Film General Thread, aka FGT.
>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you shoot 620
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.
My question is, what's the best way to remove orange light leak stripes?
I need to replace the focusing screen on a Nikon FE. Or at least I think I do. Someone told me that smudges on that screen don't affect your pictures, they are just irritating. Is this true? And are focusing screens unique to each camera? Or will it be relatively easy to find a replacement? I know there are different types of screens, the one I have in it now is the split circle one which sometimes turns black if it's too bright outside. Which would you guys recommend?
>>2864621
The focussing screen doesn't affect the picture in any way, as the screen is only ever seen by your eye. Look at a cross section of an SLR, even thouigh the one in my picture is digital the theory is the same.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:16 21:07:01
>>2864605
jesus fuck how do you hold that and shoot with it
>>2864605
>SDHC
kek
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:16 21:07:02
>>2864621
>split circle one which sometimes turns black if it's too bright outside
That shouldn't happen. It should turn black if there is not enough light or if the lens is slow or stopped down without an auto aperture.
>>2862726
>>2862710
>>2862682
Continuing from last thread.
It is definitely on the neg. As I mentioned:
>recently I got a 2509n Jobo reel + drum to develop my 4x5.
I wonder if using a colour film development drum turner is the cause, then. If I've been improperly placing in the little fluid retention fins, that could also lead to improper or infrequent liquid contact. In that case it would explain why it doesn't happen every time. Lastly, I hate how the damn thing chugs liquids. Unlike a paterson tank, the Jobo drums have a thin channel that allows liquid to drip down the edges. It means that if you pour liquid into the upper chamber, you need to give it a shake it make sure the liquid makes it into the main chamber. That could easily account for uneven initial contact with the developer.
>>2864732
>I don't reuse it at all, as I once had a roll of (what I thought were) nice photos destroyed by substandard fixer
Holy fuck, you're dumb.
You know you can refix your grandpa's old negatives, right?
If your fix is too old and stops working, you just mix up another litre and dunk the film in that instead.
I've gone back and refixed and rewashed cut strips of film from when I first started doing my own B&W, because as a noob I hadn't realised what a poorly fixed neg looked like.
Normally a litre of stock will fix 12-15 films before you start seeing a decrease in effectiveness.
>>2864775
Well I've never used a Jobo, but it sounds like a bit of a fuck around. Can't you just get inserts for normal Paterson tanks to dev 4x5?
I don't know why the Paterson tanks are the only ones designed to actually let you get liquid into and out of them in a reasonable time?
I've basically given up on using my stainless tank because the fucking thing leaks, and holding it at just the right angle so you can pour chems into it at a fucking trickle without it overflowing and without pulling the lid off is bloody torture.
>>2864059
Crossposting from gear thread because I just bought one of these fuckers
>>2864809
You can "taco-develop" 4x5 in paterson tanks. In my experience it led to some hit and miss results, where the rubber band would leave a thick, nasty pink line on the negative. As for 4x5 development reels, the Jobo was the only one I could find.
You can do standing dev for 4x5 without agitation. Shit takes forever, though. Since I have to schedule my darkroom use (university darkroom), standing dev is not really manageable. I like the generally even development, okay contrast and short dev times of rotating-agitation development.
There's actually a kickstarter for a 4x5 development tank thing that recently sent out their first batch. Unfortunately, I didn't get on the train early enough.
Right now I'm not even sure if I should persist with 4x5. My work is so snapshitty and boring. I know part of it is that I can't get practice. Finding the time and the transportation for taking pictures with the damn thing can be difficult when you work full time.
I'm also just not growing as a photographer. I slowly worked my way up from the most basic of technical faults, and now I'm stuck at a state of boring snapshits. It's making me wonder if I just don't have an eye for photography, or whether I don't have the mental acuity for detailed self-observation in order to improve my method.
Apologies for blog post. My life ain't so hot these days.
>>2864831
Is that a 150mm Sonnar?
Do you think it will make you a better photographer?
>>2864846
Nope, it's a 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar. I don't think it'll make better as much as I think it will make me be able take a larger variety of shots.
Had this camera for 9 years now. Striped and fixes a few times, have loads of spare parts to fix it.
What does /p/ think of the Nikon FM 2? I'm thinking about upgrading.
>>2865002
What draws you to the fm2?
>>2865004
Lenses, build, viewfinder, all mechanical
>>2865002
do it. FM2 is legit, plus dat titanium shutter tho
>>2865002
It does not differ that mich from your mtl5. Higher shutterspeeds and overall much nicer buildquality. It is also not as loud as the praktica. Otherwise both are fully mechanical cameras with no auto functions. But if you want the fm2, get one. It is a wonderful camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model LG-D855 Camera Software VSCO Android Version Equipment Make LG Electronics Image-Specific Properties: Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Altitude 0.00 m Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.4 Focal Length 3.97 mm White Balance Auto Image Width 2048 Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Image Height 1536 Flash No Flash Exposure Bias 0 EV ISO Speed Rating 700 Exposure Time 1/12 sec
>>2865014
Yes definately. It is not as impressive as an olympus om1 finder, but bright and clear and I can see the whole finder and the light meter leds, although I wear glasses.
>>2865006
F3 has all of those things, except it's a superior electronic shutter instead and the HP prism gives a much better view if you wear glasses. FM2 is still a great camera though if you really insist on muh mechanical shutter. Here's a full comparison: http://www.bythom.com/fm2n.htm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2865010
Oh, so the Praktica has open aperture metering?
>didn't think so
>>2865002
The Nikon, and possibly any lense you could buy for it, trounces that slavic garbage.
The only bad thing about it is having to cock the wind lever out from the body to shoot. It's a total pain in the ass, especially if you're coming to it from shooting any other camera ever made.
>>2865030
I wrote that it is not much different from the fm2. Not that the cameras are identical.
I'd skip the fm2 and go straight f3
I prefer my canon f-1 or a-1 to both but the f3 is pretty much a masterpiece
please stop talking about nikon slrs. its boring af.
>>2865037
t. menelta user
>>2864836
>It's making me wonder if I just don't have an eye for photography, or whether I don't have the mental acuity for detailed self-observation in order to improve my method.
With a sentence of that depth and the overall tone of your post I'd say your learning abilities are fine but you have depression. Am I rite?
Borrow a few books on composition and look on shitloads of photographs, also go shooting with friends. In my experience I was going nowhere as a photographer for about two years then suddenly took a huge leap.
>>2865042
>but you have depression. Am I rite?
