This is the Film General Thread, aka the /fgt/.
Please post film photos in this thread.
It's ok to ask about film gear in this thread.
>it's not gay to post in the /fgt/, unless you respool into plastic cartridges

old thread >>>i hate sugar so much it's unreal

Thread Question:
What's the most you've ever sold a single print for?

>>4434116
SEX
E
X
how much a bad boy like that set you back?

>>4434203
I got it for like 100-200 dollars because someone did a really bad job listing their LF kit on ebay, and I took the risk.

They sell for 3k-4.5k depending on condition.

The projection is insane. It can max out the movements on my 8x10 view camera with room to spare. I'm going to play around with some extreme perspective shifting. 30 degrees of tilt/swing makes things look pretty crazy...

How much do you edit in post production?

>>4434238

>>4434239

>>4434243

>>4434246
>>4434243
>>4434239
>>4434238
have you tried taking a photo that isn't blurred and is in focus? ever?

>>4434248
it's called art, chud

>>4434250
your pictures are the photography equivalent of pic rel
truly, high art

>>4434252
RUDE.

>>4434248
lmao. seething he is taking pics with SOVL and getting cred for them on /p/ and u cant post anything! sad!

>>4434243
this is AMAZING anon. Saved to my inspo folder

>>4434252
>>4434248
Thanks for the critique; other Anon isn't me.
I'm trying to get used to my old Agfa Silette and light meters aren't helping with focus. I think I need to learn DoF calculations.

>>4434252
I'm not the other dude :skullemoji:

I tried using collages or diptych/triptych
Thoughts?

>>4434262

Hey thanks man that means so much! You ROCK!

>>4434267
I know I'm an amateur but a tripod might help. No need to false flag.

>>4434262
Thanks for having a look at it

>>4434239
>>4434239
agree this is the best of the bunch. It has a great focus with the vignetting

>>4434239
This just took vaporwave aesthetics to another level by mixing them with old goth vibes. Awesome!

>>4434299
>>4434300
Thanks for replying
I only took it on a 70+ year old camera that doesn't let you see what the lens (the viewfinder is a separate optical system). I might upgrade because it's holding me back and I'm doing guesswork.

I am excited to announce I have zeroed in on a Wista 45SP. I will be posting *large* snapshits very, very soon.

You have been warned.

>>4434198 (OP)
>the ultimate 35 mm camera doesn't exi-

>>4434306
Very based. Looking forward to it.

>>4434238
just a little correcting exposure, contrast, color balance (so just very basic stuff) and only where it's needed
the whole point for me when shooting film is to get as much as possible right when I take an exposure

>>4434238
depends on film
B&W, I'll generally do a bit of everything from dust cleaning, spot cleaning to playing a bit with contrast and presets to a point that I like
color film, I play with curves to get the images a bit cooler since portra is kind of warm. I also do spot and dust cleaning
slide, I really dont do anything except spot cleaning and cropping

Is there any actual reason to buy ortho film rather than just put a blue/green filter on? Does it do anything pan film doesn't? I know for large format you can sometimes save money with xray film or whatever but 35mm ortho is more expensive than pan.

>>4434309
p50 is cooler albeit

Im going to participate in a photo contest. Wish me luck brehs

>>4434328
idiot

>>4434337
may your failure inspire greatness

>>4429130
i've developed and scanned one roll of FP4+ now
got two rolls of Gold that ill deal with in the coming weeks
but im decently satisfied with the exposure on these snaps, completely failed at low light though but it is what it is

>>4434432

>>4434433

>>4434434
this is the only low-light one im kinda satisfied with

>>4434437
i don't claim to be a good photographer, but you don't have to be good to have a good time :3
might bring a few of these through the enlarger at some point

>>4434439

>>4434441
my buddy
and thats all for now

>>4434443
This the only one I liked, congrats on not taking a picture of your leica

>>4434448
thanks

should i buyder a hasselblad? which one?

>>4434489
get a 500cm or get a h2 with a film back. the house you should be able to get for cheap but the film back can sting a bit. the lenses are very very fairly priced

>>4434263
>I think I need to learn DoF calculations.
no, you don't, autist-kun, just stop down a bit. lol

>>4434266
>>4434269
what film were you shooting here? Yes, you need a tripod because your film is too slow for the lighting conditions unless you have more room to open up the lens a bit. or you could use flash.

>>4434305
you can get good results with a viewfinder camera. It helps a lot to have bright light or faster film so you can stop down a bit and you don't have to nail focus, but you can get good results. I took pic related on a viewfinder similar to yours, metering by eye.

>>4434489
Hasselblads are temperamental bitches that almost no one services anymore. Do yourself a favor, skip the modular box system and get a transverse camera like a pentax 67 or mamiya rangefinder.

The MFDBs aren't really worth it.

Shout out to bostick and sullivan. There was a long delay on my order and one of the owners called me today to explain the situation and apologize.
They hooked me up with 80 dollars worth of platinum solution for plat prints to make things right.

>>4434520
Mfdb are so so worth it, but they are tough to use because they need a lot of light.

>>4434527
Post a pic that is not a dog, goat, pig, or egg to prove that mfdbs are so worth it

>>4434540
>dog, goat, pig, or egg
but these are the building blocks of life?

>>4434540
You'll have to define worth it just like everyone else. I know you already have made your mind up, and you think this is a shitty picture a phone could take. It's okay.

For me I find that the colors and excellent depth rendition that these large sensors produce to be amazing, unique, and worth it. If you complain about bad AF, heavy and slow cameras, bad low light performance type nerd shit you will not find them worth it.
Those good good colors still come through somewhat, but a tiny little 4MB downscaled version of the full 33MP file does not really do them much justice if you're of the pixel peeping persuasion.

Oh yeah and the portraits my mfdbs can take are absolutely insane, but you'll just have to take my word for that.

I'm only posting the one digishitter pic in the FILM thread. Sorry!

