Film General Thread, aka FGT.
>just posting in the FGT doesn't make you gay, unless you use 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.
Pic related is my first attempt at ghetto scanning, but it's all washed out. It could be the film but I don't think it is.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 18:10:21 Exposure Time 1/125 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1806 Image Height 1741 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2869584
Did you use your monitor as a light source
a couple of shots from the test roll of my new OM1
1/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1800
>>2869600
No, a white LED diffused through plastic
>>2869603
pretty fucking comfy. also dat ass in the back.
>>2869603
2/?
>>2869606
thanks :)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1800
>>2869608
3/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1800
>>2869609
4/4
have to run, @victorclements on instagram if you want some more.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200
>>2869616
dichtbij de jodenbuurt
ja maar ik heb die foto gemaakt bij leidseplein
>>2869610
Nice quality scans, you di it yourself?
Any recommendations for a compact with a sharp lens that will fit in a pocket? oly mjuii, even the xa, and the rest of the usual suspects are well over 150$ now for an example that hasn't been hit by a car. My oly 35rc looks like an ied in the pocket and is pretty hard to move in and out, so it would have to be thinner than that at least without much lens protrusion.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D60 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 798 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2012:05:15 21:43:39 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Subject Distance 1.12 m Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce, Return Detected Focal Length 18.00 mm Comment KELVINZZ Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1400 Image Height 937 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2869655
Look harder. I scored a mint xa for 10 bucks. xa2 is good also, and much cheaper
>>2869655
pretty much anything with a prime lense that isn't fixed focus will be just fine
look harder
[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 1258 Image Height 800
You want to talk about ghetto film scanning setups? Check this bad boy out.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:25 00:15:07 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 32.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 747 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
The first roll I tried on it was ruined thanks to a dodgy back, but here's only of the only pictures off the roll as scanned using that + 5D1 with a backwards OM 50mm f/1.8 lens
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2869608
very nice
Portra4hunnit
I'll post some snaps I took in norway. I did not use the Bronica S2 I brought along with the x100t as much as I wanted to ise though, because the thing is pretty heavy and big.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 17:03:53 Image Width 1024 Image Height 1024
These are all portra400 shot at iso200.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 16:58:58 Image Width 1216 Image Height 1184
>>2869864
>resize your snapshits
>lrn to process colour
>remove dust
>shatbed btfo
>B A N D I N G
>A
>N
>D
>I
>N
>G
>he's still in the bokehwhoring phase
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 17:02:25 Image Width 1024 Image Height 1024
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 16:56:58 Image Width 1024 Image Height 1023
>>2869874
Well I thought a more shallow dof would look nice at this shot and I like how it turned out.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 17:03:37 Image Width 1024 Image Height 1024
>>2869877
this is great
where in Norway did you go?
I have some shots from a recent trip to Bergen.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200
>>2869922
Thanks,
I spent one week in Bergen too and then flew up to Ålesund. I really loved Bergen and its surrounding area. Beautiful little city.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:24 17:01:12 Image Width 1354 Image Height 1362
>>2869609
It's not quite straight on which is really noticeable.
>>2869937
its not overexposed, its looks like haze from not using a UV filter
>>2869935
yeah I rushed through the roll to be honest, just testing a newly bought camera to make sure it all worked well.. no excuse.. I've failed you senpai.
>>2869929
It's a great city but ridiculously expensive, also I accidentally went during the kings birthday and so the entire city was closed which probably helped my bank account more than anything.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200
>>2869945
Yeah thats true. Coming from germany, it just felt wrong to pay more then 10 euros for a beer in a restaurant.
>>2869957
yeah I came from NL so it was quite expensive for me too.
I paid €35 for some yoghurt and muesli, water, and some bananas...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200
>>2869945
>>2869964
Great colours. Reminds me of the artwork for ICO, what film?
>tfw I have a 6 month scanning backlog and can't be arsed to do anything about it.
At least I'm getting my Nikon wet.
>>2870081
what is ICO?
ektar 100
Bessa R2 vs Minolta CLE vs Leica CL
>>2870086
Which focal lengths are you intending to shoot?
>>2870087
35mm practically exclusively
40mm is fine also
>>2870088
>>2870087
>>2870086
forgot to add I need the mount to take a good 35mm/40mm as it'll be the only lens I use generally.. but I'm assuming as they take screw mount and m mount that won't be a problem
also decent build quality
aperture priority is a bonus but not a must
and the main thing putting me off the CLE, ability to be repaired without costing an arm
>>2870092
viewfinder wise, which is the best?
I had my heart set on the CLE for a while but its lack of spare parts would mean if it broke it'd cost a fortune to repair.
>>2870083
PS2 game, the artwork for it had a very nice desolate vibe.
What is the Bessa to go for between the R2A or R2M?