Not that guy but I do
I cant even will myself to go shoot anything because it feels like it will always be garbage and I'll never improve and I'll die filled with failures and regret
>>2865045
>it feels like it will always be garbage and I'll never improve and I'll die filled with failures and regret
wew lad. get some therapy.
>>2865048
No money for it
I'd be interested to hear what they'd have to say and it doesn't always feel like this but it does enough
>>2864803
Well thank you very much, I guess I'll take the insult with the advice
Hi guys, I have a question.
I push film often. It's a result of shooting in difficult conditions than an aestethic choice. I used to push trix to 3200 and get satysfying results. Then a heard that pushing trix and hp5 is pointless because the tonal capacity ends at 1600 anyway (or something like that, english is not my first language). But I', like - "well, at 3200 I can effectively shoot photos in harsh conditions, so maybe there's a point?"
What do you people think?
pic related
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4129 Image Height 2779 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 2016:06:17 11:26:26 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 673
>>2865045
Do you shoot digital too? Honestly the instant feedback may help you get out of the slump. I've jumped to digital for a few months twice now when I was feeling how you describe. It's really hard to motivate yourself to go shoot with the mindset that everything you shoot will be garbage when each photo costs $$$.
I shot the 180mm f/4.5 on my RB67 for the first time last weekend & found focusing to be a real challenge with the standard ground glass focusing screen. Is there anything I can do except for paying £40 for the split image focusing screen? AFAIK the loupe I have is already the highest magnification one.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:10 18:42:14 Color Space Information sRGB
>>2865115
Replacing screen is the only thing that comes to mind. There is this guy that makes great (so I heard) replacement glass for 80$ (shipment included) but his site is down at the moment:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-175.html
>>2865115
This looks so similar to a girl I used to work with...
Anyways, split focus screens are awesome. Why wouldn't you want one?
I want to sell my pentacon six tl to get a mamiya 645 super, yas or nah?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:17 21:24:27 Exposure Time 0.8 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 65.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2865125
I wish more of /p/ was like you.
Downsizing photos just below 1MB to piss off the rulefags.
>>2865125
What half-frame/film?
Looks like slide film, just can't pick which
>>2865048
>wew lad. get some therapy.
Or not. I think it's a pretty fine and normal part of life that sometimes depressed strangers from the internet kill themselves? The world is overpopulated as it is, why should we try to save a spot for people who don't want it?
>>2865050
Just do what comes naturally, my man.
>>2865097
>comrade yuri of vacuumburo commands it
>>2865128
I'd be real sad if my slides looked like that.
Also, look at the dust. White dust = neg 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 1157 Image Height 800
>>2865148
I've seen expired Provia that looks like what you posted. Really accentuated blues and reds and not much in between
Bought a Leica M4-P the other day from Tamarkin. Leica nerds are telling me I fucked up because the M4-P is not made in "GERMANY MASTER RACE". Is it true? Is the M4-P a shittier camera or is it just fanboy conjecture?
>>2865149
>yfw my shot is expired astia, and they're not my trolleys
>>2865170
Based god Kenneth and also Matt Day from youtube say M3 is best Leica, and I'm inclined to believe both of them.
However, I'm also disinclined to believe that there's anything actually wrong with any other film Leica, so just shoot what you've got, moron.
>>2865172
I actually owned an M3 for a year. I would agree I like that camera in terms of build quality much more. I just had trouble with the only-50mm viewfinder and also wanted a more modern M.
I'll stop being a moron and go shoot. Although I'll also say that the shutter is much louder than the M3...
New to film. Should I shoot for the F3?
>>2865176
F3 is great. But be prepared to spend good money to get a good, serviced copy.
Try a Spotmatic to see if film is for you before you drop a few hundred on an F3
>>2865170
Build quality is the same. Only place where the M4 might 'feel' better than the M4-P is the film advance, because the M4 has comparatively weaker brass gears which feel smoother than the M4-P's comparatively stronger steel gears (because the M4-P has a motor drive/winder connection it would wreck brass gears).
>>2865182
Yea in all the research I did prior to purchasing most sites/bloggers were saying that most of the naysaying is just ill-informed conjecture based on the fact it's not made in Wetzlar.
Been using this sexy thing for 6 years now. I bulk buy 17 metre film and do my own developing, works out really cheap. Got the body and lens for £250
>>2865188
Nice, I was looking into buying bulk 35mm, but I decided to wait until I was sure I wanted to pursue 35mm film photography, but there's really good savings to be made (up to 3x as cheap) and when you load it with something like pic related, it's quite easy too.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model HDR-HC9 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2008:09:12 12:20:11 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.8 Exposure Program Normal Program Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 13.60 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2865209
I use the same kind of machine to bulk 10 rolls, will take you 30min or so if you do it slowly while watching TV. I find 10 rolls a month is a good starting point. Makes you really think about your shots.
>>2865188
Is it hard? I shoot 4x5 and cut the negatives down from 8x10 x-ray sheets to save money. It's way too easy to mis-cut them and pretty fucking finicky. I'd definitely shoot more 120mm if I could cut my own film. I'm just so damn clumsy I don't trust myself to do it right.
>>2864850
I have a question for you: Your picture implies it`s a Russian lens. Are they adaptable for hasselblad bodies? It would be nice to open up my repertoire after being limited to an 80mm for so long. The lenses are just so fucking expensive goddamnit.
>>2865232
I use a machine it's very easy and the machine is £13. I'm not highly skilled or anything and I found it very easy. YouTube 'How to bulk film' and you will get a clear idea.
>>2865095
>because the tonal capacity ends at 1600 anyway
I don't know what this means, but if its not just poor translation it sounds like bullshit
I've had acceptable results pushing tri-x to 3200 in xtol. it gets too grainy for me, but if it works for you, ignore what anyone else says.
>>2865331
I assume it's referring to the fact that the more you push the less shadow detail you get and you approach literal 'black and white' with no shades inbetween.
>>2864605
Hey guys, I want to develop B/W but I'm too retarded and cannot understand how to store the kodak rapid fixer. for the developer I'm using D76 and I'll store it in 250 ml bottles for 1 use only on 1:1 dilution, but I don't know about the rapid fix, the pack comes with two bottles of stuff that both make 1 gallon combining with water,
should I prepare the 1 gallon?
or should I mix only enough for a few develops?
its my first time developing at home, I would like to use that gallon of fixer for about a year but I'm afraid it will go bad if I mix it all, so what method will give the most life time to the fixer?.
