/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 dev in caffenol
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.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA DP1 Merrill Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Focal Length Range 19 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 10:03:28 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 19.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 800 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030333132323837BA7CB45641464132 Drive Mode 2S Resolution HI Exposure Mode A Metering Mode A Exposure 5/15467 Contrast -1.0 Shadow 1 Highlight -1.1 Saturation 0.9 Sharpness 1.0 Fill Light 1.0 Color Adjustment 12601/1296517459 Adjustment Mode 0.2752
first for Clyde Butcher
pretty stand up dude
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
Is the OM2 worth the upgrade from the om1? I'm a huge fan of the OM 1 and I just need a faster shutter speed because my lense only stops down to f16. Also how do I get rid of the blue cast in this pic I scanned?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-6000 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1000 dpi Vertical Resolution 1000 dpi Image Created 2016:05:03 19:19:22 Exposure Time 1/125 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -0.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Other Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2835034
I guess a classic Sugar repost as a first post is what I deserve for not making an OC OP...
[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 543 Image Height 800
>>2835038
For a group of people who love to harp on me about never posting pictures you seem to have a mental Rolodex of everything I've shot in the last 5 years.
>>2835037
With the OM-2 you get the OTF meter when shooting aperture priority, which is the only real reason to shoot an OM camera besides the nice viewfinders.
Definitely a worthwhile upgrade.
Also, they might use normal button cells, rather than mercury ones?
You will be just as well served with an OM-20, which is what I have.
Regarding your blue cast, open the image in any editing software, find the curves editing function, drag down blue.
>>2835043
Except we know you don't just hang around with Clyde Butcher all the time, so we know this is for your "apprenticeship" that you did an eon ago.
It's also a very safe bet that if you've posted something, it's a repost.
>>2835055
The irony is that when I met him and he started critiquing some of my work was about when I stopped actively shooting LF. At the time he had moved to a Sony mirrorless and 17mm tiltshift.
It's almost a safe bet any film work I post will be reposted I've got a pretty bad backlog in development I need to address.
Bought this Yashica Mat 124G Just shot my first roll of 120 Film (Ilford Delta 400) mostly testing for light leaks and other flaws. Going to buy a new Darkbag, developing canister, 120 film reels and necessary chemicals. I plan to scan the negatives into a digital format. What are thoughts on the Camera, and I'm open to suggestions on the chemicals ( for B&W film).
>>2835049
I go camping a lot so Its one less thing to worry about. I've tried to remove the blue cast but it isn't working in Photoshop, can you post a link on how to fix that?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 500 dpi Vertical Resolution 500 dpi
>>2835073
>ilford
>not Kodak Tri-X
HC-110 is pretty good if you can get it. D76 and Accufine are alright too.
>>2835073
ive seen some award winning series done with this camera. a very solid performer if its in good condition. go and take pictures.
>>2835069
For all this braying about sugar's reposting, I don't think I've ever actually seen a picture from when he was 'actively shooting LF' even once, let alone twice...
Did Clyde's critique go something along the lines of
>stop dropping your camera, dipshit
>you need to remember to take out the darkslide, sugar
>I know your ford probe is an unreliable piece of garbage, but spending a lot of time on the hard shoulder of the highway doesn't mean you should take all your pictures there
>why did you take all of these at midday?
>>2835078
both of those are inferior to neopan
>>2835100
>Tri-X
>inferior to Neopan
Toho pls
Tips for long exposures on film? This is my first real attempt.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:09 16:10:58 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2835073
I have the first version of it and I seriously can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with it, already fucked up 4 films with it. Shutter works with the release button without it it gets stuck every second image but otherwise it always works with a release button, the lens is in a new like condition and no holes or anything. Fucking weird...
>>2835135
I think I saw this on reddit, found you mthfer
>>2835150
uh...uhh.... I can explain
>>2835135
How long? Remember to look up the reciprocity tables for your film stock.
Otherwise, start counting stops, and don't be afraid to overexpose.
>>2835155
yep always try to overexpose with film. I only went up to 8 seconds (longest the nikon FE will meter too) and just stuck with that. I've recently heard about defraction and smaller f stops and besides my nd filter I usually threw it to f/16 or f/22 to get the exposure time closer to what I want for brighter scenes. Is there a better way to get longer exposures, besides of course lower iso film.
Just shot my first roll of 35mm. I got a lot of misplaced focus, it's damn hard to see through those old Praktica viewfinders.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Image Created 2016:05:09 11:33:11 Image Width 1228 Image Height 1818
>>2835222
I got them developed at my local Boots, cost me £7 and the digital scans were quite low resolution (1200x1800ish). Would I be better going elsewhere?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Image Created 2016:05:09 11:33:14 Image Width 1818 Image Height 1228
>>2835226
Also how can I capture lovely blue skies? They mostly turned out white.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 Vertical Resolution 72 Image Created 2016:05:09 11:33:27 Image Width 1780 Image Height 1202
>>2835229
you exposed for the ground. expose for the sky. or average meterings. how did you meter?
>>2835141
I'm not sure I understand the trouble you are having with the shutter?
>>2835234
>implying you shouldn't meter for the ground
Unless he's shooting slides, it's just a shitty compressed scan that didn't pull back any of the highlight info. Good metering practice would help though.
Also, these are pretty good store scans. All of mine went through some Noritsu machine that murders the quality of them up and down.
>>2835245
What >>2835247 says. Colour's excellent, sharpness isn't bad honestly but self-scans will be better, and all that highlight information, assuming negative film, is still there.
Landscape requires you to know the dynamic range of your scene, the dynamic range capability of your sensor/film, and how to control everything. Meter your shadows, meter your highlights, and know where to place your exposure. Bring a small digital camera like Alex does to do your spot metering.
The Praktica is probably center-weighted metering? I'm going to wildly guess, but 60/40 weighted in a 12mm circle? Something like that. Just meter with the ground mostly in frame.