>>4434542
Based. I should have simply posted a picture of my dog, really. I had some horse and cow pics I could have used also lol.

>>4434549
this looks like any ordinary ff. could be an r5, a z7, an a7r, a d810, anything. whats normal image quality to us today used to be exclusive to top tier professionals 20 years ago. i wonder if tomorrow’s full frame photos will look just like they came from the h6d?

>>4434560
I think the colors and depth rendering look better than about 90% of the digishits posted on here. I know there are better cameras today almost 20 years later. I still firmly believe it stands up well to modern IQ in the correct light. I love using my hy6 and finally found a connection that may sell me the incredibly rare film back adapter so I can start shooting 645 on the thing! The even rare 6x6 back is next on my list.
If you're ever looking for rare camera things ask ebay sellers if they have one for sale.

I won't post them but I did some indoors with flash comparison shots and my poor 5dm3 takes ugly flat and boring pictures when you compare the two under the same light. The difference in depth rendition/tonality between the two is extremely noticeable.

>>4434564
>I think the colors and depth rendering
No he's right it looks pretty much exactly like a D810
>my poor 5dm3 takes ugly flat and boring pictures
Old canon sensors have micro four thirds tier dynamic range. It's worse at absorbing light, so it's gathering less light just like a crop sensor.

>>4434566
Maybe better isn't the most precise term. I think it looks uniquely amazing.
There's not really any high MP ccd aside from these medium format backs, right?

I still hold firm that it looks better than 90% of the pictures posted here, even if the nerd things like dynamic range are worse.

Compared to the images I shoot with flash there is almost nothing Ive seen that looks better. I don't really know how to describe it more specifically aside from presence, depth rendition or tonality.

Idk I don't really care what you think. It's a special camera that takes special pictures and I will continue to cope about it, but not here in the film thread. Lol

What do I need if I wanted to do prints,
Chemicals, trays, tongs, enlarger, safelight is that it?

Also how many measuring cups should I have in developing black and white, i have 3 syringes to measure out the chemical and a liter to mix it in with water

Guy at the lab got mad I was overexposing my film because he was spending time darkening them in scanning
Should I keep using Bulb mode or should I listen to him?

why do people act like 4x5 contact prints are too small
i mean your not using large format to its full potential or whatever but 4x5 is a decent size for a print imo
i mean you gotta think, 100 years ago the were making fukken 120 film contact prints

>>4434640
People don’t even know what 4x5 is sperg no one cares about contact prints lol

>>4434643
I will rape you

>>4434643
if you arent shooting large format your not even using film imo

>>4434645
psssh film isnt even real photography. glass plates >>>>>> film

>>4434640
People complaining about 4x5 contact prints being too small is a literal skill issue. You make an image that is well suited for the printing size/format/media. It should be a stylistic decision at the end of the day.

Sorry if you suck so bad you can't do that!
Also contact printing is using sheet film to its fullest potential. Enlargement always degrades quality.

>>4434646
Wetplate grain size is similar to or smaller than microfilms, so in some respects you could say that. If you arent making your own film you arent shooting film.

Film has such a lovely colour.

>>4434635
>Guy at the lab got mad
Hit him over the head with a Pentax 645, that'll make him calm down.
Keep shooting however you want to, some lab nerd has no right to make you change your ways.

>>4434713
literally kodak gold filter in lightroom and add 15% grain and you get this from a apsc digital camera

>>4434735
Why are you even in this thread?

Is Harman a good company?

>>4434743
Seem like the best of the ones that remain to me. Kodak may have a slightly higher standard of quality but extremely jewish corporate structure. Foma sucks, Fuji doesn't make film and Jake Seal has an incredibly punchable face.
Shame their film is so boring.

Just put my first test roll through the 35mm Ultron and I can't get over how effortlessly sharp it is.
Colors are a bit strange though, don't think I remember seeing Fuji 400 come out like this straight out of the scanner when using other lenses.
Anyone know if this lens is SC or MC? Doesn't seem to be a decisive answer online...

does anyone have a raw scan of velvia or provia that I can play around with in Lr? Preferably something that is a difficult scene regarding exposure

>>4434613
You need 3 measuring cups for b&w dev.

I like to have 1 4L that I fill up with preheated water to about 2L then use that water for mixing dev and the leftover is for my rinse/stop between dev and fix.

An archival print washer is a really nice thing to have for printing, but not entirely necessary. You'll also need an exposure timer for your enlarger. Some people use a squeegee + towel or a blowdryer to dry off their test strips quickly because prints darken when dry.

What enlarger are you looking at?

>>4434808

I didn’t start looking, just gonna browse Facebook and eBay. Any I should look out for?

>>4434837
Start out with something small for under 100 dollars if you're just doing 35mm enlargement. Get a timer that goes over 1 minute.

OH I forgot you need a grain enlarger for focusing and an easel!

If you just want to get the best 35mm enlarger ever made it is the Leitz focomat 35v. I got mine for 500 bucks and it is a treat to work with. It has a near perfect enlarging lens. Built in contrast slider, auto focusing if you can get it to work. It also has the red dot on it. :o

>>4434758
>how effortlessly sharp it is.
Looks pretty ordinary to me, for comparison this is a konica point and shoot that I consider not particularly sharp.
Focusing correctly and holding still will get you a lot further than sharp lenses.
You seem slightly front-focused in all of these, I'd recommend comparing focus on your camera to another one, and adjusting your rangefinder if needed.

Lens test. Came out fairly nice. A little bit of motion blur. The wind is nearly unceasing over here sadly.

Rodenstock 600mm apo ronar cl, delta 100, 510 pyro

>>4434646
if you never shot ULF tv sized wet plate you never took a pic

>>4434969
The logistics of ULF wetplate is absolutely crazy. You need a team of people and a moving van to do it. Or like 4 pack mules.

There's a cool guy that actually converted a moving van into a camera to shoot gigantic wetplates. Theres some cool videos on youtube about the guy.