>>2865333
Personally I hate powder mixes, get a liquid and keep the bottle tightly closed up and it should last a year. For me, fixer is the chemical which lasts the least time before I have to buy more so it's never too old anyway.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 834 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:04:03 18:27:13 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 1.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Tungsten Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1512 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2865336
ok, but I read the fixer can work for a lot of rolls, so do I use it and put it back to the gallon or do I keep bottles withe the exact quantity I'm using each time and open another bottle when that one is exhausted?
>>2865180
>Same as above, I only like buying fully mechanical
You'll grow out of it. I thought it was the only way to go but I've been bouncing the same battery in multiple canons for a couple months now and it's still got charge
The shutter on most mechanicals is glorious though
>>2865340
Have you actually read the instructions/data sheet for your fixer (probably available as a PDF online)? Generally that will tell you how to store, how many rolls to use for, how to replenish, etc.
For example the datasheet for Ilford Rapid Fixer tells you that a 1+4 working solution will fix about 24 rolls of 135 before it needs replenishment.
Is it possible to over-fix?
>>2865340
Don't ever mix used chemicals with fresh ones. You can store your used fixer to reuse it if you really want, but I think it's only supposed to last like a week or 24 hours or something once it's been used, read the instructions and make sure. I personally use a fixer for several rolls if I'm developing them all at once, but I don't keep it once I'm done using the darkroom for the day.
>>2865360
Film or prints? I think both will get bleached and washed out eventually if you leave it in fixer. You would have to really fuck up and accidentally leave it in for a few hours, though.
>>2865360
No. Unless you leave it in fixer for hours, then no. But if you fix it 10 or 15 minutes - it doesnt matter
>>2865014
The only VF I liked more than the FM2 was the RB67 finder
>>2865115
Get the split image screen and get the 45-degree one so you can accurately focus horizontal subjects, that's what I have. Perfect focus every time on the 180
>>2865115
Almost forgot, check to make sure there is no seal material or anything from keeping the mirror from completely and fully returning to the down position, when I first got my RB the seals started coming apart and would get in between the mirror and the bump-stop and though my stuff looked in focus through the VF the mirror wasn't at the right angle and my shots were out of focus.
It's a common problem on RB's with deteriorating seals
>>2865234
It's not a Russian lens, it's a Zeiss Jena Sonnar made in Germany, the picture is likely from a Russian seller. It's not adaptable as the lens was designed for the Pentacon Six cameras because of that the only way that you could adapt it is to have a professional completely convert the lens mount.Some people have gotten the lens converted to Pentax 67 mount as it covers 6x7 very easily
what happened?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
>>2865341
I really like the idea of the Nikon F3 it seems to have everything, if I do get one it will be the F3.
>>2865369
Great I have used my praktica mtl 5b for years now, it really is time for an upgrade.
I do love film, my digital set up changes every 4 years but I have been using a Pentax 645 weekly for close to 10 years with out error.
>>2865365
>I think it's only supposed to last like a week or 24 hours or something once it's been used, read the instructions and make sure. I personally use a fixer for several rolls if I'm developing them all at once, but I don't keep it once I'm done using the darkroom for the day.
I've been processing since October last year and I've made up only two batches of 1+9 dilution.
I've been using a two bath method though, the first bath went bad long before the 2nd. When it came time to replace, bath 2 became the new bath 1.
>>2865372
>Perfect focus every time
>implying you've ever even developed a roll out of that thing
>implying you've developed multiple rolls
Nobody believes you, Sugar.
>>2865385
Looks like you scanned with a potato by mistake.
If that shit is actually on the film though, then I have no fucking idea.
>>2865372
>>2865375
Neat, didn't realise there was a 45 degree one - I was wondering what it would be like to have a fixed horizontal one which doesn't rotate with the back.
>>2865375
The seals/mirror are fine; stuff that I get in focus on the glass comes out tack sharp on the negs. Just reliably getting focus on the glass is the issue.
>>2864605
it is time to akimbo irl.
>>2865419
it was on the film
>>2865444
Every frame, or just this one?
holy shit portra 160 is nice
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6 (Windows) Photographer PA Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:18 00:59:18 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2865449
not those lines but its all fucked
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Color Space Information sRGB
Today my mom and i went to the ringling art museum (great museum in florida) and i brought my film camera and when we got home she flamed me for using film and told me to buy a digital camera so we could actually look at the pictures without waiting days.
>tfw you consider going digital
>tfw you rethink your entire life based on an art medium
>>2865461
>not using both
shig
>>2865452
I wish you would stop spamming all corners of the board with different format shots of the same ugly bitch all the time.
I definitely preferred the Chubby Funster to Manly McMoleface here, but either way, you've got to stop. Or contain your faggottry to a thread of your own.
Regarding your photo- Turn down your monitor contrast, maybe? This looks way better if I tilt my laptop screen all the way back. As presented, it's way too bright and the shadows are too red and highlights too blue.
>>2865461
your mom is an impatient cunt
why would she want to see them again right after already seeing them
>>2865455
Expired devoper, uneven developer in the tank, expired film, a damage in the film. transport scratching the film, maybe some weird-shaped light leakage? Just off the top of my head, I don't recognise the specific type of damage
>>2865461
ur mom is a dumb millennial.
>>2865461
First you make her wait 9 months, now this.
You ungrateful prick.
>>2865417
anon pls
>>2865477
well thanks. the borders are really fogged and theres no contrast so i hope that its developing issue and not expired bc i have a lot of rolls left to shoot
>>2865286
and this cuts 120 costs down to 1/3?
>>2865045
Above poster here: I don't know about depression, but I'm definitely mentally ill. Was diagnosed at a young age. Makes me all over the place, and sad sometimes.
>>2865103
This is the problem I'm having. 4x5 is fun and super neat in that it allows so many options. It's also surprisingly cheap to get diverse focal lengths. That being said, on the whole, the camera system and its use is unwieldy, inconvenient, and expensive.
I'm constantly torn between finally investing in digital, or getting that new sweet lens. It doesn't help that LF purchases can be very personal, and thus you can get some crazy deals. I just got a brand new 6x17 back for 150$ off, and the guy threw in the 6x9 back for free. It's an insane value. Nonetheless, it knocked me down another 700$ (CDN) after shipping and duty.
am i a retard for pushing 100 ISO film to 200 ISO using rodinal? my negatives came out pretty faint. or is that how pushing tends to turn out no matter what
>>2865501
Depends what film. Some film doesn't respond well to pushing
>>2865493
If all your film and developer is within the expiration date, try to develop a film shot with another camera, to cross out chemicals and light leakage. Of course, agitate your developing tank well, that is always important and be sure to add enough of every chemical for each step (I use 300ml per 35mm roll). Try to change some variables and see if the problems persist, cross out variables as you go. Just my €0.02,maybe some anon here recognises the specific problem on sight, that would be easier of course.
