Akimbo Retina Reflex Edition

Talk film, ask film questions here. Development is ok too. Darkroom questions, film gear, whatever.

Which camera will get me laid

>>4430126
Nothing says “I fuck lots and I fuck hard” more than a press camera tbqhwy

>>4430126

Met my current gf of 6 years because of this absolute unit.

>>4430140

Honestly probably not wrong.

>>4430151
Fuck now I'm interested. How did it transpire, and in what kind of social environment?

>>4430163

Online but we had mutual real life friends, I was looking for someone to shoot shadow projection full nude with and we just kinda hit it off afterward I wasn't trying to get laid or looking for a relationship it just kind of happened.

It was strictly professional at first, she saw a lot of my previous work, we shot, and we went out on a few dates prior to making it official. She hit me up after we shot like a week afterward I was still editing her photos.

>>4430163
He was at the gay bathhouse and the resident tranny said "i bet i could fit that camera in my ass"

It was love at first sight

>>4430151
Can confirm, literally hear the panties drop when I walk around with my RB67

I got a bunch of photos back but half of them I'm not happy with, should I post half here and half in rpt or dump everything in a thread?

>>4430201
Pick your top 5-10 as well as your 3 worst.

>>4430202
ok and then? make a thread? post em here?

>>4430207
Fgt never hits image limit so I don't see the harm in posting them here. If you think they're worth a thread do that and post a bunch more.

>>4430201

Make your own thread, let's see em.

We'll try to help on where you went wrong and where you can do better.

on the verge of tearing my hair out trying to get better results from my flatbed scanner, it kind of gets the job done and it was $20 used but at this point it's such a headache I'm not sure it's worth it. But also I'm still in school and I don't have the kind of money to throw $500 at one of the nice plustek or primefilm scanners, what should I do?

Is there anything that could be a bit better than an old flatbed for around $100 or am I screwed?

I do have a crop-frame DSLR but I don't have a light table, copy stand, macro lens, etc. but if I could do a camera digitization thing for not too much money I'd do that too

>>4430264
Why do you need to scan film?

>>4430267
because I don't have a color enlarger nor do I have a place for one. Isn't that fairly obvious?

>>4430268
I think the question was more why are you farting with film if you can’t afford it and you already have a dslr anyway? Why the larp?

>>4430268
You don't have a bathroom, closet, or 4x4 space to devote to using film for its intended purpose?

>>4430272
I can afford film, I can't afford to drop $500+ on a scanner in one go. Isn't that also obvious?
> why are you farting with film if ... you already have a dslr anyway?
Are you a retard or just being facetious for the sake of trolling? You think that film has no desirable qualities besides just taking a photo and that as a hobby it's replaced by a gay DSLR?

>>4430276
Sure, I have a 4' space, but I would need to do extensive work to light seal my room which would then need to be undone every printing session, which means I'd be better off getting a dark tent, so I'd be spending $200+ just to start. Not to mention a color enlarger, RA4 paper and chemistry, trays, etc.

And on top of that, I'd still want to scan my stuff to share it online anyway

I strongly suspect I'm being trolled

>>4430280
I just like pushing people to make prints. If you're only doing 35mm and 120 you could get a cheap color enlarger for like 100 bucks or less and everything else for another hundred or two. There's nothing inherently wrong with scanning film, but making prints should really be your end goal. Scan your prints when you finish them. Scanners are better at scanning big things.

500 would get you a tent and everything else you needed to get started on 35mm and 120.

>>4430280
>You think that film has no desirable qualities besides just taking a photo and that as a hobby it's replaced by a gay DSLR?
Well we ARE on /p/, where shooting film is more for being seen as a film shooter than anything else, aside from large format eggboy

>>4430280
Camera scanning with a good macro lens, even on a crop sensor, will blow away any shatbed scanner. What digital camera do you have? Does it have live view? You'll want that for film scanning so you can zoom in on the grain to focus. Hopefully it's a Nikon so you can just get an old Nikkor 55mm macro which is a perfect lens for this. You don't need a light table. You can use a laptop screen, a window during the day, etc if you skip the copy stand bullshit and get something like a Nikon es-2 that screws directly to your lens. There are cheaper knockoff versions.

>>4430304
Dunno why I shared that image which I took on my phone of a neg drying...that is not camera scanned. Pic rel is though

>>4430303
I am here to inspire the youth.