I did it you guys. I finally got an 8x10 shot of my dog in focus. Look how shallow the DoF is at roughly f25ish. I need to bring my 2400ws strobes in for the next photoshoot to get the whole couch in focus next time.

I took this pic with that gigantic 210mm f8 super angulon lens, fp4+ and 510 pyro. Incredibly amazing looking.

>>4435022
For reference and so you can see a bit more detail from this shot this crop is a little larger than a 6x6 frame.

My next challenge is going to be an 8x10 headshot. I think some sort of external view finder + f64 would make it slightly less impossible to pull off.

>highest resolution dog snapshit
could have traveled 15 minutes and found a landscape at sunset but noooo

>>4435047
Yes, a snapshit that took me like an hour to set up. I get to contact print a really comfy and amazing quality pic of my dog now. Yay! Maybe I'll get a drumscan and have the image posted on a billboard somewhere also.

It may actually be one of the highest resolution dog pictures ever taken then scanned and compressed to be posted on 4chan... You know what I mean.

>>4435056
>all that for an underexposed dog
leave the house?

>>4435065
Well it was mainly a lens test, but I am incredibly happy with how it came out. I will be moving the couch for a cleaner background and getting a reflector. I dont mind that there is some contrast between the two sides of his face.

He's well exposed and the picture is glorious.

>>4435065
Also I have 2 dogs dummy and I'm a chicken/pig farmer. I spend more time outside than most people.
There's NOTHING wrong with practicing studio type photography or taking incredible 8x10 photographs of your beloved pets and then sharing them with the bros on 4channel while basking in the glory and fruits of your own self improvement.

>>4434219
Would this thing handle 6x17? Not that I even have a 6x17 camera but still, curious to know.

Am I gonna need a big ass strobe for 4x5 portraits? I got an f/5.6 so I'm guessing the answer is yes. Would a cheap but bright led panel do?

>>4435094
It has a projection of 500mm.

>>4435096
Holy shit really? (I have no idea what this number means)

>>4435095
For portraiture it is very very nice because it eliminates all movement from the equation. Camera and subject. A 1000ws flash with umbrella around 3 feet away from subject gave me about f22 @ 100 iso. I think that 1500-2000ws would be ideal if you plan to use softboxes and other flash modifiers.

If your setup is super rigid you can use constant light for product photography type stuff.

Study a DoF chart to understand what you'll be working with at portrait distances. 150mm-300mm are pretty standard portrait focal lengths for 4x5.

>>4435098
The projection is the diameter of the image circle that the lens casts on your film plane, so it will fit any format that is a little less than 20 inches. It's a crazy hunk of glass and metal.

made a lens board out of aluminum
im gonna engine turn the outside
ill post pics when im done

This thread is all me replying to myself btw

>>4435307
Why would we do that?

A couple where I made use of the movements available which I liked

>>4435335

>>4435154
Nice, what kind of pattern? where'd you get access to an engine?

I have still never collected any negatives from labs I have sent film too and 90% have been destroyed by now
>inb4 nothing of value was lost

>>4435344
You may regret it one day

>>4435347
I already do, my current lab is super high quality and hold negs for 3 months before destroying, so I'm planning on collecting them from now on but my old lab I used years ago was awful quality scans and I never kept the negs

>>4435347
>>4435349
This is one of my old photos I'd love the chance to get it scanned again

>>4435344
>throwing away half the fun of film
but why

>>4435352
It's not that I've thrown it away I just always got emailed my scans and never understood the importance of keeping them and my current lab was a 3 hour drive, so I had to send them my rolls via post and couldn't collect the negs in time :(

>>4435344
I visited the US and shot some rolls in Colorado that I left to a lab in Denver. I specifically said to them "Please ship back my negatives through DHL, if you send them through US postal service my country's postal service takes over at the border and it is absolute shit, they will get lost" She said yea sure then of course like 2 weeks later she emails me saying they got returned because my retarded country's postal service wasn't able to find me.

>>4435344
retardo grande

When I manage to buy a house in 120 years I will have a darkroom and it will be glorious. We're all gonna make it...

>>4435550
Ziatype based dog type print. My first one. :D fun lil process. Thanks!

It's a neat process because you can control contrast and tones from cold/purple all the way to super warm reds by changing the mix of chemicals you apply to your paper. This one was too high contrast for my negative.

>>4435550
Didn't mean to reply to you, but I wish you luck on your darkroom acquisitions. Save up like 800 doll hairs and you can make a pretty nice lil one with a popup tent to start off with.

Here's a cool tone mix ziatype. This one came out really pretty, although I think a warm tone would be better suited for this picture.

I think if i gave this one a few more minutes of exposure dmax may have been better. Still pretty nice for matte paper.

>>4435338
Here's an example. I'm doing it for my speed graphic I got at an estate sale that came with an extra lens and hard case, like 15 film holders, filters, accessories, etc. I'm not really a photographer I inherited a plastic 90s nikon I take vacation snapshits with but I was like, fuck it, it's a good deal, buying this shit

>>4435690
Here's some of what came with the camera
I feel over my head with this though lol

>>4435692
Niiice. Once you get the order of operations down it's pretty straightforward to use those cameras. Just gotta practice and it will become second nature.

Focus, meter, set aperture and shutter speed, load film, cock shutter, remove dark slide, expose film, replace darkslide.

That's it!

On an aside can you post another pic of the flash unit? Some of the graflex flash handles can be very expensive because they're used to make replica lightsabers lol. They were used in the original star wars movies as well.

>>4435693
Yeah I read about that too. But mine is the post war model which isn't worth much comparatively

>>4435695
Oh yeah. Still cool. I've never used a flash bulb type flash. Do you plan on using that thing? There's a setting on some shutters that times the flash a little differently for them. Its a little switch that has an X on it. I forget which is which for bulb vs modern flash.