So what film have you guys been shooting? I recently got into medium format so I got a whole sampler pack. My favorites in 35mm have always been Acros 100 and Tri-X, though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Sony Camera Model D6503 Camera Software 17.1.2.A.0.314_9_f300 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:23 17:17:52 Exposure Time 1/32 sec F-Number f/2.0 ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 4.90 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 900 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2870134
Also, speaking of Acros here are a couple of photos I just developed. This is still 35mm though, I'm waiting on an adapter to come in the mail before I can properly set up my DSLR scanning rig for 120 so that I can hopefully get some decent consistent results.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Plustek Camera Model OpticFilm 7400 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:25 16:26:04
>>2870149
in case anyone cares:
Nikon F100
50mm f/1.8G
Fuji Acros 100
Kodak HC-110 Dilution E
I forgot to take a yellow filter with me on this trip and I regret it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Plustek Camera Model OpticFilm 7400 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:25 16:26:05
>>2870149
>>2870150
are you using a filter or something? the tones looks weird. My experience with Across has always been good, I love the way it looks. I mostly use Tri-X for medium format, since you have to stop down more to get the same DOF. The extra speed helps if you can't use a tripod. If you are using a tripod, or shooting in very bright sun, you can't go wrong with Acros
Pic related, some Acros from when I first got my RZ.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 8784 Image Height 7103 Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 3200 dpi Vertical Resolution 3200 dpi Image Created 2016:06:25 22:10:24 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1250 Image Height 1021
Again, sorry for not resizing, but I got this new film camera, Canon EOS Rebel XS, anyone have experience with one? I heard they're decent, gonna develop some of the photos from it on monday to see if it was worth the price.
May be out of topic, but what's good software to resize photos & edit Exifs?
>>2870285
>objective acros
Fan Ho is dead :(
>>2869600
i do kek
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS Kiss X4 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Photographer Jake Revell Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3272 Image Height 3272 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 2016:06:23 22:55:33 Exposure Time 1/4 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 60.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1280 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2869705
this cant be real
you took it with the 5D
>>2870134
>>2870149
>>2870150
>>2870285
Nice.
I just processed my first roll of Acros last night and had a quick affair with my Mamiya 645 Pro again.
I really like the results a lot more than I've gotten with Tri-X or HP5. Are there any other B/W films I should check out that are similar?
[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 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2016-06-26T12:14:18+01:00
Quick question, what camera is used at the beginning of the old opening credits of The Bold and the Beautiful? It's a Bronica, but I can't recognise the type.
See pic
![00QWix-64651684[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YUnymU5.jpg "00QWix-64651684[1].jpg")
>>2870581
please don't bash films when you have no idea what you're talking about
>Very gray tonality
lel.
t-grain films are very responsive to changes in exposure and development time, and they usually have an upswept curve which means if you're not careful your highlight contrast will get really high. HC-110 is a HORRIBLE developer to use with t-grain films because its highly active and will make it even easier to blow out the high tones. they're also inherently very thin emulsions which makes them harder to scan properly.
TMX in tmax developer is one of the most beautiful films I've seen, and t-grain films produce by far the sharpest and finest grained images you can get
>>2870709
Honestly I just do HC-110 for everything because I think syrup is so convenient and long-lasting. I really should try Xtol or DD-X or something like that.
I think for Acros in HC-110 I've had better results using it really dilute. I also sometimes like pushing it a stop or two and then it gets really deep dark shadows. That does make it even thinner, though.
>>2870730
pretty retarded reasoning
>>2870741
Do you mind imparting some of your wisdom, then?
Guys help, I have a voigtlander bessa l with a 25mm f4 skopar lens but I kind of want a Leica, I love the design of the MD-2 but it has no viewfinder, should I buy the M4-P or just drop the shit and go with the MD-2?
>>2870774
You already have a GOAT lens/camera combo. Just get really good with it instead friend.
Leica is a meme.
Went out to the park yesterday, it was a slow day but actually got some nice shots. Tried out Ilford Delta 400 for the first time, I have to say it's pretty damn sharp, and has some nice tones, but it can be a bit of a bitch to work with in the darkroom.
Here's a couple samples, these are just scans tho, 11x14 prints won't fit on the scanner.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 10414 Image Height 12888 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 2016:06:26 20:10:15 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1010 Image Height 1250
>>2870849
This shot was a pain to print, for some reason the sidewalk at the bottom was just blowing way out. Final full exposure time: 20 secs @ f/8. Usualy my print times are around 6-7 secs @f/11 for Tri-X.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 10315 Image Height 13073 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 2016:06:26 20:27:12 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1010 Image Height 1250
I found an old Zenith 122 and some lenses (58mm f/2, 135mm f3.6, 200mm f/4) in my closet. Everything seems to be in working condition (albeit the lenses and mirror look like they need some cleaning). Is it worth getting into film with this?
>>2870852
I'm guessing this is 6x7? That photo looks really nice, maybe I should try Delta 400. I just got a 6x6 camera and loaded up a roll of Delta 100 for the first time, I'll see how that goes. What did you develop it in? I haven't really settled on a developer for T-grain films but I've been shooting more T-grain than traditional grain lately so I should probably find one that works well.
What exactly was hard about printing it? It sounds like your negative was really dense, was that it?
>>2870864
Actually never mind that about 6x7, I'm retarded with aspect ratios.
>>2870864
>>2870867
I mean, it is 6x7, pretty much everything I post in the film thread is, with some occasional 35mm.
As for the trouble with printing, I'm kind of having a hard time understanding why it was blowing out so bad. It looked great in the contact, pic related. either way I just burned in the bottom part and it was fine.
I use Xtol 1:1 for everything. it's the perfect developer for me, since I usually shoot Tri-X. It also works well with Acros 100, which is my other go-to BW film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 9448 Image Height 11881 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1200 dpi Vertical Resolution 1200 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:06:26 19:22:48 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 954 Image Height 1200
>>2870849
>nice shots
gonna post them?
Took this while filming for a project. Thoughts?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2870898
Another one I took. We were using mannequin hands as props for the film.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2869584
>>2870730
Xtol works well with tmax, both at its normal speed and for push proccesing. I haven't tried it on Delta or Acros.
its easy to mix and will keep for 5+ months if you store it properly
>>2870900
>>2870902
>>2870878
I don't think delta 400 in xtol should be that contrasty... try shortening your development time or agitating less
>>2870904
I always print with a number 3 contrast filter in, even for contacts. It just the look I like. The actual negs are as expected, plus I edited the scan a bit. Thanks though, I guess.