>>2865498
>investing in digital
kek
>>2865542
I'm with this guy
If you get an a7 you can just use all your great film lenses
>>2865498
>4x5 is fun and super neat in that it allows so many options.
Dude you shoot only LF? My fuck no wonder you're burned out. That's probably the worst format to be shooting with the mindset of "everything I shoot will be trash."
That $700 CAD you just spent could have almost got you an A7 body (got mine for $900 CAD a year ago). If you can't invest that kind of money at the moment, get a cheap 35mm camera and just go out and shoot for fun.
OR better yet, just go out without a camera at all and enjoy being outside. Walk aimlessly and enjoy what you're seeing. Fuck taking pictures. After a few times of doing this and seeing things you wish you could shoot you may start to feel a bit of motivation. Or maybe you won't, but at least you're getting outside and seeing things.
>>2865501
If your negs came out faint you did something wrong. Either underexposed more than a stop while shooting or didn't compensate for the push enough during development.
>>2865546
>no fun allowed
fuck you
have some 4x5 Ektar because, fuck you that's why
>>2865625
Dang you should rename yourself to Brown Sugar
Because the pictures you take are poopy and brown
Can someone walk me through the logistics of developing film? I know how to develop black and white; I used a school lab and have all the equipment I would need for it at home.
I just don't know what to fucking order from b&h. It seems like everything makes a gallon of developer which seems like a fuckload that I'll have to use fast until it goes. I don't know what developer and fixer I would even want for the tmax 400 I just shot. I don't know what sort of dilution and storage I would do to either make it last or use it up. I don't know what it would end up costing per roll. And I don't know if c41 developing at home is even possible or where you could find those chemicals in reasonable quantities.
Would I be stupid for getting a gw960 as my first foray into MF or should I lean into learning about mamiya or bronica
I love what this camera has to offer aside from the minor annoyance that it has no meter and that its form and size is quite reasonable
It's a catch 22 about the fixed lens because on one hand it'd force me to use it properly as is without having wondering if I need to swap lenses or gearfag on lenses but on the other hand it's less versatile because of that
Is my train of thought bad and am I missing something
>>2865630
>or should I lean into learning about mamiya or bronica
There's nothing to learn. If you know how to expose you know how to use any medium format camera. Aside from learning how to load film I don't see why you would need to take baby steps with a Mamiya or Bronica before jumping to that camera if in the end that's what you want ot shoot with.
>>2865627
>shitposting anon has never been to Florida in winter when everything is dead
This was done in February
>>2865625
I never said 4x5 was bad. But if someone is unmotivated to go out and shoot and think everything they shoot is bad, 4x5 is probably the worst thing to be stuck shooting.
That's a terrible photo by the way. I've seen some good shots from you. Why'd you post that shitty example?
>>2865176
Thrift store name brand SLR and a fast proven 50 until you decide it's worth your time.
>>2865630
I don't think you'd be stupid at all. As long as you can find one in good working order, and you have a meter (or you're good at metering by eye) it'd be a great camera.
Box form factor MF cameras tend to be quite bulky and cumbersome. I have a RB67 and I love it, but I hardly ever use it because taking it with me is such a mission.
The rangefinder format is great. It's obviously not the lightest camera in the world but it's leagues better than most SLR medium format cameras.
Keep in mind you'll only get 8 exposures in one roll of film, compared to 15 from 6x4.5 cameras and 12 from 6x6 cameras
>>2865630
>texas leica
You would be stupid for not getting that as your first MF
>>2865633
Everything I shoot is shit. Everything I've shot was shit save for like a couple shots, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>>2865630
Think about what you plan to shoot with it. If you need to be mobile it might be a good choice but if you are planning to use it in a studio or otherwise controlled environment you might be better off with a Mamiya or something
>>2865631
Well while I do understand how to expose I'd still want to run through everything first. I'd look up how to operate them thoroughly, what to look for and look out for, maintenance, weak points, lens selection, size, weight, etc
I like to know these things before I make a choice so I can make the most educated purchase and so that I don't rush into anything and notice something later that's a potential dealbreaker
>>2865635
>>2865636
That's the main reason why I'm leaning towards it
I'd most likely be using it on very planned out shots but I never want to be missing it when I need it which is why I was drawn to it in the first place
Would it be worth it to look into the interchangeable lens version so I can pack it flatter and have some versatility at the price of higher cost and reliability?
Otherwise I could probably deal since they're so damn cheap jesus
>>2865639
Mostly landscapes and night stuff which is why I've been leaning towards it since it sure is smaller than most
>>2865638
Well at least your putting money towards the film industry so thanks.
>>2865641
>Mostly landscapes and night stuff
>very planned out shots
then the camera will spend most of its time on a tripod and its shape/ergonomics wont matter. and youll be stuck with a fixed lens. and no ground glass.
i say get mamiya or pentax 6x7.
>>2865645
That's my biggest reason why I've held off
Well time to dive into the world of mamiya. Wiki pages here we come
>>2865645
RB67 is the Swiss Army knife of 6x7
/p/ will shitpost here and tell you "oh but Sugar bby RB67 isn't and doesn't etc. yada yada" most of the people who say that are trolling and haven't shot anything bigger than an iPhone. I actually have an RB67.
The RB is pretty much the 6x7 of choice it does pretty much everything and they're cheap now. Hot swap backs, sync flash at all speeds, swap finders and ground glass easily, shoots 645, 6x7, 6x8, 70mm and Polaroid/Fuji FP.
if you don't mind having an 11lb camera and have a pretty bad assed tripod, get the RB. They can be shot freehand like an SLR with a left grip but most people carry them on tripods.
With a waist-level finder and a small 90mm you can get the weight down to something reasonable.
>>2865685
dont talk to me you fucking tub of lard.
>>2865686
this t b h
>>2865685
>11lb
mammamiya 645 super mustard race
>>2865629
digitaltruth.com
>>2865629
If you're worried about not using developer before it goes bad, look at liquid developers (like Ilfotec HC) rather than powder developers (like Kodak Xtol). With powder developers you have to mix the whole lot at once, but with liquid developers you can mix a small amount and leave the rest of the concentrated liquid in the bottle which will last for ages.
When it comes to specifics of dilution and storage, read the instructions/data sheets for the chemicals you're thinking of getting. Generally they will tell you how long you should store them in different concentrations, etc.