>>4435695
Although it did come with a second flash gun but I don't have it with me right now. I'll check it out tommorow or sunday

>>4435696
I do want to try using the flash bulbs. I've shot a few off already lol. Bright as fuck. There's the bi-post connector on the lower right, along with a switch for M, F, and X, but it already has a solenoid and cable so I'll probably just use that to start off with. Pushing the red button on the flashgun pulls the solenoid and trips the shutter

it's a snapshit, but proof my new pentax 6x7 is working, so yay. F the haters, i fucking love kentmere.

>>4435701
and of course like a retard i forget to attach the file. Too much chemisttry fumes

>>4435692
Nice camera. It's definitely a slower experience, just make sure that you have a meter you can trust. If you need to, just use a DSLR or even your phone if you can get a histogram view out of it. A good spot meter may simplify things.

The perlage on that lens board will look slick

>>4435702
kentmere looks so flat lol

I'm tired of dealing with my local store's Noritsu scanner and want to finally get into self-scanning, but I'm pretty kind of overwhelmed trying to decide what route to go down.
What are your opinions on dedicated scanners vs camera scanning? For reference, I'd be picking up a macro lense for my X-T5 if I decided to go with camera scanning.
Camera scanning sounds pretty convenient, but copy stand prices are retarded, and I don't trust myself to be able to properly build one myself.
I don't really mind the downside of dedicated scanners being much slower as long as the image quality is OK, but I hear dust can be a nightmare, especially on flatbeds like the Epsons.
What do you guys do, and how are you liking it?

>>4435825
I built a kit copy stand using those aluminum profiles, was much cheaper than other solutions so look for one of those
It's really not hard to do, if you can use a screwdriver you can build one
Cameras canning is super fast once you got everything set up
Scanners suck for 35mm but I heard they are fine for bigger formats
They will still be slow as shit tho
Also, macro lenses are fun to experiment with so that's a nice bonus when you get one for "scanning"

>>4435760
>>4435702
cloudy day makes grey, but you're right it does render a bit flatter than more expensive films. personally i see that as not necessarily a bad thing, kinda like shooting video in log in a way. can edit it pretty heavy and still not look too bad if you wanted to but like i said, t'was a snapshit so i cba lol.

>>4435830
now that's much better
I guess it can be nice to have more room for edits.

>>4435829
Flatbeds are not too bad for sheet film, BUT my stupid 40MP mfdb outresolved my flatbed when I did a single shot picture of a 4x5 negative.

When I scan my 4x5 and 8x10 I always feel like I'm losing out on a fair amount of detail. It isn't detail that would usually make the picture better, but it is detail I would like to see when reviewing my pictures to see how good of a job I did actually taking the pics.

>>4435867
For large format- especially 8x10 there is no alternative to picel-shift dlsm scanning. Flatbed scanners or even drum scanners cannot keep up with the 400MP pixel shift from a Fuji gfx. The Nikon z8 pixel shift is 180MP or canon r5 mk ii pixel shift are fine too

Flatbed scanners are full RGB resolution !
Dslr scan can achieve full RGB res only in pixel shift mode

>>4435891
Modern demosaicing is good enough for it not to matter.

>>4435891
ff cameras have better optics and more dynamic range, and a broader color gamut capable of turning negatives into raw files with more detail than was ever available in a darkroom unless you would put ansel adams to shame. bayer blur with specific color pairs at 200% zoom is a nothingburger. simple reason: camera development continued after flatbed development stopped. cameras were just the more promising and practical/versatile technology.

>>4435877
I don't believe for a single second drum scanners can't beat out digital MF. Those fucking things just squeeze detail out of film.

>>4435906
The printing nikkor lenses used in certain high end scanners are objectively better lenses than 99% of all native macro lenses.

>>4434903
The shadow detail really came through well here.
So many Aussies in this thread.

>>4435023
So much texture

>>4435368
Might have been better to get it sent to a postal redirection service.

Better results from the flicfilm kit this time. Main thing is I added a stop bath step (not mentioned in the instructions) immediately after pouring the color dev out, rather than just water wash. I also reduced dev time to 2:45 rather than 3:00. I think the residual developer was continuing development during bleach, leading to splotches and very dark negs.

>>4435909
hyperbole/doesnt matter the ancient ccds turn your glorious film into total digishit

>>4435991
You were just wrong about what you said. It is not hyperbole. It is fact. Sorry.

>>4435993
its hyperbole

cameras outresolve flatbeds, its why flatbeda died
>well muh dslr macros, muh m43, muh apsc is 10% blurrier
ff milc macros are perfect

>>4435995
No. I am not exaggerating and I am being completely literal. You just don't know what you're talking.

>>4435995
Go inform yourself about the nikkor printing lenses...

Another cool tone ziatype. These are fun. There's only very minimal dry down and no bleaching effect, so they're easy to tell when you should stop exposure and develop unlike albumen.

>>4435960
>added a stop bath step (not mentioned in the instructions)
that's weird, my kit came with a stop bath
>>4435909
this, when my 9000 inevitably bites the dust, I'm gonna yank the lens and use it to camera scan
>>4435991
https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-nikkor-ed-lens/2017/6/21/scanner-nikkor-ed-lens

>>4436041
Onions

>>4436048
>allium posting on fgt

Now THAT is hyperbole.

>>4435904
>Modern demosaicing is good enough
really? than you could just switch to phone shooting

>>4435906
>ff cameras have better optics
yes but camera makes just a few captures and scanner makes a millions of captures

>>4436036
This is my fave. Looks like the actual timber at first.

>>4436036
I like the look of Van Dyke the most of all these tehniques. will try it someday

>>4436070
Print out processes are really fun. Definitely recommend giving them a shot! UV sensitive emulsions are great because you don't need a real darkroom to sensitize paper and develop it.

I think you can get similar tones to van dyke with ziatype. I'm going to work on producing warm tone prints tommorow. I don't think I'm allowing my paper to dry out enough before printing...

