Instant pics
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Post ur instant pics
(no matter how bad it hurts)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model LGMS631 Equipment Make LG Electronics Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2256 White Balance Auto Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.97 mm Light Source Unknown Image Orientation Unknown Metering Mode Unknown Image Height 2216 Image Created 2015:11:30 10:25:19 Altitude 0.00 m
>>2712940
Taking a terrible photo of nothing on an interesting medium is still a terrible photo of nothing. What about these scenes necessitates (or even remotely lends itself to) an instant format?
fp-100c45
just got a disposable back
>>2712987
didn't realize how big the photos were but
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T3i Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:08:30 01:25:59 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2713333
I agree with >>2713196
You're fucking retarded, kid. fuck off.
>>2713409
thanks
fuji fp100c
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HP Scanjet dj_d02d Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 527 Image Height 684 Saturation Low Sharpness Soft
>>2713502
just a cheap early 60s polaroid from ebay
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HP Scanjet dj_d02d Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 521 Image Height 686 Saturation Low Sharpness Soft
>>2712940
What did you take these with?
>>2712940
No!
Throw those in the trash and then you get the FUCK outta here!
>>2712954
Agghh! I like this pic but where is the focus? Hurts my eyes.
You get the FUCK out too!
>>2713505
What in the goddamn.. Why would you post this?
I dont know what this is. Looks like you were falling on your face as you shot this.
>>2714027
The focus is fine, the whole photograph is unsharp because of camera shake and the fact that the film is unsharp. As the print, it looks just fine.
>>2714077
the film is actually pretty sharp, its probably the cheap polaroid lense that makes it fuzzy
>>2714080
Nope. If you would bleach negatives as well you'd see the difference easily. Also, it's not a cheap polaroid lense (?).
>>2714091
what do you mean nope? are you storing you film in the oven or something? the focus on your picture is way too far off to blame it on the film.
just google fp100c shot in the back of 35mm cameras with special film holders. it's pretty sharp for instant film
>>2714197
1) As I said, the primary reason for the photograph being unsharp is camera shake. I triggered a 1/30th off manually, without a cable release, with a rear focal plane shutter.
2) Instant film is not very sharp. I have been shooting it for years. The reason is that the light falls on the negative and the positive is essentially a side effect of chemicals getting depleted, once you start scanning them they simply cannot be sharp. Since I use both negatives and positives, I'm left with a sharp negative (with strange colors) and not that sharp positive.
MMMM
>>2714077
I think you're right about the focus. Cuz I realized you cant choose focus on a polaroid, but that doesn't look like camera shake.
Just soft I guess.
Cool shot. Prolly looks better viewed in person
>>2713502
What camera did you use for this?
>>2714288
Nice!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1241 Image Height 959 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:07:28 11:25:56 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1163 Image Height 899
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:08:09 01:53:21
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:08:09 01:54:37
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:07:17 21:11:59
>>2714409
Colorpack IV
>>2714437
>>2714439
>>2714440
>>2714442
Is the atrocious dust part of the instant photography experience? Like, having fixed-focus, plastic lens-tier snapshits is not enough of an offence to the emulsion that you have to make them absolutely filthy on top of just uploading the raw scans w/o any attempt at editing them to even a semblance of a decent look?
>>2714448
If I really cared I would wait to peel part the photos to look at them when I got home but these are just fun to shoot for the novelty m8 suck my dingo dongo
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:07:18 21:38:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1098 Image Height 840 Scene Capture Type Standard
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:07:25 08:20:17 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1218 Image Height 942 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2714288
DAT CLOUD
what is this, instax wide?
barring peel apart what's a good quality instant film camera? The new Fujis look like their prints are kind of tiny, was thinking of getting an old sx-70.
>>2714846
IP film is expensive as fuck though. $24 for only 8 shots
>>2714945
really? I saw a pack of 20 for $20 just the other day , nig
>>2714957
Were you looking at this?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Polaroid-SX-70-Time-Zero-Supercolor-Instant-Film-2-Pack-20-Pictures-NOS-Expired-/221957817173?hash=item33adb78355:g:t1gAAOSwnipWX25m
Because that's long expired and will probably look like shit.
i n s t a n t f i l m
holy fuck i wish Fujifilm would just release a single serious instant film camera. Instax is fucking godtier film that you run through a plastic toy. I seriously don't get it. Their instant film outsells literally all of their other cameras combined, but we still can't get a real camera to save our lives.
>>2715057
Yeah, I should spring for a 3.25" back for my 4x5. I have a big studio monorail and that sort of defeats the spontaneity of instant.
I honestly didn't know about the instax printer. I'll have to check that out, but it also seems like another kludge when all I want is a good, solidly built instax camera with manual control (or at least aperture priority).
>>2715055
Just found this thing earlier today. If it's legit, it'll be the closest we'll get to a serious Instax camera.
https://mint-camera.com/tl70/features/
Fuji FP-100c and FP-100c45 are amazing films when you compare it to former polaroid offerings. No streaks, good colors, and you can both scan the negatives and use positives for image transfers. I love these but rather dislike posting them scanned because they look much better in person and framed.
>>2714409
Wide 300,yes.
>>2716019
>f/bokeh
I loled, looks like fun overall though.
Test Shot. Spectra System. BW2.0 IP film.
SUn600LMS
FP-3000B, Linhof Technika, Polaroid MP-4 120mm f/4.5 lens.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:12:07 13:49:27
>>2712988
holy shit!!!!!! king krule!!!
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 17:44:53
Posting 2 more to show the people not realizing the FP-100C positives will never be sharp compared to the neg.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 17:52:29
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2015:12:09 17:52:45