I bought a Yashica Electro 35 from my local camera exchange and he threw in a few rolls of film. They're coming out terribly though, are they expired?
Grainy as fuck and weird colour patches everywhere on half the photos I've taken. The contrast on this looks way off. Straight from a lab scan.
[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 9.02.001 2008.01.13 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
What can I use as an alternative to a tripod when filming?
Also, is there any way to get decent sound only using my semi pro camera? Or do I need to get a mic? Any cheap alternatives?
>poorfag trying to into filming
>>2835259
That looks like a light leak. Check your light seals
>>2835259
>noritsu koki
use another lab
>>2835259
looks pretty dope.
>>2835259
>QSS-32_33
http://hollyannephoto.com/blog/2013/9/8/yashica-electro-35-gs
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:09:07 22:31:56
You'll find info on changing out the light seals about 4/5s of the way down the page.
Are vintage japanese lenses worth the 5 bucks at the thrift store?
I am thinking about shooting film and I don't have any setup yet.
>>2835259
Here's another one straight from the scanner. Does this not look a little grainy for Fujifilm Superia 200?
I'll have a look at the light leak problem but I still think either the film is expired/shit scans.
[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 9.02.001 2008.01.13 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1545 Image Height 1024
>>2835275
Looks really good
>>2835275
That's okay for Superia 200 I'd say. Try scanning with an SLR and do a comparison
>>2835275
This is superia 200 scanned w/ a rabal. It's pretty sharp film.
[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
>>2835286
You seem to treat the lab scans as the end product of your photography endeavour. I came to film with a similar expectation and boy was I in for a surprise.
Your lab scans are at best a highres preview of how you framed the shot, anon. Those blue skies are there, on the negative. Taking a photo with a film camera, assuming correct exposure/sharpness/desired depth of field, is effectively recording what you saw in that scene on the negative.
And it's entirely your job, via scanning/taking a macro photo of the backlit negative and editing the resulting file or files(you can make a digital hdr image from a negative) to represent either how you remember the scene you shot, or how you expect/want the scene to look, or to process it in a way that best highlights what you had in mind.
Pressing the shutter button and handing your roll to the photo lab is just the beginning of making your photo. Unless you're complacent with lab scans made by a stranger or stranger-programmed software. It's bloody tedious compared to digital, is what it is.
>>2835222
What praktika model d'you have? At worst you've a microprism in the center, which is perfectly fine for nailing exposure anywhere till evening, when you won't be shooting handheld due to slow shutter speeds anyway. Remember that you can't focus on thr fresnel bit of your viewfinder ('cos optics)
>>2835262
better than a fuji frontier if I'm being honest
I'm in love with the X-Pan. Is there any other panoramic camera that doesn't cost that much?
>>2835410
>I'm in love with the X-Pan
You mean
>i've decided I want an xpan
???
Buy one, pussy.
>>2835259
Hey look it's the northern quarter
I've had an idea for a mini backlight for DSLR film scanning. Will this work?
>>2835415
would be useful if I posted the pic
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model GT-I9505 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 14:01:12 Exposure Time 1/33 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 80 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 2.7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.20 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1500 Image Height 514 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID S13F0SAGH01
>>2835415
I'm going to try and scan film with a setup similar to this.
My extension tubes came in the post today.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2013:08:11 21:56:56
>>2835417
what light table is that?
>>2835420
Dunno just a picture I grabbed off google. I've got a similar looking one for sketching which should work.
>>2835416
>>2835417
pls stahp trying to use continuous light sources for this.
A flash means that you have an instantaneous, vibration-free exposure no matter what camera you use.
You don't need to fuck around with m.up, you don't roast your sensor running live view or making repeated half second long exposures, you don't need to compromise on stopping down your lense in order to reduce exposure times.
You change your scan exposure by dialing flash power up or down, you don't need to touch the camera to make adjustments.
Flash is a 'full spectrum' light source.
A flash with a remote trigger is actually a useful piece of photographic equipment to use outside of your scanning dungeon too.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:28 08:08:19 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.6 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2138 Image Height 795 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
I have no idea regarding rangefinders but I want to buy one for street photography.
Someone is selling me his Konica Auto S2 for $60. Is it a good deal? Is it a good camera? I notice that it uses a different mercury battery that is not anymore produced. What are my options then?
If not, what are my other options for a better rangefinder?
>>2835429
shut up grandad I'll scan film how I want
>>2835429
what exactly is a full spectrum light source vs. a normal one? Because that's pretty much the only advantage from your post of a flash over a continuous light source
>>2835384
Thanks for the info, man. So how would you suggest getting the best out of negatives then without spending hundreds on equipment? Would a $100 scanner and photoshop/Lightroom do the trick?
Also my Praktica is a TL3. It's annoying not being able to look in the centre to focus, but the main issue is that the viewfinder seems to pretty blurry anyway so that I can shift the focus ring a few degrees each way without perceiving a noticeable change (while the photo reveals that my focus was short).
>>2835472
It's because Prakticas are trash, like I keep saying.
Buy a jap camera and be happy.
>>2835450
and your scans will continue to suck donkey balls, you little shit.
>>2835460
I used the inverted commas because even I think it's a pretty dubious distinction to draw, but nonetheless one that certain technicalfags like to make.
If you think there's no advantage to making your scans instantly (or more precisely with a flash exposure of 1/10000sec duration and a 1/125 shutter speed) rather than with a half second or so exposure and the attendant risk of camera shake and sensor noise and the extra time it takes and the inevitable reshoots when you inevitably shake the camera or subject and the problem of ambient light reflecing off your film; well you're just a fucking moron, I don't know what else to tell you.
>>2835482
I don't have a remote flash trigger (and can't vary the output of my ancient film era flash), but holding the flash under the diffuser and firing it while taking say a 1s exposure might do the job, actually.
>>2835493
A remote cable is like $5 dude.