>>4434198 (OP)
Quite happy with this one and it was the one shot in the roll that I wasn't sure would come out

How unbelievably fucked do we think this camera is to be selling for $500AUD ($325USD)?

>>4436110
rotten/sticky curtains and stiff focus&aperture for sure

>>4436109
woah!
not used to seeing good photos on /p/
did you do something to have the lights bloom so nicely?
is that tri-x?
those tones are so damn nice

>>4436109
Kinok tier

I don't mind this roll of nc500 so much, and it's cheap (expired). Cold war vibes. I devved a roll like a year ago and it came out so fogged it was basically unusable. This one is pretty dark but usable.

It's a lot like phoenix but without the bright colors. Next roll I will shoot at 200.

>>4436208
I like the look. Aspiring 1970s National Geographic photographer that can only use cheap color negatives because slide film is too expensive.

Another tree + shack shot. A little less contrast and I'll be golden.
I used pretty extreme rear standard tilt/swing to see what it would look like.

Also got a hake brush to give it some fun brush strokes.

yesterday I scanned some film that was developed a while ago. It was my first roll of film with an olympus point and shoot. I'm pretty satisfied but I feel like the scanner I used is not good enough to get better resolutions and the film I got was 400 iso which was too much for outdoors with snow patches.
I kinda like pic related though, makes me think of old mountaineering books even though the highlights are burned

>>4436395
also I've got a bit of an issue, I've got a second roll of film that's full and I want to have it developed BUT it's got some rather intimate pics of me in it and I don't want some lab operator to see or something ...
is it safe to bring it to a lab ? I don't have anything to develop at home, especially since it's color film

>>4436396
Unless your photos show an actual murder or sexual assault, no lab operator will blink twice. We've seen it all before.

>>4436405
okay thanks

>>4436396
>>4436405
I’ve see some of those hipster Instagram mail in “labs” claim they need age verifs and consent forms or they will not return explicit films. Crazy stuff, back in the day the old man running the place probably just made personal copies

>>4436428
lol I wouldn't be surprised
mine don't contain any visible sexual parts though and only me who's visibly an adult so I should be fine. It's more like kink stuff

pic related is another one I like, though res is shit because I had to crop

>>4436433
Based anon terrorizing lab workers with entire rolls of his dick pics.

Found out there is a dusty old SLR with m42 mount in my family. Might buy some Zeiss glass for it and find out what that bad boy still can do.

Anyone know some good place for non-electronic repairs in Europe in case i need it? Is there something like red dot in New York State somewhere in Europe?

>>4436439
I don’t want labs to look at my pics. Not because of nudity - just generally they can fuck right off. I like that Silbersalz doesn’t rotate my scans - that’s right boy, automate the process and leave the content of the pics to me

>>4436439
I mean I really wish they wouldn't look at it, it's pretty embarrassing for me more than anything else ...

my lab has some cute chicks, maybe I should take some dick pics...

About to sell the contax g2 set finally. Potential buyer is trying to lower the price
from 2700€ to 2300€.
it's the g2,45mm,28mm, 90mm (with slight fungus on the edge) + picrel.
The idea is to get myself the bessa r2a with just one lens, the 35mm one.
I've been using the g2 for over 11 years now...the auto wind will be missed though.
What do you guys think ?

>>4436517
I certainly think that's a reasonable offer and you could go even lower, but of course I'm not the guy trying to buy it that would be ridiculous haha

>>4430107
tmx version

>>4436587
wrong link
>>4432945

Vigeland park is a thing of beauty

cool!

yuck u gross

>>4436587
>>4432945
What's even the significance of this place that you'd take the same boring angle of a tree in the way of the poi in terrible hard light twice in the most expensive way possible?
If the tree is actually what we're supposed to be looking at shouldn't it be properly exposed?
Why have you not employed the perspective controls your camera almost certainly has to give us at least something beyond a manlet-eye-view of this shithole?

first time using a large format lens, why is there like a gear noise when I change the shutter speed? is this normal? also why doesn't the cocking thing stay up? it fires instantly when i let off it

>>4436657
Can you post pic of shutter? Gear sound could be normal. Are you shutting the lens before cocking it?

>>4436659
>>4436657
even smaller cameras having that little gear spinning sound when you change speeds isn't atypical. i've used some TLRs that do it, it's the lens mounted shutter mechanism i think since they also typically have compur type shutters.

>>4436659
>>4436661
Yea so I think the noise is normal actually, it's picrel, copal 0. So what I'm doing is I'm switching the preview lever so it's closed, then trying to cock it but when it gets to the end the lever doesn't stay there it just shoots.

Also I just noticed the aperture never changes, not in preview and not when I shoot. Did I get scammed lmao

>>4436662
i haven't upened up my copal here but i believe when you set lower times it further dis/engages the escapement which essentially is like adding/removing tension to the spring, which by nature spins the gears. that's what you're hearing. a properly serviced and lubed lens might be nearly silent but it's still happening. given that we're all using decades old questionably serviced shit, not surprising. and it just made me realize my sub 15 speeds are sticky, nice.
>Also I just noticed the aperture never changes, not in preview and not when I shoot. Did I get scammed lmao
no, you're just used to 35mm babby crutches. these puppies are full manual, shooting or previewing. the aperture will be where you set it for everything.

>>4436665
No no, I mean when I turn the aperture ring from f/45 to f/5.6 it always shoots wide open no matter what

>>4436662
The shutter release may be stuck or jammed. Try fiddling with the release switch on the shutter, or putting a shutter release on and pressing it gently.

You may be screwed. Sometimes the problem can be fixed if you take the front cover off and very carefully/gently poke around at the internals lol. I've fixed a shutter like that.

>>4436666
Broken. The aperture should open and close whenever you move the dial.

>>4436668
>>4436669
The japs betrayed me...