>>4430272
>if you like doing something you must be larping

I am new to film other than disposable and point and shoot
If i shot a roll of iso 400 at 200 should i tell the developing lab? I've heard of the push/pull processing but will it make a large difference or will the scans look bad otherwise?

>>4430290
Fair enough, I make 4x6" dye sub prints from scans. I'll get an enlarger one day hopefully soon, but I can't lug one around from place to place especially since I'm still in college.

>>4430304
EOS Rebel T1i, it does have live view. I've seen those ES-2 type adapters, like the JJC one, but I was under the impression that they only supported specific lenses, so I couldn't just get whatever cheap macro I could find.

>>4430320
nothing, it won't matter.

>>4430322
Ok thanks

>>4430320
No. It only matters if you're making prints, or you are rating your film 3ish stops higher or lower than box speed

>>4430327
Thanks
>It only matters if you're making prints
By this do you mean analog prints, or would this include printing a scanned image?

>>4430323
no problem. Color film can handle overexposure and one stop won't make a difference, unless you're a professional who needs very consistent results. You likely wouldn't even notice a difference.

And in the future if you underexpose by a single stop, you can also get away with that without having the film pushed. But overexposure is better than underexposure for color negative film.

>>4430333
He means RA4 printing, NOT digital. It's way easier to correct a scan for an inkjet print than it is to print a poorly exposed negative AFAIK

>>4430183
Top jej.

>>4430321
>but I was under the impression that they only supported specific lenses, so I couldn't just get whatever cheap macro I could find.
Nope, they screw on via filter threads. use step up/step down rings if your lens's filter thread size differs. ez peazy

I am the eggman
I am the eggman
I am the rapist cookachoo

I recently bought a SCSI film scanner with the intention of saving money, and try to get the best value when it comes to a scanner. For some reason the older Nikon CoolScans with a SCSI interface are not worth much, which I had assumed for the interface and not because it performs poorly compared to the USB ones, so I thought that this was a good avenue, as long as I don't mind using a Windows 98 PC with a SCSI card.

Am I wrong in my assumption? Is there another reason these are so cheap? I can't find much information about these scanners but them being the pro model of the time, I can't imagine that they don't give good scans.

I took a portra 160 shot of this too, but it's going to be some time before I can develop it. I was planning on just sending out for C41 development, but at ~$6 a sheet fuck that

>>4430382
wdym sheet film is cheap because you don't take nearly as many compared to roll film.

>>4430383
Somehow that doesn't stop me from setting up my monorail to take snapshits of birds.

A bird snapshit using expired fomapan 400 comes out to $1.78 per exposure. Paying to have this developed is $6 for a total of $7.78 per exposure.
A bird snapshit with HP5+ costs $0.277 per exposure, and plus $0.361 for a total of $0.638 when it's developed in a lab, plus or minus given your local rates.
That means that you would need to shoot ~12 times fewer shots for that logic to work out to break even. If you're shooting only 3 sheet film exposures in the time it takes you to shoot a 36 roll, then sure. I'm certainly averaging more than that at my current pace.
Plus I just like doing things myself

>>4430384
Do u get weird looks when setting up ur monorail?

>>4430386
Not really, no. I had some guy ask me "is that a RED camera?" once which I thought was pretty amusing. Or a boomer saying "Just like the old days, fifty cents a picture!". A few others asked about what kind of camera it was, but most people just look at it and keep walking.
If anything I'm getting weird looks for setting up dolls to take photos of, as the other dollfag I know lurks here can likely also attest.

>>4430390
How much did u spend on ur monorail? How much resolution and dynamic range would you say it gives over Medium format?

>>4430391
~$350 for the camera plus ~$280 for the lens
Resolution is just the sheet size, bigger = more detail, and from my understanding dynamic range is just a function of your film datasheet and doesn't differ between 35mm and up formats. Don't quote me on this I don't really know what I'm doing yet

>>4430394
What made u go large format as opposed to something else

>>4430395
Pinhole autism

>>4430394
There may be some very slight differences because the acetate is thicker on sheet film. I would guess the difference is negligible. There may also be some slight differences in emulsion for certain film stocks, but idk.

What camera did you get? I'm finally taking my 8x10 out on a road trip with 6 sheets loaded up.
It packs into one roughly 40lb suitcase specifically designed for the camera and a backpack to carry the film, rear standard and bellows.
My bellows replacement for the deardorff has not arrived in time. That one packs into a single box and is light enough to possibly make a backpack work.