>>2870897
I'm saving up for a thread, just for this series I've been working on. Should be coming eventually, I've been posting singles in the film thread every week.
>>2869711
OM1 fag here as well. How do you deal with having no batteries for it?
I simply use sunny 16 but sometimes I feel the need to use the lightmeter on my phone.
Fucking bullshit. After waiting for my used stuff I now had to wait for new fix and developer. The fix was old but I got a lot of nice stuff, inluding paper and an enlarger. It basically included everything I needed. Goddamn I want to develop my first roll so bad but the new stuff I had to order is taking long. Fuckers. :(
>>2870919
>I always print with a number 3 contrast filter in (...) It just the look I like.
>complains about the highlights blocking up and printing being a pain
???
do you not own softer filters or something?
>>2870134
Fuji Superia 400 because I'm poor and Porta 400 is expensive by comparison. I'm also playing with Ilford HP5+; never used it before, but compares favorably to Tri-X from people I've listened to.
>>2870972
currently develping a roll of hp5+ as I type this. Its my first roll of it too.
>>2870134
Assorted very expired film. Raided the shelves of a newly opened thrift store, scored about 30 rolls of various stocks all of which expired about 12 years ago. Ektachrome, Elite Chrome, Tmax P3200, Portra VC and NC, a few rolls of what I think is the old version of Velvia 50 and lots of Tri-X. Keen to try each one
>>2870973
It turned out like shit.
>>2870992
rough break man. what went wrong?
>>2870995
It was my first roll developed for quite a long time and I was rusty. I also apparently didnt get the film on the reel right. The developer didnt get to all surfaces of the film I think. I also dont have a thermometer to check the water temp so I just used room temp water.
I was also using a camera that I had no idea if it worked correctly. It was a yashica electro 35.
So to put it shortly I wasnt prepared haha
I dont have a scanner but here is a really shitty "scan" of it I took with my dslr.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D80 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 738 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:27 01:11:40 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1250 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Why do you shoot film?
Nostalgia? Invested too deep? Hipster?
>>2871034
Why not anon ?
>>2871034
Been doing it for years now, find it easier to make a good image on film than digital. I shoot digital for 'professional' work, but all my personal stuff is film.
Started when my Grandpa died and I inherited his Leica M3. He used it up until the day he died so it was in perfect condition. Was into photography for a year before that but the Leica got me onto film. Learned to bulk roll and develop film with the supplies given to me by my late Grandpa. Found that I considered my shots more when I had a limited amount.
By now I've been shooting film for 7 or so years. The Leica is still going strong, I have no doubt it'll outlive me. I've probably been through almost a thousand rolls of film by now, considering I shoot around a roll a week, more if I'm somewhere interesting or on holiday.
For me the attraction of film is the simplicity and the ability to 'stay in the moment'. I take a shot, wind the lever, and move on. No looking at the screen and deciding to take it again, once it's captured that's it. Also not having to worry about complicated settings. On most film cameras you're only controlling the focus, shutter speed and aperture. That's it
My $0.02 anyway
>>2871034
so I can use this little cutie
love this camera to death
>>2870697
There were so few Bronica's that it's incredibly easy to find. Step up.
>>2870898
I think this works a bit better
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2016-06-27T09:29:22+01:00 Flash No Flash, Red-Eye Reduce Image Width 500 Image Height 500
The developing part is a lot of fun
I want to get into the 120 film meme but it seems that 120 film cost a bit higher than 135. What are some cheap 120 colored film and black and white film?
Cheapest preferably.
>>2871065
>shifting my manual transmission car is really, really enjoyable
>enjoying pushing a penis shaped knob up and down
Are you gay?
>>2871079
>go to site that sells film
>sort by price both ways
???????
>PROFIT
>>2871049
Hey pal, do you know which version of the XA has a proper rangefinder and which version uses scale focusing?
I'm after the one with a split image rangefinder but I'm not sure which version of the XA that is
>>2871088
the original XA not the 1,2,3,4
>>2871089
thanks senpai, is there a product number or defining feature I should be looking for if I'm looking for this original XA?
>>2870774
well if you plan on only shooting with the 25mm, you're gonna need to use an external finder anyway so might as well go with the md-2
>>2871090
If you look on the front the rangefinder version is always going to have the F numbers
Easy way to tell the XA apart from the other ones
>>2871081
Really? That's really the best thing you could come up with?
The morgue of old mental institution.
Fomapan 100 @ Rodinal 1+50.
1/2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
2/2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2871034
Because I am a hipster.
>>2871114
Well what do you know, it's a fellow finnfag.
What's the place in the shots?
>>2871151
Imatralla Rauhan entisen mielisairaalan ruumishuone.
>>2869875
AURLAND?
U
R
L
A
N
D
?
Posted this in gear thread as well.
What is a good cheap tripod for a TLR? I haven't been able to get a straight answer on what modern tripods fit/work well with a TLR. I need one for my Mamiya C33 and I want a decent value for really cheap. I'm talking <$50 ideally
>>2871543
If you're serious enough about your photography to bother with MF film, you should get a serious tripod too.
>buy it once, buy it right
Pic related.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software GIMP 2.8.14 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 536 Image Height 800
I really want to get rid of a couple of 35mm cameras I have. After they get sold I just want one 35mm camera and right now I'm looking at a Kodak Retina Reflex as a replacement, mainly because it's smaller, has a leaf shutter which might make it quieter and the meter can work even without batteries. What are your thoughts on the Retina reflex line?