Well, I'm obviously not returning this thing. I paid like 100 bucks just from shipping and import tax that I'm not getting back, I'll see if I can find a shitty one to shoot something by the time my camera arrives and try to fuck with this in the meantime maybe I can fix it.

>>4436671
Many such cases. Are you sure that you're actually cocking the shutter and not pressing the shutter release lever? Aperture sounds fucked.

If you're buying a new copal you need to make sure that the aperture scales are the same, or you'll have to calibrate them yourself by taping a little piece of paper over the old ones, writing the new apertures, then tape over that to protect it.

Also make sure that you check for and save any shims that may be between the two halves of the lens.

>>4436673
>>4436666
ah, that's different, it's possibly fucked. the aperture on these things is typically continuously adjustable so not a good sign. maybe the blades are stuck with old grease or some such? or the pin/plate that pushes them out disengaged? something along those lines, i'm not familiar with the construction of the aperture in it. looks like a pain though lol good luck picrel

>>4436674
I tried what they said here >>4436668 with the shutter release and when I press on it yea it cocks and shoots so I think it's just a copal 0 thing? I don't see any other lever or thing to press other than the preview.

>>4436676
Shutter release cable* fyi

>>4436675
It's beyond over

>>4436676
Does it just open and close quickly or at the shutter speed you set it to?

>>4436678
At the shutter speed I set it to, so that works

>>4436681
Of that could be easy to fix. Take the front cover off and just use your screwdriver to poke around the shutter release mechanism. I bet you could fix it. Just pay attention to how it is assembled so you can put it back together.

The aperture problem will be more painful to fix.

>>4436632
why sucha a butthurt? you sound like a nervous teenager.
>>What's even the significance of this place
These are the ruins of an old castle built by the Illyrians in the 8th century. it's significance you can't comprehend.
>>properly exposed
looks like you dont have a clue what properly exposed is. overexposing is not proper exposing and film negative hava a limit how much highlights can it take before it gets fucked up (especially TMX). the tree have dark green leaves and that's why it looks dark
>employed the perspective controls
of course I used perspective controls as you can see there is no convergence on vertical lines. I'm not sure do you even understand what perspective controls are

>>4436746
Hundreds of tourists from all over EU visiting this place everyday. When I was taking this shoot about ten people was waiting on the right side for me to take a shoot

>>4436746
That's awesome you had a bunch of people waiting for you to take your 4x5 shot.

>>4436662
>Also I just noticed the aperture never changes
hm.. that is some very old copal by the look.
Usually on copal aperture open and close how you set it. irrelevant is it engaged or not

>>4436755
I just noticed the original listing said copal 1 but like, no way right? This thing looks old as shit.

>>4436758
wait it says "for wista - copal s - n0.1" I am so lost

>>4436759
Is that picture from the listing?

If so It's an older style shutter. The newer ones are all black.

>>4436761
>Is that picture from the listing?
Yup. OK so it seems like this specific copal was made to connect a shutter release to a thingy Wistas had so when you put it a film holder the shutter automatically closed, it's also self-cocking which is why I was confused about the shutter lever not sticking; it's not supposed to. Aperture's for sure fucked tho so need to get that fixed.

>>4436758
I will suggest you to simply buy some newer copal shutter

>>4436765
Yeah, I looked at some earlier on ebay. I will most definitely be doing that in the near future.

>>4436764
This picture? >>4436755

You may need to half press the shutter and it stops down. Sinar has a lens mount that does that, but in a different way.

>>4436767
Ah no, not that pic. I meant this one >>4436662

>>4436768
Oh, no clue then. I have a self cocking shutter for my sinar handy, but the aperture functions like any other standard copal.

>>4436517
how come you're selling it and what's the highlighted thing in picrel? viewing filters?

>>4436766
Just be careful with lens cell internal elements.
Coating on these elements are usually much more sensitive than outer elements

>>4436777
>how come you're selling it
it's probably just a few shots left before it dies

>>4436780
meh there are people who fix the electronics and replace the internal plastic parts with brass to make them last another 30 years. the g2 is honestly one of the best cameras ever, getting a voigtländer instead is a downgrade unless one doesn't riff with the lenses anymore.

>>4436782
>replace the internal plastic parts with brass
that's interesting. Is there such a service in Germany?

>>4436784
not sure about germany... I know that foto tech in poland does the electronics, replaces flex cables etc. but analog repair in toulouse replaces the plastic parts and overhauls the lenses.
PPP cameras in UK fixes most of it, i think?
analog camera repairs in amsterdam used to do contax, not sure if he does these days.

>>4436777
not him but I think those are just things you can put a name tag in
and checked

>>4436809
oh, ok that makes sense. I thought it was some kind of pan glass viewing filter

>>4436782
>replace plastic parts with brass
i had this 2 years ago, the shutter didn't move anymore.
Sent it in to germany, former contax professionals, replaced a plastic gear with brass.
works eversince.
>the g2 is honestly one of the best cameras ever, voigtländer is a downgrade
true and i still love using the g2. the AF always works quickly and precise
and desu i fear switching to a MF lens but the only reason i tell to myself is
that it will be a 35mm lens(nokton or ultron, a lens for everything) + i will make atleast 1000€ from selling it and buying r2a for 1500€.
And now i kinda want to disable the camera on ebay and probably keep it.
>>4436777
>how come you're selling it
1.reason is/was that the electronics might just die one day.
2.i would rather use a 35mm lens only (nokton or ultron on the bessa r2)
3.maybe i shouldn't sell it because the camera is just perfect lol

>has AF, great TTL flash, feels solid made of titanium, has the perfect size and weight.

>>4436843
kek didn't mean to make you second guess your decision to sell it

but you could always sell the lenses you dont like and get a 35mm g lens

>agonise for hours doing product work with a digital to get everything perfect
>go and shoot large format with a rail camera and treat it like snapshit time barely even checking stuff is in focus

what's wrong with me

>>4436847
Small format digital is a cope; it requires immaculate technique to produce passable results, due to its inherent technical limitations.