And a non-trash flash is like another $5 on top of that.
>>2835500
Tell me where you can get a decent flash for £3.50! I have the speedlite 300ez now and while it's decently powerful and does talk somewhat to the 5D mk1 it doesn't meter or anything.
>>2835504
My SB-24 was $25, SB-20 was $20, a Pentax AF220T(i think it's called) was $5, and those are just the ones with full manual controls.
If you can find a way to spend more than $40 on a secondhand Yuong-nuo, maybe alert the authorities, because it's probably full of smuggled heroin.
Try harder, slacker.
>>2835504
Get one of these, cheap as fuck and great
https://www.amazon.co.uk/YONGNUO-ELECTRONIC-SPEEDLIGHT-SPEEDLITE-FLASHGUN/dp/B009APY9TO
>>2835512
Do I need to buy one of those nikon expensive cables to shoot this off camera or will a Chinese knock off work just as well?
>>2835482
I really don't know how you could possibly have camera shake if you're shooting a non moving subject indoors with a cable release or a timer. Ambient light is also such a non issue and can be reduced to the point where it becomes completely irrelevant
>>2835493
Just get a flash and a $5 optical trigger off ebay, then trigger the flash with a bounced on camera flash (so you don't flash the film from the front. Or invest in a flash with an optical trigger.
Also ideally you'll have a mask and a tube to isolate the front side of the negative from stray light.
More of a movie film question but what is the cheapest color or b&w 16mm film you buy? To give a little more context me and some friends are doing a short film that may be roughly 8-10 minutes and don't want to spend a fortune for film since we still need to pick up other essentials. We'd like something of good but not excellent quality around $30-$40 But nothing over $50.
And on the same topic, why do people say that sound is hard to sync up with any sort of cine film? Assuming you shot your footage at 24 frames and has a blimp for your camera why is it still so difficult?
>>2835239
Uh... yeah. Well it's a bit complicated, the shutter works, but the release button gets stuck at times BUT I have no problems with a cable release. I set the iso to the 120 film (portra 100... such a waste man for such a beautiful film ;_;), set it with the sunny 16 rule and literally not a single shot came out exposed...
I'll maybe take a video of it, so you can avoid this mistake if your camera shows the same issues.
>>2835665
>nothing over $50.
impossible
motion picture film is expensive to buy, even more expensive to develop, and even MORE expensive to scan into digital format....
>>2835736
I was able to find some bw film for around $40, but why would a telecine conversion cost so much?
it's my first time ever shooting film
pic related is a Contax T loaded with kodad t max 100 expired some 15 years ago
any advice?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make TCT Camera Model ONE TOUCH 6012D Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:10 21:02:02 Exposure Time 0 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Other Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1920 Image Height 2560 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2835599
Its a cable m8. Wires inside plastic with a connector at the end.
>be careful though, ive heard reports that some cheaper cables can develop a thermally refractive resonance wave that can damage your camera
>>2835607
Yep, you're dumb.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810/8
In that example, they use an 85mm lense a a distance of a few metres, and I guarantee they have a better tripod than you.
Now using a 50 or 100mm on crop, at 1.6x macro distance, and using longer exposure times that increase the likelihood of, say samoone else in your house moving, or a truck driving past, you're not only more likely to get camera shake, but it's going to be much more visible.
Now when you use a flash as your main light source, you get the 3rd result from the dpreview example for EVERY shot with EVERY camera, and you don't wait 4 seconds for your mirror vibrations to stop, and it doesn't matter if your neighbours are into dubstep.
>I know all this from actual experience, not from speculating loudly on 4chan
>>2835665
Tri-X Reversal (if you want to project it), otherwise Double-X (if you want to scan it). At that price point you will only find shitty expired film, so either spend more or stick with digital.
Buy directly from Kodak. They may have student discounts, so ask.
Ok fgts, I've got the 5 liter tetenal e6 kit here unopened. I'm wondering if I can reuse chems for multiple runs (how many/for how long?) and if I should expect the mother chems to go bad after opening. Any experiences? I don't want to have to stockpile dozens of rolls before I can develop them.
>>2835794
How has it been stored? If anyuthing but perfectly temperature regulated, expect nothing. Expect a blank roll. Anything else is a benefit.
What m or ltm mount lenses can I get for around 150$?
>>2835870
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Skink-Pinhole-Pancake-Pro-Kit-swap-zone-plate-zone-sieve-lens-Leica-M-M39-/301878592031?hash=item46495dc21f:g:ohsAAOSwG-1Wyp0Q
>>2835870
there are a bunch of soviet copies of m39 lenses that fit your budget quality varies greatly so google around for what it worth your money
>>2835857
I think I'll just go with the to-x since again I was able to find some for cheap. Should I develop it myself or get it done by a professional?
Been using a Nikon FE for a while. But not having a grip is a bitch. Any good case that adds a grip, I've seen leather ones for different cameras and they look pretty nice.
>>2835794
>ISO:50
My nigga, overexposing a stop to compensate for possible deterioration. B/w film keeps leagues better than c-41, you'll be perfectly fine. Ignore >>2835864 's shitty trolling. Post results on /p/, I'm curious how 15yo t-grain film keeps.
>>2835885
Do you know how to develop reversal film/have a tank that can spool several meters/yards of film at once?
Polaroids give me feels.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5010 Image Height 4008 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:11 00:38:52 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 960
>>2835954
This guy was hauling some serious ass down the street.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5029 Image Height 3960 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:11 00:31:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 953
>>2835955
This pack was expired, when you blow the highlights they are B L O W N.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5033 Image Height 3980 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:05:11 00:32:08 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 940
>>2835907
Lol nope but Is there at least a cheap telecine conversion method?
>>2835031
I've been shooting and developing B&W for over 2 years now and want to start shooting some color. What would be the best film to start with and where should I get it developed? I'm a bit of a poorfag so although I wish I could be shooting Velvia 50, my budget doesn't allow that.