>>2871543
If it uses a standard tripod mounting hole then really any heavy duty tripod will do. Expect to pay around $500. You need something that's very sturdy and will hold the weight of the camera.
>>2871718
>Expect to pay around $500
lmao.
>>2871652
> you should get a serious tripod
ahaha.
>>2871543
anon, dont listen to these retards. a cheap but solid tripod will do just fine. the fact that its a square format camera means you wont need to tilt it beyond its own weight or in a weird fashion, you will need just rotation movement over the axis and up/down movement. camera itself will provide the needed stability. if not, theres always your own backpack attached to the center hook.
this one will work pretty ok for what you want:
https://www.amazon.com/Ravelli-APLT4-61-inch-Weight-Aluminum/dp/B004ZGLM5W/ref=sr_1_4?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1467099660&sr=1-4&keywords=tripod
>>2871733
>plastic head
yeah wow anon sure looks like great construction, surely would be a good option for anon's multi-kilogram brick of a camera
>>2871736
>abs head
that "plastic head" is more reliable than your own. camera will be fine.
Why street photography died 30 years age?
>>2871543
Lol ive been shooting medium format with a camera heavier than that on a tripod that cost <$30 for over 5 years now. Anything will do buddy. Just make sure it's stable enough that it won't move around if a gust of wind comes.
A nicer tripod WILL be more enjoyable to use (smoother tilt/swing/collapse/etc) but I've never felt the need to buy a fancy tripod and head. Buy something cheap for now from a secondhand store and if it disappoints you look into something nicer. You'll either waste $20 and realise you need something better or you'll save yourself $100+ by not buying something that isn't necessary for you.
>>2871081
>enjoying pushing a penis shaped knob up and down
I certainly enjoy pushing my own knob up and down
>>2871652
>buy it once, buy it right
You fucking butchered that.
>buy nice or buy twice
I've just been running some tests comparing a dedicated cheapo macro lens (sigma 50mm 2.8 DG) against standard fifties on extension tubes (Pentax 50 1.4 & Nikon 50 1.4), whilst I wait for my custom made anti newton glass to arrive.
All were shot at f8, iso 100, the Sigma was colour corrected first and the settings copied over to the other 2 shots, the exposure was tweaked by up to 1/3 of a stop to make them more even. Quick n dirty colour correcting.
Things I noted
-Distortion, those on the tubes needed a fuck load of correction, couldn't quite make the edges straight.
- Contrast, The sigma wiped the floor with the other 2, lots more punch to the shot and micro contrast in the details
- Sharpness, eh, not a lot in it, the micro-contrast gives a much better apparent sharpness though to the Sigma
Thoughts?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2000 Image Height 717 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 2016:06:28 14:52:23 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 717
>>2871870
Interesting test! From that it looks like sigma>pentax>nikon
In terms of distortion, what you want is a lens capable of having a very flat field which is generally required for good reproduction.
The Canon FD 50mm 3.5 Macro + FD 25-U extension tube is one such combo. It was made for reproductive purposes and combined with the extension tube will give you 1:1 magnification with very little distortion. I'm currently hunting for one for my film digitizing needs.
>>2871873
thanks dude, I'd agree with your ranking, the Nikon is notoriously low contrast and the low contrast of film does it no favours.
yeah, the distortion isn't much of an issue for 35mm, I tend to crop a mm or 2 in anyway, but if you want to start stitching it may look a bit odd. A macro lens is definitely a good investment for negs, good luck on your hunt.
>>2871798
>centre column probably won't even hold itself in a raised position
>raised position
>TLR
???
sure thing. your words are garbage, dont talk to me or post in my forum ever again.
>>2871870
you can also get an actually good macro lens for cheap, I got a micro-nikkor 55mm f3.5 for under 100$
>>2871820
thanks anon, did you buy your tripod secondhand?
>>2871897
>micro-nikkor 55mm
Doesn't do 1:1, pleb tier.
>>2871870
should try using a pentax-a 50mm 2.8 macro instead of that 1.4 if you can
There was some other anon using a 50mm macro super-takumar that had great results and I think the pentax-a would be even better
The best pocket camera ever made. Olympus XA mon amour. Try uprated HP5 at 800 at night. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>2871870
Following on from here with more exciting tests!
I heard a theory that you can use cyan filter gel in front of your light source to nullify the orange colour of the film base.
So I tested it, and whilst I was there the difference between the shiny and matte side of the film.
method - colour corrected the matte, normal version in as limited a way as possible, the levels for the RGB channels were set and then i added a tiny hump in the red curve, and that's it. The white balance was set off the leader. These settings were copied and pasted to the other 3 images, the only adjustment the cyan versions had was changing the white balance off the leader again.
My observations
-matte side wins all day long
-The cyan filter definitely put the white balance closer towards the centre, I sometimes find myself pretty much out of room on the blue/yellow slider where little changes seem to make massive differences, so this was good
-I'm also slightly more impressed with the colour that I got at the end with the filter, there's a marked difference in the red/purple colours and the shadows seem to be more neutral.
Any thoughts?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 50 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:06:28 18:35:09 Exposure Time 2 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness -0.3 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2593 Image Height 975 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2871953
all have blue+red shadows.
>>2871953
>The white balance was set off the leader
???
I'm new to scanning colour film, but I thought you would white balance from blank frames not the leader? have I been doing it wrong?