>>4436846
i really love and enjoy the g2 bro and i couldn't forgive myself if i sold it
i've bought it in perfect condition 11 years ago for 500€ with it's 45mm lens.
Fuck it, i will keep it lol
>sell the lenses
the lenses are too good to be sold.
i may consider the 35mm f2 maybe one day. People say it's not good as the rest
but it also can't be the worst

>>4436786
Wait, nta but that’s interesting to me. This is about purely mechanical cameras, right? How does this work, do they have a list of models they know how to service?

>>4436847
how do you check focus on LF
do you have a loupe?

>>4436854
buy a serviced konica hexar if you want a good 35mm lens. the quality is honestly on par with the g2 but the camera interface isn't as intuitive as the contax. the silent mode is great though. there's even a mode to stop the film advance from whirring if you're in a really quiet spot and don't want to make a noise
>>4436857
purely mechanical cameras can always be serviced as long as parts exist or if they can be manufactured. most old mech cameras only need some adjustment and lubrication really, spare parts is only if you've broken it.
semi or fully electronic cameras can also be repaired. they've sort of reverse engineered some parts, made new PCBs, flex cables for the expensive and popular electronic cameras. cameras like fuji ga645zi can be fully fixed these days

>>4436866
Yeah you should use a loupe, but you don't need to sometimes.

If I want really good focus I use plain glass instead of ground glass and a loupe and that lets me focus to absolute critical focus. It's a real pain to use, but you can get some really really crispy shots with it.

>>4436889
I have some special glass called bosscreen
It’s made with paraffin wax sandwiched between two glasses. It is much better than standard for focusing

>>4436935
This pic I’m experimenting with 50/50 mirror
dunno what to do with it

>>4436935
Never heard of that. Pretty cool. I think you still get brighter and higher magnification focusing with my method. I may still grab a 4x5 one to see how it compares because swapping between two GG holders is pretty annoying and only possible with my sinars.

>>4436854
I've sold my share of gear I regretted, unless you absolutely need the money just don't do it

Check out this neat little sinar accessory.

Usecase?

>>4437224
perhaps duplicating titles... sort of similar to kodak 5302

>>4437224
Skipping the interpositive step for film to film enlargement for contact printing processes.

>>4437224
slides?

I've used pretty much all of the meme'd points and shits and the stylus epic is probably my favorite. Stoked on coping this one within 15 minutes of it getting posted on marketplace.

>>4437485
that you shoot at such a low sensitivity?

>>4437665
to copy... not for general photography

>>4437666
Ah yeah right now i get it. You copy a negative with it and and get a negative copy that you then can do whatever with? Like making some positive copies from the special film?

>>4437667
yes exactly.. that way you can shoot a film with a better latitude and make positive copies for archives or displaying (in projectors).

>>4437520
what did you pay for it?
bougthered a mju 1 a couple of years ago in my country for ~$50 which i thought was expensive at the time. saw one sell for ~$240 this week. the mju 2's are even more expensive. did a tiktoker twerk on a mju or something?

>>4434813
All film, any advice/critique would be appreciated on these pics

>>4437724
stupid boring shit and total waste of time

>>4434198 (OP)
looks like Silbersalz is switching from jpg 2000 to jpg xl . What do you guys think, what's the perfect file type for scans?

>>4434198 (OP)
I had a nightmare that I kept fogging a roll in he changing bag, like I could clearly see it dimly illuminated and I kept going as if it were still going to be okay and I woke up nervous

>>4437801
as a retard I have no idea what this means, you don't export your scans as tifs?

>>4437801
who cares, real men scan their own shit instead of paying others for it

>>4437836
Real men print their film without ever scanning it instead of relying on a weird electronic device to view them.

>>4437770
this
totally devoid of any purpose. all youre doing is documenting libshit. this is no more artful than the news guy shooting coverage of it, and with even less purpose. neck

Fuck.
Thoughts on this pic? I like it quite a bit, but I'm wondering if you had any thoughts on how I could improve it.

It's a fence and the back door of a house, neither of note, and you managed to fuck up the right hand side with a light leak. It's not bad, but also not particularly interesting

>>4437925
Yep, just a comfy pic. Glad the fence and house came through for you. I only posted a pic with a lightleak because I wanted to discuss composition and light to retake it but better! It's a faulty film holder, sadly.

I was thinking in the early morning when the light is a bit more glowy and softer could be nice.

>>4437903
>Thoughts on this pic
damn, that grass need a little trimming

>>4437903
Would've liked to see this in color at dusk

>>4437903
Also I didn't really say anything lmao. I think idea is comfy but maybe could've raised the tripod more so there isn't so much grass on the right. Filling about 2/3s of the vertical frame with just the fence and the house would've let you show a bit more of the trees above and maybe a bit of the sky, just how I would've shot it. Depending on how it looks a straight on might also be good.

>>4437679
Yea the II's are all the rage among the beanie wearing community. Lens is pretty good and is pocketable, honestly would've bought one if I had any guarantee the thing wouldn't shit the bed after 2 rolls. I've had some point and shoots die on me for no reason, cheap ass chink electronics. I just shoot disposables when I want a p&s now.

fucking piece of shit patterson spools. Made in england my ass. It fucking blocked my film again and I will have fucked up damaged frames. I always cut the film the same, and the other spool is always fine. Chink from aliexpress could mould that from better plastic than this fucking drunken brits

>>4434266
Could try having some connection between the images you want to pair.

>>4438015
That's a really good idea. I nail the next b&w and then I use one of my slide film sheets on an especially nice evening. I was able to get everything in focus at f45 or f64 with some front standard swing, which is important for this composition I think.

>>4438016
I may try it vertically with 210mm instead of 300mm. Vertical looks really nice, but I wanted to use the 300mm and it just wasn't wide enough for vertical.