>>2835959
Shoot some cheap stuff till you can find a good lab. Color Plus, UltraMax and Superia are the most commonly found consumer films.
Once you know your lab won't fuck you in the ass, try Porta 160, Potra 400, Cinestill 50D and Cinestill 800T.
Slides are overrated.
>>2835885
Get it done by a professional, unless you have a tank with 16mm spools that fit all your film. There are lots of YouTube videos on developing reversal film with a bucket or a tank with no spool. Don't do that, as the chemicals won't get on the emulsion evenly and fuck everything up.
Reversal film is even harder to do at home because you have to expose every frame to light evenly in the reversal process.
Unless you have all the machinery, get everything done by a professional.
>>2835957
:^) by everything you've posted itt I conclude that this is exactly the product and service you're looking for, anon:
http://motion.kodak.com/consumer/products/super8/default.htm
A "cheap telecine" is a $5 craigslist film projector, a white wall and a dslr, anon. I'm sorry to say you'll be disappointed when/if your expectations finally come anywhere near reality.
>>2835972
>Slides are overrated.
how can someone be so fucking wrong. wow.
Is this really the best way to scan film with an SLR? Slightly dubious about an article from petapixel.
http://petapixel.com/2012/05/18/how-to-scan-film-negatives-with-a-dslr/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 945
>>2835996
>scan film with an SLR
I'd recommend a DSLR
>>2835997
Go and drink some phenylenediamine
How do you solve film gearfaggotry?
I already have a Pentax MX and ME, Olympus OM-1, Fujica half 1.9 (half frame) and Nikon F90x but now I am tempted to buy a Nikon FE because someone is selling me one for cheap ($50) and it comes together with his Minolta.
The reason for me buying the FE is because my digital system is Nikon and I have a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 and 135mm f3.5 that I want to use with a manual slr. The F90x seems a bit bulky to be brought on a daily basis.
I feel I'm spending too much on film photography and I already have all the film cameras I need.
>>2836090
>solve
lol
Just do it, lil bitch. Buy everything you can, they're not making any more of them.
[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 30mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:08:14 15:41:34 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1084 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2836092
But the camera I'm planning to buy (Nikon FE) doesn't even contain a good lens. It has a Tamron 35-135 f3.5-4.5 which pretty much suck ass.
Also some of the cameras I bought I have to have them repaired like the Pentax ME Super and Olympus OM-1.
>>2836090
Dunno. I used to have a shitty old rangefinder, got tired of the randomly jamming shutter and bought an FM2. I don't need anything else really. Go out and take photos instead of reading gear reviews online, maybe?
>>2836090
Buy it. The Nikon FE is beautiful.
>>2836095
>Dunno. I used to have a shitty old rangefinder, got tired of the randomly jamming shutter and bought an FM2. I don't need anything else really. Go out and take photos instead of reading gear reviews online, maybe?
I'm trying man but ebay is like my homepage.
>>2836097
>Buy it. The Nikon FE is beautiful.
I'm really tempted to get it. But what features can it offer aside from me being able to carry a smaller film camera than my Nikon F90x. I mean I can also use my smaller Pentax MX however, I can't use my Nikkor lenses on it.
My girlfriend might already get annoyed because I already have a lot of film cameras but I still keep on buying another one.
>>2836108
For that price you could even sell it forwards and make a profit.
>ebay is like my homepage
Well, I think it helps that I live in the middle of nowhere and shipping prices make ebay not worth it for me.
>>2836090
Stop being a god damn gearfag and spend money on traveling to places to use your current gear. There is seriously no point in owning more than one 35mm SLR. Having 35mm SLRs that span 3 different brands and mounts is retarded. If you shoot Nikon digital sell the Pentaxes, Olympus, and F90x and get the FE.
Or you're using the 'bulk' of the F90x to justify you're lack of shooting when in reality you're just a lazy bastard who cares more about gear that actually using said gear.
>>2835805
i completely see where you are coming from with the flash, but thats just an issue of consistency isnt it? It doesnt mean you cant take good scans without a flash...
>>2836122
Of course not, I started DSLR scanning using a plain white jpg saved in MSpaint that I played from a USB stick on an old flatscreen TV as a backlight.
It's just a total pain in the ass is all, so I worked out a better way. Now it takes me less than 10 minutes to scan a roll of film, and I don't have issues with stray light or camera shake.
And rather than let other noobs fuck around with rigs that just don't work as well, I'd like to see people getting good results from their film that make them feel like it's worth pursuing.
>>2836115
>F90x
I can't sell the F90x. It was given to me by my a close friend and mentor who thought me about photography. He quit shooting film and he gave it to me. It was his dream back when he was a teenager to own an F90x. Now he has no use for it that is why he gave it to me :)
Actually I got the Pentax ME Super for free because I bought it with a Nikon AI 50mm f1.4 and the owner just wants me to take it. The Oly OM-1, I bought it just because it looks good. And the Pentax MX, well it is my dream film camera so it is my favorite. I'm planning to sell the Pentax ME Super. Anyhow, should I get the Nikon FE then? I'm also tempted to get a rangefinder. :/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Plustek Camera Model OpticFilm 8200i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 78 dpcm Vertical Resolution 78 dpcm Image Created 2016:04:20 12:41:42
>>2836232
do you even take pictures
>>2836090
>How do you solve film gearfaggotry?
>$50
youre not gearfagging youre just unbelievably poor. you dont think over $50 for two nice cameras, buy them, asshole.
>>2836257
>plebfisheye
>photo is almost tele
wew.
>>2836281
im just a boy living in a memeworld
>>2836285
sry wrong tag
>>2836287
i didnt want to make you change your name, please go back to it. even it its misleading.
>>2836257
How much did you pay for that scanner?
Care to share a higher res scan?
>>2836280
>youre not gearfagging youre just unbelievably poor. you dont think over $50 for two nice cameras, buy them, asshole.