>>2871953
>So I tested it, and whilst I was there the difference between the shiny and matte side of the film
its called the emulsion, you dingus, and if you had spend more than 2 days using film you would know that's the side to scan & print
>>2871931
There's an extension tube designed specifically for the 55mm Nikon macros which gives you from 1:2 to 1:1. There's even a focusing scale on the lenses to go with the extension tube.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7000 Camera Software Capture NX 2.2.4 W Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 948 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 127 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:03:24 20:22:46 Exposure Time 4 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 85.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 615 Image Height 368 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 200 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Focus Mode AF-S ISO Speed Requested 200 AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Unknown Lens Range 16.0 - 85.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 3556
im not well educated in digital photography. I own a 10.2 mp sony that my mother gave to me and all i want to do is use it for scanning. If megapixels dont really matter except for using them for large prints, then why are there pro cameras and entry level cameras with a super high megapixel count.(im only talking about ff)
Do you think i could print good quality images from a scan from a 10.2 mp sony a230?
>>2871937
>at night
I find it almost impossible to focus during daylight because of the dim rangefinder patch, how are you able to do it at night?
>>2872041
>same difference, blank orange space.
???
not at all, the leader is fully exposed and black because its the part you first load into the camera (in light)
>>2872090
I'm pretty sure he obviously meant that he used an unexposed piece at the beginning of the roll before the first frame. Not the narrower part that sticks out of the can, the part right after it but still before the photos start.
>>2870924
wrong quote senpai. I have an OM-10
>>2870924
I used hearing aid batteries (1,4v vs the 1,35v of the original mercury battery) and it's only one stop off, consistently, so I use the underside of the vertical stem of the black meter dial towards the + as my good exposure mark (if that's making any sense at all to you). You need to bend the contact lip inside the battery hole just a little bit upwards to make it touch the lid.
I recently found a working mercury battery in mint condition, though. A godsend and a true miracle. Swapping it with the hearing aid batter whilst keeping all other variables the same confirmed the ca. 1 stop aberration. It's slightly less, though, so you can easily get away with just treating it like it would have a 1,35v in. You should measure the hearing aid battery after pulling off the lid and waiting for ca 10-15 minutes, as it's an air cell which has to react to air before giving off power and reach its end voltage. Measuring is important, because there seems to be some difference between some of the supposedly exact same batteries from the same package. I had one that was 1,44v, so almost an entire 0,1v too high. I'm hoping there will be outliers towards the 1,35v too, but I haven't encountered them. Also, the hearing aid batteries only last 3-5 months tops after you pull off the lid, even if you don't use them. This is because of the nature of the air cell. They're dirt cheap and easily available. Be sure to get the bulkiest ones, as they have a better fit.
There are also tutorials on the internet on how to modify your OM-1x to accept regular 1,5v button cell batteries, but do be sure to throw them out just before they go empty (which should be after 6-12 months or more, just measure the voltage every now and then) because the voltage drops in the last stage of its life.
There are also adapters and replacement non-mercury batteries (wein cells).
You can also just set the iso knob one stop lower when using hearing aid batteries, as it's only used for the meter.
Best medium format film camera for environmental potrait photography? I've been looking a lot at the Pentax 67, it seems like a lot of people like it. Should I go for it or is it a meme?
>>2872184
>is it a meme?
memeblads are the memes. 67's are just excellent and very reliable cameras. go and try one, youre going to fall in love.
>>2872184
Any camera that you can carry with you outside is good. The 67 is just as heavy as an RZ, or any other 6x7 cam. Either one will be fine. You might look at the bronicas, since they are smaller cams. Definitely get the SQ series. A TLR is also a fine choice, and people will always be fascinated by it, if these portraits are candid. If you can pony up the shekels, go Mamiya 6 or 7.
I do street portraits with an RZ and it gives me no trouble. Get a meter and put it on a wrist strap.
>>2872201
If the goal is environmental portraits what you want is something with close focusing distances and pleasing bokeh. For that reason id take the Mamiya 6 off the list (as well as any other cameras lacking those).
I have begun purchasing Super 8 equipment. How retarded am I?
>>2872235
it depends on if you're rich or not
shot this one a while ago. CC welcome.
>>2872239
I do okay. I only really intend to shoot vacation videos on Super 8 and *maybe* try stop motion, so I won't be buying that much film.
Admittedly, I'm partially getting into this because I have an interest in vintage pornography and there are lots of 8mm smut reels on eBay.
>>2872252
>there are lots of 8mm smut reels
then you would need projection equipment, which is totally different from what you would film with
but yeah, I would love to shoot 16mm but motion picture film and development is just ridiculously expensive these days. since nobody projects it anymore, you have to spend even more money getting it converted to digital for anyone to actually watch it. not to mention it takes way more skill than you would imagine, splicing it, syncing sound, editing etc...
if you shoot black and white it might be worth it to attempt home development. you would need expensive equipment but it still might be cheaper (don't quote me on this though, I've never tried it)
>>2872258
>then you would need projection equipment
Of course. I've already ordered a projector and I'm currently deciding which camera to buy. Why would anyone get one without the other?
>>2872111
>set your wb
No, shoot raw.
Hey /p/
Today I was developing 6 rolls of HP5 in 35 and 120 and one of the 120 rolls came out with the negative but was not clear like usual.
It was solid white instead of transparent purple.
I'm guessing I fucked up a step cause the rest are normal, any clue which one?
thanks
>>2872341
fixing.
Re-fix.
>>2872346
cool thanks family
Is an Olympus OM-2n with 55mm f3.5 macro lens a good deal for $110?
