makes everything look so much cooler for some reason
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software QSS-32_33 8.01.002 2006.09.28 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1819 Image Height 1224
>>2800651
Another long one. Did these as a test just to see if they'd turn out okay in the snow.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1048
>>2804020
wow. filtrd.
>>2804021
literally asking a friendly question because I was curious.
>>2804028
>not using the png
wow. filtrd.
Would I be fine with an Olympus OM 50mm f3.5 macro for film scanning? I'm gonna get 11 color rolls developed I've shot since last summer, and would like to get at least ok scans, the flatbed I have access to is just bad.
I use a Fuji X-T10 so 1.5x crop, and already have an OM -> X adapter. The reason I'm thinking about the Zuiko is I'm shooting an OM-1 as my SLR system, so it would double in function. I can get one for €90, but it's an older silvernose version. I'd like to stay in about that budget for now, because I mainly want to try scanning with a camera first.
>>2804050
should be fine senpai, I use a 50mm f4 macro takumar from 1960 and I get useable results, I think controlling dust and the backlight is much more important.
I need a new fixer for both film and prints I've used plain Kodak fixer in the past, but 5 minutes is too damn long to wait around when making prints. any suggestions for liquid conentrate, rapid fixers? So far I've looked at Ilford Rapid Fixer, and the Photo Formulary TF4.
with what camera was this possibly taken with?
square format with this thin black border, plus great image quality
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 7105 Image Height 7220 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:05:04 22:31:56 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 787 Image Height 800
>>2804050
Any macro lens works. The flat field is the most important thing. Most non-shit macros (Zuiko, Rokkor, Takumar, Nikkor, ha ha Canon doesn't have a brand name, etc) will be plenty sharp.
>>2804059 is right, in that dust is annoying to have to remove in post, and backlight leaks means loss of contrast.
>>2804068
Any 6x6 format camera. A bronica, or Hasseblad, for instance. The "thin black border" is just from not scanning the image closely enough, and can be had from literally any film image (other than mounted slides).
>>2804078
thank you for the answer, is shooting on those much different than using something like canon ae-1?
>>2804050
Any macro lens works. The flat field is the most important thing. Most non-shit macros (Zuiko, Rokkor, Takumar, Nikkor, ha ha Canon doesn't have a brand name, etc) will be plenty sharp.
>>2804059 is right, in that dust is annoying to have to remove in post, and backlight leaks means loss of contrast.
>>2804085
It's heavier, slower, bulkier, less "ergonomical" and overall less convenient. They don't usually have meters (though you can get expensive metered prisms) or priority modes.
You get less frames per roll, which makes each shot more expensive.
The results are very nice, however.
>>2804050
>Olympus OM 50mm f3.5 macro
You'll need a small extension tube as well, to fill the frame with the negative.
16MP with dat x-trans softness means cropping isn't the best option.
>>2804062
I always use Ilford rapid fix, takes 1 minute to fix prints. It seems to work fine for me, I don't think fixers make much difference.
>>2804092
thank you anon, I will look into it once I'll learn 100% on how to use my first analog camera
>>2804059
>>2804073
>>2804091
Thanks all!
>>2804171
How much extension do I need? There's a set for €30 for sale at the same place I might order the Zuiko Macro from, they're 14mm and 25mm.
Also I think I'll 3D print a holder for the negatives. I'll use my iPad Air as a backlight for now, my gf has an old school light table at our place but I'm pretty sure I'll get problems with flickering if I use that?
>>2804346
I think to get to 1.5x the smaller of the two extensions might just be enough, but you should have plenty of flexibility with either.
An actual light table is going to be a far superior solution to an ipad. Plugs in, stays on, produces full spectrum light, not rgb pixels.
When you don't use a flash as a backlight, you're always going to be dealing with long exposures, probably around 1/4 to 1/2 sec, so flickering isn't an issue.
Use a *pristinely* clean, scratch free piece of glass to sit the neg at least 2 or 3 inches off the light table, and use the felted pads of a couple of 35mm canisters to hold the film flat on the glass, and also brush dust off the negs.