Yes they are cheap but as some mentioned here I have too much cameras.
>>2836272
>do you even take pictures
Yes I do. I carry a film camera everyday. I still suck though.
Pic related is a photo taken from a recently developed and scanned film by a lab.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software FDi V4.5 / FRONTIER355/375-1.8-0E-014 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:08 20:46:14 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1818 Image Height 1228
>>2836316
it's around 350-450 depending on where you get it and what model you pick.
>>2836301
it's all good homie!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Plustek Camera Model OpticFilm 8200i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 78 dpcm Vertical Resolution 78 dpcm Image Created 2016:04:20 12:41:42
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Kodak-PlusX-pan-professional-120-Film-PRO-PACK-5-ROLLS-IN-EACH-PACK-OUTDATED-/252366640619?hash=item3ac23955eb:g:-4sAAOSwInVXHSZj
Should I cop? I'd go for the 1978 and 1982 rolls.
>>2836324
what have i done.
>>2836326
>1978 and 1982 rolls.
nope and nope.
>>2836090
>F90X
>bulky
Nigga a F90X/F100 are only a little bigger than a A7RII.
>>2836321
>I still suck though.
is buying more cameras going to solve that?
Hello guys, does anyone of you have Lumix GH4 and Metabones Speedbooster with dslr lenses? Is it worth it?
>>2836457
>Is it worth it?
Is it worth what? The price? For what purpose? What experience do you have? What results do you require? How much hassle are you willing to deal with in the bounds of your budget?
You realize we don't all know you, right?
Also, just one minor thing, you're in the film general thread...
Just a send a roll of TX400 in for development, taken with a mamiya dsx-1000. will post results
I know its an unpopular opinion, but I really enjoy the tones of TMX in Tmax developer.
I was thinking about picking up a 400 speed film, and I can't decide between TMY2 and the new Tri-x 400. Has anyone compared them before? From what I've seen, there is less grain on TMY2, but that the grain which does appear in crops is of a very clumpy and unpleasant nature, compared to the crisper grain of 400TX. Of course, its hard to tell from looking at scans online, since everyone's scanner is different and who knows what post-processing people do
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:04:20 18:47:35
Best online place to get 120 developed in the UK? Presumably the high street retailers (boots, jessops) won't do it and I live in a shitty generic town with no camera shops.
If there's somewhere in Manchester that will do it I can make it there, too.
>>2836569
Manchester there's DS Colour Labs in Didsbury and Advanced Photo in the city. Not sure if they do it in store but they definitely have connections. Great for 35mm stuff though.
>>2835429
Disagree. I tried all manner of backlighting, and the best results, time after time, with color negative, come from continuous RGB LED backlighting. This full spectrum, CRI bullshit is just that...BULLSHIT. The cmos sensor senses red green and blue, not "full spectrum" light. The wavelengths emitted from an RGB LED closely match the wavelengths the digicam cmos sensor senses. With independant control of the 3 colors of the LED, you can neutralize color negative films orange mask and just invert and be 95% done with post production. If strobe lighting was ideal I'm sure Capture One would have employed it in their Cultural Heritage film scanning setup. But they didn't....they used continuous LED backlighing.
So, in my opinion, RGB LED>White LED>Flash>iPad Screens.
>>2836090
>gearfagging this much over 135
You should probably sell something or give them away as gifts. This is beyond the regular film gearfaggotry since you've only branched out by shooting a smaller negative.
>I feel I'm spending too much on film photography and I already have all the film cameras I need.
Stop buying 135 bodies and start buying and shooting film instead.
>>2836612
>I'm sure Capture One would have employed it in their Cultural Heritage film scanning setup
I'm sure if I was scanning potentially very old, fragile, historically significant and irreplaceable negatives with an installed copy stand, a phase one back and leaf shutter lenses, and could afford to buy the very best lightbox on god's green earth, I might make different choices too.
However, their rig would still be susceptible to vibration coming from the environment, and would still require relatively long exposure times.
For a DSLR implementation, I still think an instantaneous exposure that solves the issue of camera shake is of far greater benefit.
i got an espon v370 for really cheap, i was expecting much worse but thats not that bad for web posting btw i feel like i can't see the grain on my pictures, the grain seems blurred like it is slightly out of focus
anyone with the same problem ? any solution ?
>>2836673
Welcome to the world of low resolution flatbed scanning. Regardless of the max dpi listed in the specs, the most you will get is about 1200-1400 dpi optical. Clearly resolved grain doesn't show up until about 2800dpi optical. If it's any consolation, you won't have to apply any denoise filters!
>>2836670
I haven't run into any camera shake issues. At 1:1 (apsc), f8 I range from 1/8 to 1/80 of a sec shutter speeds. Though it is possible that using a mirrorless with efcs is helping me out a bit. I run tethered to the pc, so I use capture one for a shutter release.
>>2836677
thanks for the answser i was expecting something like this ... but eh i got it for 20bucks so however
>>2836688
Set some filters on ebay with the word "opticfilm" and wait for a while. I've recently bought an OpticFilm 7300 for 80€ and the scans are very nice. Fuck DSLR scanning.
>picture related is a sample scan from google since I don't have any scans here
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (13.0 20120305.m.415 2012/03/05:21:00:00) (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 9840 Image Height 6456 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 587 dpi Vertical Resolution 587 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2013:04:27 11:33:11 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2500 Image Height 1640
>>2836445
>is buying more cameras going to solve that?
But I'm planning to sell them for a profit so I can use the money to buy films I can use to shoot.
>>2836232
You only need one 35mm SLR. You are complaining about gearfagging. Pick one 35mm SLR and get rid of the rest if you are complaining about gearfagging.