I already have an Olympus OM-1 and a 50mm f1.8 lens but I'm planning to get it because I'm having trouble with having no meter for my OM-1. I can't find any batteries for the meter. Also a macro lens would be cool to use or is it not and I'm better off finding an extension tube for my current 50mm since they are basically the same?
>>2872368
doesn't the OM1 just take the 2 of the LR44 battery? You can find them in supermarkets
>>2872368
Forget about the macro meme and just DIY a battery for the OM-1 and get yourself a wider angle lens if you really want a new lens.
>>2872235
8mm is potato quality.
>>2872368
Buy the f/2 Macro you pussy.
But also, that seems like a great deal to me.
The OM2 is a an equally fine camera, and the meter is excellent.
With most other brands I would say you'd notice the difference with the macro lense, but the Oly 50/1.8 is particularly fine.
Only if you're doing particularly critical work for distortion and corner sharpness would you notice the difference, and only on slides or very slow film.
>>2872391
It's hard to find the f2 macro and if I did I don't like spending a lot of money on gear even if I can afford it.
My problem though is that I read that OM-2 cameras have reliability problems as compared to an OM-1. Is this true. Also, what wide angle lens can I buy with my OM?
>>2872447
the 21mm olympus is one of the best uwa legacy primes you can buy.
Anyone here scan slides?
2nd attempt, an improvement. Think I need to diffuse the light source a bit more though
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:06:29 17:23:29 Exposure Time 0.8 sec F-Number f/16.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 640 Lens Aperture f/16.0 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2869603
Dis shot is berry gud
>>2872484
I can't find one using the local ebay though. Where to cop and how much should they cost?
Portra 400
Minilab scanned, one of my exposures were very overexposed so I'm assuming the scanner overcompensated giving me this color.
Whatever.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Noritsu Koki Camera Model QSS Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3045 Image Height 2048
>>2872608
Same roll
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Noritsu Koki Camera Model QSS Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3045 Image Height 2048
>>2872608
>>2872609
Also same roll
Stories if anybody wants them
1st: GF loves red velvet, found out the fair had red velvet funnel cake.
2nd: Buddy shoots his brand new AR-15 for the first time
this one is me and my girlfriend won me the doggo in one of those water gun type games.
Yeah I know I have an ugly mug fuck off
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Noritsu Koki Camera Model QSS Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3045 Image Height 2048
I'm waiting for a Nikon FE and 24mm AI-S to arrive from Japan so I can give this film shit a try. Decided it was a cheap way to go full-frame for things like cliffs and mountains and I could just keep on using DX for the snapshits.
Also it turns out you can use a G lens on an old body by looping a bit of thread around the aperture lever thing at the back.
>>2869584
Olympus OM2n, Superia 200
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
>>2872651
Should I get rid of the green tint? I don't really care but do others find it annoying?
>>2872649
Just use manual focus lenses on manual focus bodies, yes you can technically mix and match bodies and lenses with lots of forward and backward compatibility, but it's usually a pain in the ass. Manually focusing AF lenses sucks and manually focusing AI lenses with a DSLR focusing screen also sucks.
>>2872652
There's not really any "correct" white balance for that photo because the different light sources all have different colors. In any case, white balance is something that you can choose yourself for artistic effect, if you want your buildings green then make them green, there's no need to be scientifically correct.
Fuck me.
>>2872666
no thanks satan, but you can always use a shitload of coins or aluminium foil to jam them in if the voltage is right. Or y'know, get an appropriate one off ebay.
>>2872368
>buying a whole new camera just because the meter doesn't work
jesus christ
if you really need a meter just buy a handheld one, you can get one 10x better than any in-camera meter for less than $110
>>2872664
but then the newer cameras have the dots and little arrows. The 24mm AI-S on my D7000 should be nice and convenient if I can git reasonably gud
>>2871013
Here is a better scan. I figured out how to raise the dpi on the flatbed scanner I have. I used my phone as a backlight.
Still looks terrible.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2872385
You're right.
Buy 16mm anon.
>>2872744
I lied this is the better scan.
Any tips on using a flatbed scanner to scan film??
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2872748
What scanner are you using?
>>2872763
Epson Stylus NX110
>>2872766
Anon, I think you've confused your printer with a scanner.
>>2872587
>>2872524
Yes.
Use a real macro lense and get it in focus next time, moran.
[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 1173 Image Height 800
Anyone scan using the camera of a high end phone?
>>2872828
>shoot film
>scan with my phone
>wat
>>2872836
Digital shoots better than can be pulled out of film, why bother with the inconvenience of a dedicated scanner. It surely doesnt get worse than flatbed scanner quality
>load 400h in camera
>meter's giving me wrong exposures
>finish roll
>realize that I forgot to change the iso dial and shot the whole roll at ISO 100 by mistake
Help
>>2872860
You realized the meter readings didn't seem right but you just went with it anyway?
Overexposing by two stops isn't shit for print film anyway, the negatives will be dense but the photos will still be perfectly fine.
>>2872871
I only realized it after I finished the roll, I remembered to change it to 50 when I loaded in a roll of Velvia
>>2872872
Yes. It doesn't matter. The film will be fine.
Develop normally.
>>2872770
It's a shitty scanner and printer combo. Haha
>>2869655
If you're willing to hunt harder for film there are tons of APS options with good features and prices.
>>2870849
>Comfy footware
>Blue Parrot
Truck driver?