Tetenal do small C-41 kits, enough for 8-12 films.
http://www.martaberens.com/index.php/project/fairytale/
what camera do you think this gal used? I love that kind of aesthetic
>>2865729
The aesthetic you're talking about is more down to film/processing than camera.
What is a good 35mm film scanner I can get for under 1000$?
>>2865727
>With powder developers you have to mix the whole lot at once
uh, w-why?
Can't you use an amount of powder necessary for however much your dev tank requires and just keep the rest in a dry airtight oxygen-free sealed container?
????
>>2865866
You can get a plustek 7400 used for less than $100. That'll suit you perfectly for black and white, the more expensive models add features which are only helpful for color, but even then they're not very necessary. The newer line of plusteks are more expensive for the same exact hardware bundled with a newer software.
>>2865685
I saw one kit with two lenses for 350$ including shipping. Is that agood deal? I didn't know you could convert it to 6x4.5. That's a big deal. I have a hasselblad but I'd like to open up to 67 and 645.
>>2865896
I'd mostly be looking to scan color negatives so what are some more expensive ones I should look into?
>>2865546
I'm only shooting LF because it takes so much goddamn time. If I have an afternoon for photography, packing up the camera, hauling it somewhere, then taking maybe four or five pictures can eat up the whole damn allotment.
Two weeks ago I walked around my neighbourhood lugging the fucking monorail about. Taking 9 pictures took 2 1/2 hours.
I want to get a more portable model, but that is where things get mega pricey really quick.
You're probably right though. That being said, I'm in a hell of a slump generally these days. So much stress and no free time, housing issues, etc. I moved to a new city two years ago and I haven't had a crisis-free set of two months since I got here.
>>2865901
Epson V700 or higher models. If you want to go all the way and have unlimited funds, get a drum scanner. Avoid the Imacon though.
>>2865898
Depending on the lenses that can eithe rbe a really good deal or an okay deal. If it's the 90 and 127 those are two standard lenses really. If it's the 90 and 180 or 90 and 65, or 50 i'd jump on it.
They do have a 6 x 4.5 back they can be had super cheap too.
>>2865997
why do you provide feedback to people
do you not realize youre unqualified?
serious question
>>2866002
I'm not about to defend sugar but holy fuck you're the pot calling the kettle black
You don't need to be whatever you think is 'qualified' to be able to recommend a lens
>>2866005
>You don't need to be whatever you think is 'qualified' to be able to recommend a lens
would you ask for healthcare advice to a doctor who consistently kills all his patients?
serious question.
>>2864850
>it's a 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar
>on a 645 camera
>he fell for the crop format meme
cucked.
>>2866010
Yeah because that's totally a comparable similie
If that was the case that would mean sugar never gets any properly exposed photos ever of any kind
It's more like asking a shitty doctor what his favorite brand of cough syrup is
Serious question for you though: Do you genuinely hate Sugar? A bunch of his photos are bad and he shitposts but do you really have that much malice towards a random faggot on the internet? Like if anyone else had posted what he just said about those lenses it would have been perfectly reasonable and in this case actually decently informative and helpful
Quit being such a child
>>2865379
>Some people have gotten the lens converted to Pentax 67 mount as it covers 6x7 very easily
saw some examples on flickriver. that sonnar really sings on a pentax 67. these look better than any pentacon shot with that same sonnar. how come they fuck it so bad?
>>2866012
>taking bait
Quit being such a child
>>2866017
>taking bait
>Quit being such a child
Aw man you totally got me. Really nice troll dude that's another notch in your belt for successful trolls, congrats
>>2866018
Could you please stop being a child, you're shitting up the thread.
>>2866020
What are you talking about I was admitting defeat
You've bested me because the entire time you were just pretending to be retarded but you're actually not because you're a master troll
>Buy a Mamiya 645
>Use it for like a week
>Holy shit this is cool
>Mirror stop breaks
>Usual repair place is backed up until July
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I just wanna shoot with it all day.
>>2866021
>pretending to be retarded
that phrase is the 4chan equivalent of the special olympics comment. It's really worse for you.
You should try not being a prejudicial dickwad.
>>2866023
You sure it didn't earn silver medal after: 'taking bait'
>prejudicial dickwad
Anyone else got the Canon EOS RebelX 35mm camera? Can't seem to find much on it online, other than the DSLR counterpart, which doesn't help.
>>2865869
You forget that the burger lacks the capacity for individual thought.
The reason that his pouch of toxic chemicals needs a large warning that it is not food is the same reason why the wise capitalist includes a warning that it must all be used at once.
A crafty Slav like yourself knows better.
>>2865929
probably gonna go with the V800 then, thanks anon
>>2865929
>Avoid the Imacon though.
Dafuq? Everything I've seen scanned with an Imacon looks stellar.
>>2866011
are you saying 645 is bad?
>>2866022
I am getting a mamiya 645 super and I am pretty excited desu
>>2866055
He is, because of the square format meme. And he's not going to give a reason why it's bad, either
>>2866014
I guess it's cause most of the p6 shooters are using it for portraiture and 2deep4u fine art shots that have boring composition and that's why all the shots from the Pentacons look like shit. With the 67 you have the bigger format and even thinner DoF so you can frame shots a lot differently and let in more of the scene.
6x6 is truly a meme
>>2866068
>'perfunctory' is definitely a word
When will people stop spewing this pointless shit like it actually means anything?
If you have anything close to a properly reasoned criticism of the format, that goes deeper than "i dont like it" "screens arent square", then fucking say it.
>>>Trump
>and whaddya think about that obamacare?!
>>>(You)
>rabblerabblerabblerabble
>>2866077
>>'perfunctory' is definitely a word
>When will people stop spewing this pointless shit like it actually means anything?
>If you have anything close to a properly reasoned criticism of the format, that goes deeper than "i dont like it" "screens arent square", then fucking say it.
>>>>Trump
>>and whaddya think about that obamacare?!
>>>>(You)
>>rabblerabblerabblerabble
what did he mean by this?
Has Fujifilm changed its policy on buying film scans on a CD at Wallyworld? I went in there today to pick up some snapshits and even after telling them I only wanted the CD since that's how I usually do it they charged me for prints anyway.
>>2866055
Just ignore him.
645 is beautiful, and way easier to carry than 67
>>2866236
>Am I a fool for getting an RB67 at 350$ for a 180 and 90 lens and a single back?
not a fool, but ive seen better deals. rb67's usually go for pretty cheap. i think it should come recently CLA'd aka guaranteed to work fucking perfectly for the next 5-7 years and thatd be somewhat of a deal.