Hey boys, this is my first time on /p/ but ive been shooting film for a few years now. Im tired of payin for prints so im planning on getting a color enlarger. Ive already done quite a bit of b&w enlarging but this would be my first experience with color enlarging. Anyone else have a color enlargement setup at home? What the hell is a "mixing box" and why do different film sizes require different ones? And do you think a Minolta model III color enlarger would be a good choice?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 512 Image Height 749 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2835956
What polaroid camera do you use?
>>2836888
>hey boys
Gtfo /p/ is a gender-neutral safe space
>>2836888
Ctrl+T on Photoshop.
Bam, enlarged
>>2836921
That's a Polaroid back for my RZ67. However I also use a Polaroid 250, pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2515 Image Height 1990 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:12 00:45:02 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 950
Speaking of printing, is there any advantage to printing optically vs getting a good scan and digital print?
>>2836928
I just recently got a Mamiya press universal. Im thinking of getting the polaroid back for it.
>>2836931
Do it man. That camera is awesome for Polaroids. Just know that you'll be paying out the ass for any fp-100c now though.
>>2836930
In an ideal situation, with the best equipment possible, I'd say that a drum scan and digital print could easily out do an optical print of a 35mm negative. Medium format would probably be comparable in quality. I'd say a large format print probably can't be beaten though.
But, not everyone has access to the best possible digital scanning/printing methods, and with top shelf dark room equipment being so cheap, there's obviously some situations where it makes more sense to make a high
quality optical print.
Also,
>muh analog
Why is Portra so fucking expensive. Never bought a roll before and decided it try one. £7.99 at my local lab for Portra 400.
>>2837026
Because it's one of the best 35mm films ever made with great colours and smooth grain.
It's compatible in quality to slide film which is about as expensive and is harder/more costly to develop.
>>2836888
>tired of payin for prints
>wants to run an RA4 lab himself
kek
>>2837026
Maybe 10 years ago my sister wanted to buy a portable camera that was simple to use. Gave her a Stylus Epic and tons of Portra.
All her photos came out great. Skin tones excellent, mixed lighting no problem, indoors outdoors didn't matter.
how bad is it when I get ilfosol on my skin? I washed it afterwards but if it happens on the regular, will I get skin cancer?
>>2837064
Hmmm, shit i hope not. Ive gotten that stuff on my hands dozens of times
>>2836922
>>>/tumblr/
>>2836719
bretty nice
Just testing out scanning film with DSLR for the first time. Everything's coming out very flat and desaturated. It's hard to put the vividness/contrast back into an image when there's nothing to play with.
What am I doing wrong/does anyone have any pointers?
Top one is straight from camera + inverted, bottom is a lab scan.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Layout from Instagram Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 0 dpi Vertical Resolution 0 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2048
Can someone help me out? My olympus om2n keeps overexposing and messing up colors. I can't tell if its a light meter issue or not. Should i just stop using it in auto? I purchased the right batteries and its CLA'd, it just pisses me off that my last 3 rolls have been like this. I color corrected these images, but you can see that they were originally overexposed and blown out.
How can i test whether this is a light meter problem or nah?
>>2837569
also, these were shot on kodak gold
>>2837570
>>2837573
>>2837510
Shoot raw. Expose correctly. Use a wide spectrum light source. Get your white balance right. Add curves for contrast.
>>2837569
weird colour shifts?
are you sure its not your lab's bad development or poor scanning?
>>2837569
These don't look like metering issues. Looks like processing issues, super expired film, and a shit scanner. Check your lens for coating separation maybe, make sure your ISO is set right, and try to actually understand how a meter works and how to use it before blaming it for bad photos.
Buy a roll of something actually worth shooting and send it to a real lab, and get it scanned, see if the problem persists.
>>2837610
I was using a shit lab for a little while with the same issues, and then i took it to the most reputable lab in my state and it still looks really fucked.
Tbh I think i need to learn more about light meters, you're right. But its not expired film nor am i using a bad lab. Kodak gold is shit tier but it shouldn't produce these results.
>>2837617
Are your negatives really dense?
Tonight I learned that pushing film is a fucking meme idea.
After leaving myself with 10+ rolls to develop, I remembered that at one point I had shot one roll at 1600 and didn't mark it.
How autistic are you about actually marking your canisters /film/?
>>2836673
Don't scan about your scanners optical DPI. Everything will just be a smeared mess. I gave my buddy the same scanner and he quickly decided to start scanning at ridiculously high DPI's.
>>2837617
>its not expired film
have you considered the possibility that the film is fogged for other reasons, e.g. bad light seals
>>2837689
it is a meme nowadays, most because of the wannabe-Moriyama "street photography" crowd, but its still a valuable method if you use it properly...
>>2837717
and I might add that "using it properly" does not include forgetting to mark which rolls were pushed ;')
don't feel bad though. for a while I was bulk loading due to money issues, and would occasionally develop some Tri-x in C41...
I've been shooting for awhile now and I want to get into b&w printing. I mostly want to make contact prints and enlargements so I can see what I've shot with my Hasselblad and mamiya because I don't have a scanner that scans 120 and my local lab is garbage. If I want to make contact prints do I need any additional equipment or just an enlarger? A guy at the local camera store suggested just flattening the negs under a piece of glass and using the ceiling light to expose the paper, it sounds like a horrible idea but would it work reasonably well?
>>2837735
For contacts you only need glass to flatten the negs over the paper and light. If the light is direct and you can time it appropriately then it should work.
If you're getting an enlarger, make sure you get one that accepts the maximum size you shoot. It's not that expensive if you pickup all the pieces at once from someone getting rid of their setup or freebies etc.
I got to try my professor's Leica M6 today. It's absolutely beautiful. I just love the way the shutter sounds. Are there any cheap alternatives with a similar look or feel to it? I'm hoping to get something for under $50. I've thought about the Yashica Electro 35 GSN or maybe the Canonet QL17 GIII, but the second one is a little pricy.