>>2872802
Good scan. What's your light source?
shot with Kodacolor 200, the only film that is locally available in my country.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-32_33 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3089 Image Height 2048 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 2016:06:30 00:34:06 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 624
>>2872838
>Digital shoots better than can be pulled out of film
yeah, with $2000 dedicated film scanning equipment
>"phone camera"
kill yourself, my man
>>2872838
>It surely doesnt get worse than flatbed scanner quality
It does when you scan with a phone
Just bought a Holga, shot three rolls, all photos were shit. Why did I do this to myself? I'm going to try again using 400tx.
>>2869606
Zoomed.
>>2872989
>bought a Holga
I think you just answered your own question
>>2872748
better scanner and light source pretty much.
also seems your negs are scratched but it could be the scan.
>>2872668
>this
Haven't been developing for a while, my bottle of rodinal has crystal chunks at the bottom. Wat do?
>>2872235
I have a ton of stuff from my grandfather, who was an avid filmer on Super 8 and normal 8mm. Some of the films needed resplicing and light cleaning and I'm currently busy building a machine to digitise the films.
Being busy with old motion film is really fun and interesting, and watching long deceased great aunts and uncles walk around in colour in the Dutch East Indies is indescribable.
Actually filming with film is a whole different thing, though. Development is nearly impossible to do yourself (in a quality worth mentioning) and having it developed is expensive. The film itself is also expensive and you'll need many rolls/cassettes as it runs out very quickly.
Still, I think I'm going to try shooting and developing a S8 cassette once, as grandfather's camera is still in mint condition, maybe develop in some kind of spool I can put in a normal. developing tank or something.
So, all in all, I don't think you're retarded for choosing to do this, because it's so beautiful, but I do think this is a hobby you can only really do if you have the money for it. I mean, real money, like the kind that makes you not care about spending $50 on literally 3 minutes of film + all additional costs of equipment and digitisation.
>>2872126
>2872126
I've got an OM1 kicking around, it's got a bit of fungus on the lens, a camera shop said it'd do a service and rewire to adjust for the new batteries, but it's gonna be a couple of hundred bucks. I'm torn, especially as I've got an OM10 as my main already.
>>2873084
There are OM1s available online on e-bay or regional equivalents for sometimes no more than €20. A couple of hundreds is too much, way too much. For that money, you could as well carefully try yourself (the re-wiring is nothing more than soldering in 2 amall components), maybe you could try to put the lens inside an airtight box and put some fungicide in the box. Or just buy a new lens, they're offered basically for free.
>>2873088
you reckon it's worth getting a mint OM1 if I got an OM10 already?
>>2873089
Well, the OM-x0 range was meant as the consumer tier, whilst the OM-x was meant as the top tier, so it might be worthwhile. But you should shoot with what you like best. I personally use the OM-1 and I like it very much, it's a no nonsense, fully mechanical camera (apart from the light meter) which has become incredibly cheap to acquire. So you might not have to choose at all, you can just buy one for cheap and buy another one of it's not in a good condition (and sell that one), or buy some broken ones to use as donors. Seriously, I've seen these thing go around for €10. Mine cost €20 and I only did some cleaning, light seal replacement and I replaced the bottom plate because the battery lid had corroded shut in the original one. Also re-attached the small lever on the roll rewinder, all very simple repairs. Just be very careful with cleaning work, use methylated spirits and something that won't leave behind dust or particles.
>>2873089
Should be looking at a 3 or 4 if you want to spend "mint" om1 cash
>>2873094
I'd rather just get an f3 or f-1 at this point
The zukio glass itself is getting stupid expensive too
>>2873095
f3 and f1, even pricier.
I've got a lady at an op shop keeping an eye out for me, that's the only way I'll find cameras cheap anymore.
>>2873094
You're also right next to Japan you upside down retard.
Japan & Shipping is still cheaper than most EU and USA prices and nips treat camera kit with mad respek
>>2873098
Cant you just buy easy from japan though? I live in the US and I've had a ton of cameras shipped to me from japan
You can still get an f3 body from japan for very little
>>2873103
Why are you dead-set on an om-1 though?
Just curious
>>2873105
Only because I have a 28mm and a 50mm already for the olympus, heard the OM1 was a good manual camera.
>>2873106
Fair enough
There's one up for 40 dollars on ebay it appears but you'd have to get it shipped from the us
http://www.ebay.com/itm/OLYMPUS-MD-OM-1-CAMERA-PLUS-FLASH-/252443532717?hash=item3ac6ce9dad:g:NWoAAOSwRQlXdB1u
>>2873108
I can't believe this has to be said, but.
Don't buy cheap, old, complicated bodies off ebay.
They're cheap and on ebay because they're fucked and un-economical to repair. Yes there's the 1% chance it's just some old dude clearing his attic and didn't check prices, but it's not gonna be.
Is there any reason you don't want an OM-10 instead? they're cheap as fuck because they're abundant as fuck, and you won't see any image quality differences or really even build quality differences between the 1 and the 10.
And buy from a store that offers at least a 30 day warranty and put through 5 rolls of film in that time, any problems, send it back - YOU WILL NOT BE GETTING THIS ITEM REPAIRED, IT MUST BE IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION NOW.
>>2873110
If you had read any of the conversation you'd see that I'm not looking to buy a camera and that the other dude is
You'd also see that he's already got a shitty om-10 and wanted an om-1
That being said you're definitely overreacting. I've purchased several 'complicated' bodies off ebay and with a little bit of care and youtube tutorials you can easily get any fully mechanical slr body running with a little bit of sewing machine oil a syringe and a set of small screwdrivers and tweezers
If I want to use orange filter that has filter factor of 3 in my Electro 35 what iso should I choose in camera when I am using iso 400 film?