You need the gap to keep your light source out of your depth of field.
Developed my first roll of E100VS the other day.
Expiry 04/2004.
Shot it at 100, because that's as low as the meter on the camera went.
Holy shit, those 90's colours. Red seems to be the only layer with much sensitivity left, but I think that when it was fresh it still would have been comedy colours.
The film is clearly fucked though, I've shot 1987 expiry Fuji slides that were still in good nick, this really should have held up better.
>kodak btfo
[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 1188 Image Height 800
>>2804372
These super strong edge effects are all through the roll as well; it's on the film, not my processing.
The dev process wasn't fucked up either, I prcessed this in the same tank as some similar vintage astia that came out just fine.
[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 1178 Image Height 800
>>2804375
Ridonkulous.
[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 550 Image Height 800
>>2804381
Last one I'll post.
I shot half the roll at a party as well, people shot with it look like they're fresh out of half an hour in the microwave.
I feel like this was introduced at a point in Kodak's lifecycle where Velvia was giving them nightmares, so the engineers created Nightmare Velvia.
[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 580 Image Height 800
About to start a photography class. They only use film since we learn about the darkroom process and stuff. I'm supposed to buy some Tri-X 400, but I need more than 10 rolls for the class. It seems pretty pricy at more than $5 per roll. Is this just what I have to deal with, or can I find cheaper places?
>>2804423
Just get it. You are probably going to waste a couple rolls too. It's just how you learn. It will be worth it in the end and then you can do whatever you want.
>>2804423
P.S. Think of all those other classes with 200 and 300$ textbooks.
>>2804423
That's about what it costs. Check Amazon, B&H, Adorama, and maybe Freestylephoto and pick whichever one is cheaper but they'll all probably be about the same. At least the school is presumably providing you with a darkroom and chemicals and all that stuff which is great.
I have a Canon EOS Elan that I inherited from my grandmother. It has an automatic film rewind at the end of each roll.
Last roll I shot did not rewind automatically and the rewind button would not work. Nothing I do will get the film to rewind.
Really don't want to lose these shots, is there any way to manually rewind film in an auto rewind camera?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Image-Specific Properties: Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/16.0 ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 90.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual
>>2804461
go into an interior bathroom, turn of all the lights. stuff a towel in the door crack. make sure it's totally dark. Then pop the back, remove the roll, and wind the cartridge in yourself. it helps if you have like a slot head screwdriver or something to wind it.
>>2804464
I was actually just doing this. Got the roll to rewind halfway but it's become a lot harder to push in now.
Thanks for the screwdriver suggestion though, might try that!
Have any of you guys tried reversal processing?
>>2804467
Also wanted to ask. Does the model of film camera matter? Or does the film matter more? I think it meters, but I haven't had a chance to get batteries for it yet.
>>2804470
The camera matters in that it determines what type of lenses you can use and what features you have such as autofocus or built in metering or other things like that and it is the tool you use to take your photos so it's nice to have a tool which you like. But in another sense it really doesn't matter at all, it's just a lightproof box that holds your film and lets you take your pictures. The film and the way you choose to expose and process the film and then how you choose to print it has a much bigger influence on what your photo ends up looking like.
>>2804461
>>2804464
>>2804465
Got the film rewound! Think it was a problem with the roll of film itself, cuz it was really hard to roll in at first and then got a lot easier for the second half of the roll. Not sure what the problem was exactly though.
As frustrating as it is when stuff like this happens though, this is honestly the kind of thing that reminds me why I love film photography. There's just something about sitting in the cupboard under your stairs in the complete dark yanking a roll out of the back of a camera and using pliers to rewind the film using your own hands.
Can't wait for the next roll, and thanks for the advice anon!
>>2804486
Well good thing you got it fixed, but did you try using new batteries first before you did all this? This is why I prefer manual rewind anyway, automatic rewinding doesn't really save much time or anything and it just makes a bunch of noise and increases the chances of something fucking up and it doesn't let you rewind with the leader out.