>>2837812
>I'm hoping to get something for under $50
>>2837812
get an olympus xa
you can actually get one for under 50 dollars and it's a great little rangefinder
>>2837348
I have a 250 and a 330. They're pretty cheap. I actually managed to find my 250, with the original case, and the Zeiss large window rangefinder, for 40 dollars in an antique mall. Honestly shooting Polaroids in my RZ makes me cringe because it wastes so much of the print, but it's more reliable than my Gerry rigged battery conversions.
>tfw when you take a shot, pull the print, wait 2 minutes, peel it apart to get a super underexposed print due to power not going to to the shutter
Feels bad man.
>>2836537
I've always found Tmax and Delta to have shit grain. Clean, but not pretty. Maybe it's the Rodinal, might be better with a different dev.
It's film either way; grain is gunna be there. I stick with TX because I like the grain better and the beautiful tonality. TMY2 just doesn't look nice to to me.
Just bought an XA. Light seals are almost completely gone. I've read online to use 1mm foam to seal it but the only thing I can find around me is 2mm. Should I just try the 2mm or use something else?
Where can I get instant film for cheap for
Polaroid Spectra
Polaroid 210
The impossible project prices on spectra are fuarrked.
I'm trying to get back into photography after long hiatus, all I have are my instants and this one old Olympus film camera
Thanks.
>>2837574
>ada county plates
sup fellow idaho nigga
what lab are you using?
>>2836537
I've shot plenty of TXP in TMax Dev.
The tmax films are much finer grained.
[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 547 Image Height 800
>>2837910
[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
>>2837912
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:11:08 09:09:56 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 1201 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
>>2837593
This is my setup, I'm shooting RAW and at f/8, 1/60 triggered via tethering with my laptop.
I've had a look online and they say your negatives should look like pix related. Mine just come out as brown, as you'd see the film with your eye. Do I need brighter light?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Layout from Instagram Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 0 dpi Vertical Resolution 0 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2048
>>2837937
Mine basically look like this.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1782 Image Height 392 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:12:30 14:18:18 Color Space Information Unknown Image Width 450 Image Height 97 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2837937
why go through all the trouble to shoot film? from what I can see you've got a perfectly fine dslr
>>2837813
Wrong thread, mate? It's film, shit's not expensive if it's old. Especially if he's asking for the look and feel.
>>2837953
Well I'm the guy advocating for using a flash, but you can start by just increasing your exposure time.
>>2837961
have you got an example image of a correctly exposed negative so I've got something to work towards? Thanks
>>2837735
For contact prints exposing with a ceiling light works fine, pic related is a bleached FP-100C neg exposed onto paper with my kitchen ceiling light.
You'd still need a safelight and chemical trays of course.
If I just want to check my negs I use my iphone's inversion feature (general->accessibility->accessibility shortcut-> invert colors), I'm sure there is something similar on Android and if not there is probably an app.
My phone's camera cant really focus close enough for 35mm, but it works very well for MF and LF, both B/W and color.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 11:29:20
>>2837984
Lost my trip. The reason the previous picture is so low in contrast is because it's a color neg, with B/W negs the contrast gets a lot bigger.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model 9000F Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:05:13 11:38:58
>>2837905
nowhere, impossible is the only one
>>2837906
Sup brah I took my shit into Idaho camera. They do alright, but if I'm not using them I'm just shipping out to dwaynes or north coast. Not too much available here
Just stumbled across this in my local Aldi. Is it worth a punt?
Why is fujifilm so expensive now, what happened? Is there a cheaper alternative for bnw and color rolls?
>>2838319
Because the smaller the production run of film, the more it costs, as the bulk pricing they get from their suppliers goes down, and factory space/equipment pricing, distribution, storage, etc. stays the same (or goes up)
>>2838322
I'm guessing that probably explains the sudden increase in price of Portra 400 and Tri-X too?
>>2838340
Any time an outdated obsolete technology increases in price, that's the reason.
The fact that they're keeping it alive at all is a testament to their love of the medium, rather than any business motivation. The only film making a profit in 2016 is instax mini because of 16 year old girls.
>>2838340
Fp100c and fp3000b has drastically shot up in price too. It's honestly cheaper to run my spectra with impossible project film if I need that instant itch
>>2838293
No! I bought one of these in 2013 and the scan quality was complete shit. I returned it the day after.
IMO film photography will go the way of vinyl and become increasingly popular/more acessable and hopefully cheaper in the future.
>>2838368
Daily reminder all the considerably good films are dying out
>>2838349
>Fp100c and fp3000b has drastically shot up in price too.
Because they were discontinued, and there is no more production. What's in the world now is all there will ever be.
>>2837824
I thought about this, but personally, I'm just not a fan of the style. I'm thinking about bumping up the budget to $100 too, so if you got any other recommendations, that'd be awesome!
>>2838371
Mid last year, the price of 135 Tri-X in Australia shot from $7~ a roll to about $10 per roll. Might not have been an everywhere thing, but it was definitely a thing here.
>switched to HP5; like it better
portra400~>800
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1 dpi Vertical Resolution 1 dpi Image Created 2016:05:14 11:07:46
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.2.1 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1 dpi Vertical Resolution 1 dpi Image Created 2016:05:14 11:08:10
>>2838599
>exposing for the shadows
How to do this?
>>2838599
>more grain than picture
>>2838611
tl;dr version:
>meter the darkest parts of your scene that you want to have detail
>expose 3 stops lower than that
and if your scene is high contrast, shorten development to prevent the highlights from blocking up
>>2838624
Are you saying to overexpose shadows by 3 stops, or to put shadows under by 3 stops?
Either way, I wouldn't use 3 stop as a rule of thumb, probably closer to 2 or 1, but it really depends on your film stock.
>>2838667
you meter the shadow, let's say your meter tells you f/8, 1/30. so you would then expose at f/8, 1/125, to place the shadows at zone II (or 1/60 to zone III)
and you're right, there is no universal rule... you have to try it and see for yourself
highly recommended reading: The Negative by Ansel Adams. it explains the whole system (he helped invent it)
>>2838676
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I always thought weird how everyone talking about the zone system assumes 11 stops of dynamic range, and modern B&W film likely has way more than that depending on the process.