What an absolute joy it is to use this thing.

>>4430401
What do u primarily shoot

>>4430402
Studio stuff like eggs or still lifes, high magnification macro, and studio portraits. I like taking rural landscapes with farm animals in them as well, but I don't have much time to really do any of them off my own farm.
There's some great views over here, but it kinda gets old waiting for the primo clouds at the same few spots. It is a fun challenge to find new compositions tho.

I need to take more 8x10s of my dogs also.

Here's a gold toned contact print of one of my dead butterfly series. I did like 5 or 6 different butterflies. I learned so much producing these photos. You get like 1mm or less DoF at these magnifications, so you have to use really precise camera movements to get everything important in focus.

>>4430402
Meant to post this one I like better. Have both!

>>4430405
Neat
I'm borrowing a cambo 4x5 right now for a project, hoping to contact print the negatives onto glass cyanoptypes for an exhibition display.

>>4430412
Very nice. Contact printing is really where its at, especially with alt processes. 4x5 is a great size for the right subjects. They're like little gems.
Cambos are nice cameras. Not as many accessories as the sinar ecosystem, but they're still a solid and affordable system.

What are you planning on shooting?

>>4430381
Just wondering if anyone had any insight... hopefully my post doesn't get lost.

>>4430415
It's for a school thing, I was overseas so instead of having 12 weeks for the project I've got about 4, but it's focusing on architectural changes in my city since an earthquake 14 years ago and how the old and new styles interact, and connect with the community. I'm borrowing the camera from the school but the only lens they have with a working shutter is a 150mm f5.6. I've used it before though and it has a nice look, I'll just have to look more at details than the whole scene with that focal length

>>4430416
my guess is that it's just a difficult format to use as it requires an older PC, but if you don't mind that then yeah they're likely fine

>>4430416
i think there was some anon or tripfag scanning with an LS-2000...

>>4430419
Sounds like fun and perfect for a view camera! How many prints do you need for the project?

It would be cool to see some of the cyanotypes when you get them finished up! Glass cyanotypes look really awesome.

>>4430425
I think it will be around 14-16 final prints, though I have 40 plates to print on, and around 60 sheets of film. mostly CatLABS X Film 80 II, developing with an ID11 dilution.

I'm a little worried about the cyanotype, I can't get the same gelatin I have experience with so will be using something with a similar bloom strength

>>4430453
>>4430454
>>4430458
Really eerie and cool anon, reminds me of the Nibelungen or the first Nosferatu movie

I tried my hands on some Washi film

Had a lil light leak when I sealed the film (teheeee)

light galore

>>4430544
Looks good

>>4430401
>What camera did you get?
Toyo 45GX, Nikkor W 210 f/5.6

>>4430420
might mean me but probably not, I use a 9000 and I have seen a couple people post the smaller 35mm scanners here
>>4430381
hot damn that thing is old
you will get completely serviceable scans out of that, assuming it works
it's so cheap because every other film scanner Nikon released improved on it
that and basically any competent camera scan setup you can throw together these days will probably be better and definitely easier

Is expired d76 and the associated Kodak fixer still good beyond its expiry date? It’s the powder, but expired in 2009. EBay seller sent me an offer for 30 bucks for two big bags of chems plus a full unopened bottle of photoflow, I’m tempted, but I don’t know how stable these things keep.

Just developed a small batch of two rolls and greatly enjoyed the process, was meditative almost with some music on and just waiting to agitate. Good times. But now I have zero inclination whatsoever to digitize these, what is this feel?

>>4430634
>it's so cheap because every other film scanner Nikon released improved on it

Ok but there are a few variations of the USB one, and the first version that they came out with, is astronomically higher than the previous SCSI ones. With ur logic, that would make the first USB one not worth that much, but this isn't the case.

I came across this article that argues that the scanning resolution of the older SCSI ones is sufficient:
http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS2000Notes/LS2000Notes.htm

>>4430636
I'd say only the photo-flo is guaranteed. I would personally not bother with old bags of D76 because the expiry date does mean something on those and I would not risk potentially bad chemistry on wasted film.

the chemistry is still pretty inexpensive. I wouldn't risk it.

>>4430651
The feeling you get before getting an enlarger.

>>4430656
sir that page is about the LS-2000, which in 1998 was considered a significant upgrade to what you have, the LS-1000