>>2804488
The battery meter says full battery and when I pressed the rewind button I could hear the mechanism moving, but the film wasn't rewinding.
Like I said, I think there was something inside the roll of film causing extra friction/resistance to the film being rewound and the motor was just not strong enough to overcome it and/or was slipping because of said friction.
I agree through, I much prefer the manual rewind on cameras, but like I said I just got this one as a hand me down and there were some decent lenses with it so I still use it for some situations.
>>2804375
Looks like a dream to me, I want some of that
>>2804469
Specifically I want to know if it's a stupid idea to try reversal-processing c41 black and white.
>>2804499
It's a pretty stupid idea, but it should work.
Your problem will be that the "colours" will be wrong in the slide.
Also that it's a total pain in the ass.
>>2804423
That's about right. Buy it in bulk if you can to save money. Prices on tri-x seem to have raised a bit here in yuroland.
>photography class
>darkroom process
The local college here cancelled the pure film/darkroom class here before I could learn to make prints. The only other class at the Uni starts in September -> December
Anyone know any good resources for using an enlarger?
>>2804499
People already do it with Ilford XP2 Super 400 C-41 bw film - crossprocessed in E6 it gives blue/turquoise slides/transparencies. Here's some german's take on it with a helpful bracketing example for different speeds:
https://medienfrech.wordpress.com/tag/cross-entwicklung/
>>2804540
Basically bluescale positives. They scan well when converted to grayscale but that's sorta moot.
>>2804540
I just want to make positives, really. It saves me a step in a different process.
>>2801202
tri-x
>>2804357
Cheers! I think I'll order that stuff tonight. Also speaking of Xtrans softness on the Fuji, I guess I could also use my girlfriend's A7 for more megapickles if needed. Although for what I need the X-T10 should be plenty, but I guess I'll see after I get to try it.
so I spent a while (1-2yr) depressed as fuck and with film stuff stored in closets and what not so I have a few questions about what I can still use:
opened unexposed neopan acros 100 stored in a wine fridge
fiber based paper stored at room temperature
ilford delta 100 stored at room temperature
photo chemicals in stock solution at room temp
working solutions at room temp (if these are dead, I can still use the bottles I kept them in after rinsing them with DI water, right?)
I think that's about all the stuff I'm worried about that I can remember off the top of my head.
Also if you have any tips on drying 4x5 sheets at home would love to hear 'em.
>>2804749
Unless the film was already old when you got it you should be able to shoot those at box speed with no problem.
Yeah, you're supposed to store it in the fridge but the deterioration really isn't as bad as folks say.
If you're very worried I gets you can do a test strip from each package but I'd put a few bucks on them all being just dandy.
>>2804749
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 600D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.16 Lens Size 17.00 - 50.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.2 Lens Name 17-50mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:03:30 19:50:24 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative ISO Speed Rating Auto Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Tungsten Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 236 Color Matrix 133
>>2801202
First off anon,
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=uv+film+photography
I... I'm not even sure there's any point in making the reply I planned on other than to show off what I know, now that I think about it. Any amount of effort bigger than none will tell you all I know and more, given the first fucking google result covers everything. I don't get it, honestly. Do people prefer to wait an indeterminate amount of time for an anonymous stranger to reply to them on an imageboard rather than taking the extra no effort to satisfy their curiosity on google beforehand, instantly?
Most questions ITT are more of a chance for people to show off their basic knowledge than legit queries, difficult to research or find . Are basic internet searching skills really an obscure, lost art? Fucking seriously.
I think the DP-2 prism on my Nikon F2 is underxposing, what should i do?
>>2804749
Working solution is probably dead, I wouldn't keep that for more than a few days. The stock solutions may be good, hopefully the bottles are tightly capped and don't have too much air in them. Film and paper last for years and years, I'm sure those are fine.
>>2800740
you should leave chemicals and film on the refrigerator
>>2804849
>you should leave chemicals and film on the refrigerator