I mean, say you're developing Eastman Double-X 5222 with a very low contrast process, you likely will get detail in your shadows even if you place them at zone 0, right? And then zone -2 would be your black point, where there's neither detail nor tonality.
Shot my second roll of film with a Minolota X-300 and it just ripped like 15 shots in. I didn't force the advance level or anything like that. Shot on Kodak Ultramax 400. Should I give the camera another try?
>>2838727
Clean the film guide rails and the pressure plate with isopropanol and cotton swabs, careful not to touch the shutter. Also clean the rewind shaft and rewind knob.
While you're at it, clean everything (also careful not to touch the light seals with isopropanol, it'll either dissolve or unglue them).
I JUST WANT A CHEAP FILM CAMERA UNDER $75. My girlfriend says to get a Pentax K1000 and be done with it. After I spent $40 on a Zenit that broke, I'm kind of ready to just pick one and move on.
>>2838886
And?
>>2838886
Dear Journal
>>2838886
>Dear diary, today I asked /p/ for a cheap film camera under $75 after already spending $40 on a Zenit M42 body, I'm prepared to by a Pentax body. Dear diary, I'm not sure why I ignored Contax/Yashica up until this point or why I didn't just buy a Canikon SLR. Even a $5 EOS 300 would have done the job. I'm ready to move onto the afterworld
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SEIKO EPSON CORP. Camera Model EPSON scanner Camera Software EPSON Scan Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 1600 dpi Vertical Resolution 1600 dpi Image Created 2016-05-14T00:40:47-23:00
>>2838707
read the book, its more of an approximation of how the dynamic range of the scene can be made to fit within the dynamic range of the film. it still needs to be adjusted based on contrast and which film you're using. my example was just the tl;dr version
also, remember that the book was written 40 years ago, and films and paper have changed since
My light seals are fucked on my Yashica Electro, is the best way to seal them with string like in this tutorial?
http://mattsclassiccameras.com/light_seals/
What are some fun M39 mount lenses I can try on my Fuji? Already have an Industar 69
>>2838986
For what.
>>2839004
for fun
>>2838986
>fun
They are expensive (Leica and mirrorless fags predate them) and their close-focus distance is laughable. Better get some m42.
>>2839012
but they are small and cute :3 The M42 adapter is huge
>>2839013
>but they are small and cute :3
so just get one of those 27/2.8 or 18/2 pancake lenses
>>2839014
are you talking about m42 or m39 now?
>>2839019
no for the fuji
>>2838599
>more grain than picture
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 13:38:01 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 535 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Daylight Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2839278
>more grain than picture
>>2839331
thats pretty grainy
>>2839339
Except not really at any normal viewing size, and that picture is probably around a stop underexposed anyway, owing to me lazily using aperture priority mode.
And nowhere close to
>more grain than picture
>>2839193
I really like this look, is it 35mm? what's the developer?
>>2839397
Yep, all 3 examples are 35mm, Developed in T-Max Dev 1:4, for 6.5 minutes.
It's mainly just the light giving it those tones though. Might have had a yellow filter on too.
>>2835954
Tarkovski's polaroids are what got me into this in first in place.
>shooting anything b&w other than Pan F
>>2839493
>Acros 100
>>2839493
>not attaching a photo
[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 1103 Image Height 800
>>2839371
underexposure of B&W actually reduces grain
and it was a hyperbole, take your chill pills
So I'm a bit of a newfag when it comes to film other than Instax/Polaroid stuff. Yesterday I bought a Kodak No. 2 Cartridge Hawk-Eye model A. It's in great condition other than one thing: the red window on the back panel is missing.
Can that be replaced with any color plastic as long as it's opaque enough to not let too much light in? Or does it have to be red? Could I just cover it with tape and move to a dimly-lit area when I need to advance the film?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SM-T230NU Camera Software T230NUUEU0AOD1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:05:14 21:32:22 Exposure Time 1/8 sec F-Number f/2.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 1 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 2.79 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1152 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2839707
all of your presumptions are correct. dark red plastic is optimal, glued in from inside, coupled with some sort of cover over the window from outside - to be on the safe side. Otherwise expect some form of lightleak when you hold your extra advanced brownie in full sunlight. Remember to clean the lens from both sides and dust the insides throughly and have fun using it. post results on /p/
>>2839707
Use red. That helps keep more light out than other colors.
I always put a piece of tape over the window too. I've seen some people get fogged negatives under the window without it. Not really worth the risk IMO when a strip of electrical tape will stop it.
>>2839716
>>2839717
Thanks guys. A couple more questions came to mind that I might as well ask while I'm here:
What film speed should I use with it? I know that when it was made, pretty much all film was rather slow, so I was thinking 100iso would work well, but I'm not sure. I'm only going to be using it outdoors, and I live in northern Michigan, which tends to be fairly cloudy apart from a couple months in mid Summer.
What /are/ the main differences between the box Hawk-Eyes and the Brownie? The only thing I've noticed that seems different is that this one's case is made out of metal, whereas most Brownies from the same time period had a thick cardboard case. There's also a bulb mode switch (which I believe Brownies had as well?) and a aperture adjustment switch (which not even all Cartridge Hawk-Eye models had.)
Just saw an offer on the local craigslist
1x Fujicolor Superia 800
1x Fujicolor Superia 400
1x Fujichrome Provia 400
1x Kodak Elite Chrome 100
1x Kodak Ektarchrome 100
1x Kodak Ektar 100
1x Rollei Redbird
+3 shitty B&W films, some expired in 2014 but all stored in cool environments for 40$
Should I buy it?
>>2839764
offer him 25
ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY
What film for long exposures? (star trails)
What film for not long exposures? (stars)