>>2873113
https://www.google.com/search?q=filter+factor+iso+stops&oq=filter+factor+iso+stops
I have to ask, what thought process caused you to go on a slow 4chan board and type in a long sentence instead of just those 4 words in google? Seriously, why.
There's this guy who wants to swap his Olympus mju-1 for 4 rolls of Fujifilm neopan acros 100.
I have a few rolls to spare. Is this a good deal? I want a small film camera that I can carry every day.
>>2873134
definitely
>>2872912
[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
>>2872914
Thanks dude, the image is a panorama from two 50mm (I think) images . There's only really a few negative points I can say about this camera:
-My timing lever got jammed and now the mechanism doesn't work, I just took the lever thing out and left the cover cap in place. Honestly prefer how it looks/feels like this now so idc.
-If you wear glasses the viewfinder can be a bit narrow although this is a small gripe for such a fun camera to use
-The meter often under exposes, I've found that over exposing by 0.7-1EV fixes this
Here's another shot from a while ago (Superia 200 + 50mm)
[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 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:30 15:13:18
got my test roll back to make sure my mju-ii works
such a fun quick little camera. I think I'm in love
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Corporation Camera Model Frontier SP-1500 Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Maker Note Version 0130 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:30 11:03:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2456 Image Height 3637
Is there a huge difference between the Epson V600 and the V800 that justifies the price difference of 300$?
Hey guys, this looked like the right thread to ask can I still get film for pic related? Got it for like $20 at a yard sale today.
If I can't get film it still looks kinda cool and I like retro shit. I scored an old time typewriter a while back but can't find the ribbon thing for it. The camera looks cool next to it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Lens Size 28.00 - 90.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.1.1 Serial Number -157376695 Lens Name EF28-90mm f/4-5.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:11:11 15:03:55 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 73.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 4368 Image Height 2912 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Av-Priority Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 2 Sensor ISO Speed 288 Camera Actuations 6 Color Matrix 131
>>2873282
2/10
>>2873284
Is 2/10 film expensive? Thanks anon.
>>2873282
>>2873285
can you not
>>2873284
Looked on amazon and they only have 1/20. Will this fit? Breddy expensive tho.
>>2869705
>not using the superior tea tin/shoe spoon/LF camera groundglass focusing screen backlight combo on your old flatbed
Are you even poor.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SM-P605 Camera Software P605XXUCNF2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.4 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 32 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Image Orientation Bottom, Right-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:06:30 19:17:58 F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Focal Length 3.40 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Unknown
>>2873261
If you're just scanning, I don't think you're going to care so much about the difference between 645 and other formats. Its perfect if you will be doing a lot of shooting, since you get more frames, and the cameras are smaller.
>>2873261
Quality not so much. It's the cost difference you should think about. 10 shots.per roll of 120 on 6x7 vs 16 on 6x4.5
>>2870134
EB/RA Carestream. It's a mess. Have a neato setup on my light meter to meter for ortho. It might be an idiot move but it produces okay results.
>>2873316
Shiiiiit. how does that go? post some example/results thsx
>>2873020
Nothing, it's fine. The pricipitate will dissolve when you mix your working strength solution.
>>2873433
>Quality not so much
erm...
The "quality" in terms of resolution is almost double? How is that not a worthwhile quality bump?
is scanning possible with a regular flatbed scanner if I place a lightbox on top of the film instead of closing the lid? which side would I have to place the emulsion on, the top or bottom?
>>2873482
it doesn't matter in any practical purposes
with negatives that large, you're likely going to reach the limit of your enlarging lense or scanner long before you reach the limit of the negative in terms of detail and resolve
if you're making MASSIVE professional grade enlargements that are going to be projected on the sides of buildings or some shit? sure maybe then it matters
>>2873482
Because I highly doubt he will ever make prints big enough to warrant the resolution of 6x4.5 insufficient. I have tack sharp 20"x24" prints made from 6x4.5 images. Considering I had to downsize the drumscan files to print at that size I know I could easily go even bigger. Who on this board ever makes prints bigger than that (aside from Alex who shoots LF anyway)?
>>2873518
Just not true.
This is Fuji Pro 160 neg in 645, and it's almost at its limit (as in for pixel sharp/grain free) at 800px.
Even at 11x14 most digicams would be showing it up, especially with 400ISO film.
Granted, shotting slides or slow B&W you could make some pretty big prints, but 6x6 and up is where you wanna be to keep your pics en fleek, even with fast film.
>>2873540
>This is Fuji Pro 160 neg in 645, and it's almost at its limit (as in for pixel sharp/grain free) at 800px.
What in the fuck are you even talking about?
>>2873540
>This is Fuji Pro 160 neg in 645, and it's almost at its limit (as in for pixel sharp/grain free) at 800px.
lel is this a joke? basically all this says is "I scan my film with a toaster oven"
I mean jesus christ, you digitize 35mm film larger than that without seeing grain
>>2873546
>you digitize 35mm film larger than that without seeing grain
We have different ideas of what pixel sharp and grain free mean.
Pic related could be a fine print at this size, but it's still not pixel crisp, and the grain is visible.
As I said, there are plenty of slow films you can make big sharp prints with from 35mm. But not colour neg.
If you want digital beating resolution from it, you just need that film real estate.
>>2873540
800px?
Brains here believes that an image shot on 645 hits it's printing limit by 3" x 2", you would need to be shooting 6x9 to fill a 6" x 4" photo frame without losing sharpness.
I would LOVE to know how gursky is managing 140 inch wide prints.