>>2865869
this is really dumb
>>2865869
Unfortunately not. The powders contain a bunch of different chemicals & you have no way of knowing that they are evenly distributed. So if you want to use a powder developer like xtol you have to mix it all at once, though if you then store the working strength solution in separate smaller air tight bottles it can last for a long time eg >>2865115 was developed in xtol I mixed 16 months ago.
If you want to mix small amounts at once, use a liquid concentrate rather than a powder.
>>2866343
>eg >>2865115 was developed in xtol I mixed 16 months ago.
And look how that turned out...
This is the same image in fresh dev.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:06:19 23:08:26 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 800 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual
>>2866370
Yes, because obviously the only thing different between our photos was the age of the developer. The film, lighting & exposure were obviously identical.
>>2866370
Is that even film
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3744 Image Height 5616 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 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 2012:12:25 22:18:02 Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2010:07:14 15:00:49 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1229 Image Height 1536 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual
>>2866343
Are they in separate bags or is it one bag with a single powder mix?
>>2866377
Xtol is two separate bags, but each bag is a mixture of chemicals.
>>2866375
>implying that's my picture/waifu
Although I would gratefully tear leelee's ass up beyond recognition, it's just an image of a younger better looking woman to juxtapose with that haggard piece of sausage meat you shot.
Sort of like your brain/your brain on drugs.
>>2866002
>unqualified
I did my own CLA and light seal replacement on my RB system with a 50, 90 and 180, there probably isn't anyone on /p/ more qualified to recommend the RB67.
you can fuck off.
serious answer.
>>2866236
ignore
>>2866002
>>2866010
350 can be a good deal or a horrible deal depending on what lenses it comes with
>>2866419
>I did my own CLA and light seal replacement on my RB system
you fucked the camera id bet money on it.
>>2866422
0/10
>>2866422
he probably superglued it in
>>2866419
It was the 90 and the 180, but I just checked the ad again and the 180 has sold. He was selling it for like 70 bucks.
Are the Mamiya lenses for 645 and 67 interchangeable? I know an older fella in town who has a whole 645 kit. Maybe I could buy some lenses from him and get the 67 body from this guy online. Are the backs interchangeable too?
>>2866465
No, they are not interchangeable, the rb67 uses a bellows for focusing and has a breech lock mount, the 645 cameras use a regular bayonet and focusing is done with the lens rather than the body
I've been doing a bunch of research lately and I cannot for the life of me figure out what scanner to get for scanning 35mm. Any opinions? Plustek 8100 seems good but the software seems shhit
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 10D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2010:04:09 15:01:05 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1204 Image Height 1040
>>2866522
plustek is definitely the best option for 35mm if you don't want to spend 500+ on a coolscan. for software, you should download vuescan, it's great and works with any scanner.
>>2866547
>Vuescan is great
Vuescan is fucking garbage, I hate it. there's no good scanning software. I agree that the plustek scanners are pretty good, though. Definitely better than the flatbed I used to use.
>>2866522
[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
>>2865625
What kind of 4x5 equipment do have, Sugar?
>>2866649
Graphic View 4x5 I, 127 Ektar in Kodak shutter, CLA'd by me, and Schneider 180 5.6 in a Synchro-compur
In £ what is the cheapest I'm looking at for all the stuff I would need to do everything but print. So shoot film and digit it. All the chemicals ect
>>2866670
Fuck off. DO your own maths you lazy cunt.
All the information you need is right there in the fucking search bar.
>>2866658
Which Graflex is the Graphic View? Is it anoher model separate from the Crown Graphic, Speed Graphic, Super Speed Graphic, etc.?
I went full gearfag on my shit. Got a Cambo SCX, bluffed the guy to give it to me for 150$ CAD when it's worth more like 400-500$. Have a 90mm SA MC, 210mm Symmar-S, 75mm SA, 75mm Tominon and a 150mm Fuji SW. Way too many lenses and I haven't even taken the damn thing out yet. Then I have the 617 back, and the 6x9 back.Kill me, please.
Film newfag here. I want to push a roll of Tri X 400 to 800, do I just meter for 800 and tell the lab to push it?
>>2866710
You meter for 800 and process it normally yourself.
Digipleb here, a weird thing happened today. I read in my local newspaper about a camera manufacturer who lives some 80-100km from me and makes view cameras entirely by hand.
Since there is lots of happy nationalistic propaganda going on in the news I wonder if this is a journalistic bullshit about some hack or the guy is genuinely a Stradivari in the camera world.
His cameras go by the name of some countries, Venezuela or Argentina or something (Argentum maybe but I'm not sure).
Does anyone know anything about these things? I just want to know if there there are still some genuine people left in my country.
i developed my very first film today, it was very exciting going through all the steps, then seeing the negative images come out. i couldn't wait to see them in proper colors, so I did some extremely ghetto hand-held "scanning" and quick color correction. this is surprisingly fun.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX Q-S1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 39 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1747 Image Height 1153 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2016:06:20 03:02:04 Exposure Time 1/13 sec F-Number f/1.9 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/1.9 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 8.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 500 Image Height 330 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Macro
What's causing the cloudiness? It's present on some photos, but not all. Over/underexposure, old paper, or something else? This is my first pinhole camera.
>>2866760
I have no idea but it looks amazing
>>2866761
thanks, here's another
>>2866710
Be aware that many labs will charge extra for push/pull processing.
Just got my second roll developed. I really need to get myself a home scanner since 600dpi is just pathetic. Otherwise I'm happy with these.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:20 13:52:01 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1232 Image Height 1840
>>2866785
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:20 13:51:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1840 Image Height 1232
>>2866786
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:20 13:51:43 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1192 Image Height 1781
>>2866801
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. Camera Model SP-3000 Camera Software Photos 1.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:20 13:52:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1734 Image Height 1232
>>2866681
yea it's a separate model, usually has a red bellows. All metal construction, very well made. I found mine for $30 CAD
>>2866802
what film?
>>2866785
>>2866562
>>2866547
>>2866522
I'm looking for a scanner too. Epson V500 seems adequate, especially for the price, but is it? Does anyone have experience with it? The V500 is available for €185 here, are there better scanners with a justifiable price difference? I'm mostly shooting 35mm btw, I've read reviews of MF shooters who say that the difference between the V500 and V800 on MF is quite noticeable, but it's >3x as expensive. Thoughts?
>>2866839
Fuji Superia 200 I think.
>>2865685
If the TV is too heavy would the Bronica GS1 be a good alternative? It's also got interchangeable backs and finders and a leaf shutter but in a much smaller and lighter body.
>>2866937
Meant to say RB, got autocorrected to TV
>>2866937
I love my GS-1 a lot and while it's an amazing system the parts are becoming relatively rare and expensive. especially small things like focussing screens are practically non-existent where I live. the lenses are cheap and amazing quality, though.
also it's pretty light for a 6x7 and the handling with the speed grip and prism viewfinder is superb, perfect for me at least as I always shoot handheld
>>2866937
The RZ is noticeablely lighter and is really not too expensive. It's not dirt cheap like the RB, but you can get a body and lens (just get the 110) for around 500, depending on where you live. Plus all the other lenses on the mount are great, and pretty cheap too.
>>2866973
I really want to get a Mamiya 7, but the non collabsiple mount kind of makes me want the 6. I honestly think 6x7 is the best format, aside from the fact that a whole roll won't fit on an 8x10 contact sheet.
>>2867056
The RZ might be lighter but not by much. It's also roughly the same size as the RB which is why the Bronica seems like a better option
I somehow lucked out finding cameras this weekend....upgrading from a AE-1 and AE-1 program.
Just curious on what camera would you say is better a Nikon F2 or a Canon F1?
Also I don't know much about medium format is the "mamiya 645 super" good? It....feels good.
>>2867079
I prefer the f1 pertaining to the controls and how it feels in my hands but the f2 is still a wonderful camera
If you've already got an ae-1 all your glass will work on it
>>2865546
>OR better yet, just go out without a camera at all and enjoy being outside. Walk aimlessly and enjoy what you're seeing. Fuck taking pictures. After a few times of doing this and seeing things you wish you could shoot you may start to feel a bit of motivation. Or maybe you won't, but at least you're getting outside and seeing things.
Best advice I think I've ever seen on this board
>>2866846
I use a v500 and people talk a lot of shit about it but it has honestly been fine for me for what I paid for it (about $100 on ebay).
Pic related was scanned on v500. Can post more if you'd like
This was scanned on v500:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123546577@N05/15709575281/in/dateposted-public/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.16384 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2014:11:04 12:48:13
>>2867096
oops was gonna erase the flickr link and upload image directly instead. Oh well
Hey I got this 4x5 camera from a guy I met a few years back and I've never used it. All I need is film holders. I'm hopefully picking some up soon though. I'll hopefully be using it soon. Any tips that may not be quite so obvious?
Any backpacks I could put it in to carry? And any recommendations on film holders?
What scanners do you poorfags use for 35mm
Instead of nigger rigging some DSLR scanning rig out of cardboard and a flash, why not just use the enlarger I already have? I think I could remove the enlarging lens and make a lensboard with a filter ring on it to screw the front of my macro lens into it backwards. Then I can mount the camera onto it and use the bellows to focus the negative onto the camera sensor to scan it.
Has anyone tried something like this? Is there something obvious that I'm missing? This seems like something I could easily try this weekend. The closest I've found is some guy who used an enlarger to project his negatives directly onto the bare camera sensor, which seems like a great way to make it way more tedious and get a sensor full of dust.
the contax g2 is incredibly expensive but the g1 can be had for a fraction of the price
is it really that much worse?
>>2867096
Thanks, I've now ordered the V550 for €185, I'll upload some scanned snapshits when it arrives. Yours seem quite sharp
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:16 21:07:01
>>2866670
You can get almost everything but the chemicals for free. You only really need developer and fixer, if you're savvy, those should come to less than £20.
>>2866670
Try to pick up the equipment second hand if you can - this stuff doesn't go obsolete so developing tanks, reels, measuring cylinders, etc. that you find on ebay, gumtree, local newspaper classifieds, etc. are still fine.
If you just want to pull the trigger on new equipment to get stuck in with everything you need, then this
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Paterson-Film-Processing-Kit/product/1775/PTP573/
plus this
http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Tetenal-Black-And-White-Film-Developing-Starter-Kit/product/2756/TETFCSP/
will sort you out.
>>2867245
yeah, I use the same method, works great.
>>2867462
Plastic reels are absolutely haram. Get a stainless daylight tank and one of these reels instead http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/714526-REG/Hewes_EKC009_35mm_Stainless_Steel_Developing.html
Plastic reels are easy when they work, but they can jam up or chew up your film. I'd rather use stainless and then have only myself to blame if I fuck up my film.
Sup /film/, still working on my series, last week was a bit slow due to weather, but I got out and shot another roll this week, here's a sample.
Thread coming eventually, when I've got enough stuff I like.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 13085 Image Height 10455 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 4800 dpi Vertical Resolution 4800 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:06:21 20:34:48 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1250 Image Height 1010
Here's my first scan on the Epson V550 pls b gentle
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 12800 dpi Vertical Resolution 12800 dpi Image Created 2016:06:22 04:03:41 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4448 Image Height 2827
>>2867931
>this was literally the most interesting thing you could think to take a photo of
>4448 pixels
>>2867933
Well, there's the rest of the roll, but I thought the PTT case would appeal to some more nostalgic minded people
>>2867125
What's the model? Doesn't look like one of the monorails that collapse comfortably. Best bet is to figure out how to get the standards off the rail and then placing the disassembled camera in your bag.
Obvious tips include making sure the shutter is closed when you move the dark slide, and using remote shutter release for anything slower than 1/125.
>>2867125
Best advice is to shoot xray film. Shit is very inexpensive and easy to develop. Only downside is that you have to cut the film yourself. Xray is orthographic, at least.
>tfw the aperture on my Pentax f2.0 k mount lens is not snappy anymore
Sometimes it doesn't even close anymore. Is it worth it to buy a lens for my Pentax MX or just buy a Nikon film camera like a Nikon FE since I have a bunch of old Nikkor glass (50mm 1.4 AI, 135mm f3.5 AI)
>>2867992
I wouldn't bother with the Pentax, just get a Nikon film camera since you already have the lenses. And get a F3
>tfw want to get a job at an actual camera store
>tfw want to buy rare cameras for them to sell
>tfw want to get a Rittreck/Optika IIa because it's like the grandfather of the RB67, except it's 6x9 instead of 6x7 and has a focal plane shutter
>tfw you will never own a glorious nip 6x9 SLR and use it to build up your core and upper body strength
>>2867997
>Rittreck/Optika IIa
>tfw you will never
>$500 on ebay
i thought it had an impossible price. how about you man up and buy the fucking thing?
>>2867997
>6x9 focal plane
For what purpose? I hope you wear hearing protection and securely bolt your camera to a tripod made of redwood trees to dampen that mirror slap.
I will admit that I had never heard of this camera, but looking at it it definitely looks like a cool camera to have sitting on top of a very sturdy shelf but not a very cool camera to try actually shooting with.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Corporation Camera Model PENTAX *ist D Camera Software *ist D Ver 1.12 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2007:03:16 08:24:16 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3008 Image Height 2008 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Macro
>>2868005
The best thing about it has got to be that when you take the lens off the camera already has a body cap built in, and it can also act as a hood with the shorter lenses. ecause it's got a focal plane shutter and uses lens boards you could likely adapt projection or aerial lenses to it and not have to worry about the shutter being in the lens, it is also useful for homemade lenses, very much like how some people hove adapted LF and aerial lenses to the Rollei SL66.
>>2868005
it shouldn't be that heavy, I read an articly and it said that the camera body only weighs about 5 pounds, compared to the RB67 which usually weighs twice as much at least
>>2868001
I only have 200 canuckbucks in my paypal account so I'm saving up to transfer some more money over
>>2867997
>imperial 6x9 nip SLR
>not a true American Graflex 5x7
>tfw you will never be Dorothea Lange on top of a car with your 5x7
>mfw I did on a Ford Probe
In all seriousness the Graflex 5x7 makes my RB67 look like a Minox it is so big I can almost fit the RB inside of it with the waist level finder. It is absurd how big it is. I got to play with a working one in a small antique mall and I almost bought it on the spot.
It takes standard barrel lenses, the shutter is inside the camera.
>>2868012
in what way is what you wrote connected to what that guy posted?
the guy says he likes a rare 6x9 camera and you start rambling about how big is some unrelated 5x7 camera? help me understand.
>>2868014
>he mentioned building up his core and upper body
>implies 6x9 is heavy
>Graflex RB 5x7 is heavier
>?????
fuck off
>>2868014
It's best these days to just ignore Sugar. He's about three months from self-inflicted trolling-induced transexuality (TITS for short). Dude's off his rocker.
>>2867993
>And get a F3
Why F3?
I'm looking at an FE since it is cheaper and smaller? Isn't an FE reliable?
>>2867984
And you probably never took a half decent photo in your life, so you resort to shitposting on /p/
>>2868129
uwu
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software Digital Photo Professional Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2014:03:29 10:18:51 Exposure Time 0.8 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 900 Image Height 1350 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2868024
FE is perfectly reliable, so is any other of those similar Nikons from that era. Those cameras were pretty much Nikon's golden age and they're all great.
People just prefer the F3 because it's the professional model of that generation, the F[letter] models were still excellent but they were a step below the F3 overall. The F3 has little things like all the optional focusing screens, the HP finder prism which gives a better viewfinder view with glasses, the 80/20 centerweighted meter rather than 60/40 (however the FA beats all of the other cameras with its matrix meter), a smoother film advance feeling, the cool sexy sports car styling.
As far as the actual quality of the photos, there is no difference at all between any of the cameras because obviously they all take the same lenses. And the FE is cheaper and slightly smaller.
>>2868020
No need to apologise for asking questions. I've been into 4x5 for a year and I still don't know what the fuck is going on.
ZZmedical is where I went because I'm a fool and can't be assed to go find other places. There are definitely a lot of xray film suppliers out there. Depending on where you are, it might even be economical to ship some really cheap stuff from China.
There are a few important things to remember with X-ray film: They don't have an ISO on the box, a lot of them aren't panchromatic; they're green sensitive, or other, and most have double-sided emulsion.
You'll have to figure out a rough ISO through experimentation. This will be complicated by the fact that your light meter will take panchromatic measurements while your film isn't. It'll take a bit of intuition regarding the specific wavelength sensitivity of your film. On the bright side, since you're going to need to cut them down from 8x10 sheets, it means you can do it under a dimmed or distant darkroom light.
For the cutting, one should use a spoiled normal 4x5 negative as template. 4x5 negatives are actually fractions of an inch smaller than their name suggests. It comes out to 4.95 x 3.95 or something like that. Look it up.
As for the emulsion, it's up to you. Try different kinds of film. Double-sided emulsion may be blurry according to some, but take that with a grain of salt. You can remove the second side by stripping it with bleach, after cutting. Otherwise you should just purchase single sided emulsion film. For a beginner that might be the easiest route.
When shopping for x-ray film, check out their wavelength sensitivity graphs, their emulsion type, the brand, and any other pertinent specs. When you've made a decision, look around online for reviews on forums or blogs. Sometimes people have already tried that film and they might have useful information to share.
>>2868222
They do also come in different grades of speed. I think it's divided between "fast","medium", and "slow", or something like that.
Finally, about your camera: It might be a huge pain, yeah. My lumbering Cambo monorail is essentially unmoveable without a car. It's fragile enough that I pack it with a moderate amount of padding, which I would deem necessary. Including a few lenses/lensboards and the tripod, it was too big to fit in my huge hiking backpack.
Even if yours manages to pack down well, and it isn't obnoxiously heavy, you may find it unwieldy. Carrying around a monorail camera, reassembling and then disassembling for each shot, can feel tedious. Monorails are awesome, and much more capable of movements (a big part of what makes LF unique and useful) than other LF cameras. The trade off is that, excepting the most expensive ones, they tend to be very impractical for outdoor photography.
If you don't have a car, and don't intend to shoot in studio more often than elsewhere, I would suggest you sell it and replace it with a field camera, maybe a technical. Field cameras are the ones that fold up into a neat little box or stack.
Something like a Crown Graphic or a Toyo 45 or Wista might be more suited to your desires. There are also really sturdy old wooden beater field cameras for cheap that are very functional, under brand names like Burke and James.
For extra info you can go to places like largeformatphotography.info/forum, or APUG.org. Be warned that the former is a bit of an old men's club. This results in some occasional encounters with unfriendly and rigid-minded folks who are abrasive to newcomers.
There are also lots of posh young professional snapshit meme photographers, who pick up LF to increase their self-reported "cred". Despite their lack of experience they tend to have the money and the ego to project crazy elitism about LF too. Watch out for them.
>>2868229
Lastly, read books. There is lots of instructional material out there for LF photography. It may be that a treasure trove of knowledge is sitting in your library, public or university, collecting mildew and dust. While a lot of what I've learned has come from forums, most of the basics of operation can be found in literature.
>>2864605
>mfw you get your colour correction down for your dslr scanning rig
Pic related, superia 400, scanned with a7ii and shitty old sigma macro
>>2867410
Whered you get it for such a good price? Ebay has rape shipping
Has anyone ever used a Luxi light meter? How accurate are they?
Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1105005-REG/luxi_esdhw906_light_meter_for_smartphones.html