>>4438005
I use a scythe and animals to cut all my grass, but the animals are not here right now and I'm not cutting another acre of tall grass unless I get exceptionally bored. Scything is incredibly based and good exercise I would recommend it to anyone that owns grass.

Help me with cross processing.
I've never tried it. Got some fresh Ecn-2 kit for my kodak vision film (negative dev)
And thought about cross processing
Fuji provia100
Do i just throw it in and develop and get negs or do i need some extra wizardry ?

>>4438040
I've been using the same Paterson reels for over 10 years and have never had any issues with blocking film? What do you mean? They're as idiot proof as possible

>>4437679
$120cad which is totally worth it. Ya I bought my first one in 2005 for $10 but those days are long gone not sure why people still whine about that.

>>4438151
Don't waste our precious provia on cross processing faggotry

>>4438152
If you are using same reels I've used when I last developed film (before covid era), those are very good. But definitely not immune to idiots who do not learn to not stuff film in even a slightly wet reel after one agony in dark experience.

I have several different styles of patterson compatible reels and some are definitely better than others. Some jam up constantly and others go easy. I don't know what brand they are as I got them used and they are decades old, except one of the good ones is an Arista with the tabs I bought new.

is there an agreed-upon starters kit for developing and scanning my BW film? I just finished my first roll and I'd like to do the whole thing myself instead of sending it off to a lab

I have a DSLR I would use to photograph/scan the negatives, can a 50mm do the job?

>>4438391
i haven't seen any combined development and scanning kits, they tend to keep those two things as a separate process. for development i just bit the bullet and got the patterson kit. a bit pricey for what you get but i didn't want to order everything piecemeal. For digitizing your negatives there are a lot of expensive pre-made options and i personally don't know too much about them, i just 3d printed a sturdy holder and use an old lightpad i had as the backlight.

>>4438394 I wish I had a better reel than what came in the kit but this did get me started a few months ago.

>>4438442
Omega universal are the best.

I finally sold one of my egg prints at the farmers market! :D What a great day.

Anybody know what Greg Girard shoots on? Specifically shots from his photobook JAL 76-88.
I assume most if not all are shot on slide film, but what camera does he use?

>>4438452
Does it say in the book?

>>4438453
Unfortunately not.

>>4438452
Mamiya 7 provia ektachrome

>>4438452
anon, did you even try looking sweatie?
https://hypebeast.com/2022/10/greg-girard-jal-76-88-pre-japan-tokyo-bubble-era-photo-interview

>>4438446
nice job

https://petapixel.com/2025/06/20/the-first-look-at-china-luckys-new-color-35mm-film/

chinese color film is being released now or very soon

>>4438471
I’m not too hyped for it price wise, shanghai gp3 is absolute bottom of the barrel stuff and it costs as much as kentmere here after everything. Suspect will be the same for colour film.

>>4438471
Thoughts? I do not really like it at all. It lacks any vibrancy and is sort of depressing looking lol

>>4438478
it looks pretty crap, but at the $5 they said they'd sell it for last year, I would be interested

but if that's how it looks AND it's also $7 then it costs the same as Gold 200/fujifilm 200 and it's also shittier so there would be no point. still, I'm happy for any new manufacturers getting into the game, I just wish we could have film for like a dollar less

>>4438484
Americhads will pay upwards of 7 freedom bucks due to the based and tariffpilled tariffs.

>>4438478
Surely they could have color corrected the scan better than this. I want to see how it does with japanese gear and a more enthusiastic photographer, instead of chinese optics and long wang’s cousins flatbed operated by his uncle

>>4438484
>>4438486
Its 2-3 bucks more? Who cares. Film is special. Use digital for high volume low value. If this film can get THE LOOK then use it.

>>4438490
Yeah. That's the beauty of pictures. You get to pick your LOOK. Do you know if they're making this into sheet film or is it only 35mm for now?

>>4438494
They're doing 120 and 4x5 based on a forum post I saw.

>>4438490
>If this film can get THE LOOK then use it.
but Kodak film already does that and will be the same price. Frankly the only thing exciting about this film was it's budget status. Without that, there's no reason to buy it IMO. It's still nice to have in the market but it's nowhere near as big a deal at $7+

>>4438495
>but Kodak film already does that and will be the same price
not to mention Fujimax and Fujigold i usually see for even cheaper than kodak cause fuji goes on sale every now and then and kodak never does. how that fucking works for kodak i have no idea but not my problem.

>>4438504
yeah, exactly. I stopped buying Kodak branded film because I know I can get the same thing for less money. I got lucky recently and got a few 3 packs for $20 instead of $24 or more, and then I got a walgreens coupon and ended up paying $17 for another 3 pack, then I was at another store and I got lucky again and found two 3-packs on sale for $15 each. But even if I get stuff not on sale it's still like $7 to $8 a roll anyway so the chinese film being $7 makes it WAY less attractive than if it were actually $5 like they were claiming when they announced it.

I know it's a small difference in price but to me it's a big deal, it's about how I feel about the value of the purchase. I'd spend way more money on it overall at $5 compared to $7.

>>4438514
If it btfo kodak color film would you happily pay more as well? We need to see more test shots, but I do not think the film will be as technically good as even gold 200, and definitely not as good as portra or ektar.

>>4438518
>If it btfo kodak color film would you happily pay more as well?
honestly, probably not. Let's compare it to Gold 200. What improvements could be made to this film? Assuming I want a warm rendition of the scene, Gold's colors are already accurate enough. Maybe I'd want a bit more saturation or exposure latitude. I think Gold's grain adds to it's look despite being grainy for a 200 speed film, but let's say maybe I want less grain anyway. And more speed, more speed is always nice.

So in a somewhat realistic scenario, we have a new film that has colors like Gold, but grain like Portra 160 and you can shoot it at 1600. That, I'd say, would btfo Kodak's offering, and I'd be willing to pay more.

BUT since I don't actually NEED tighter grain or higher speed and stuff for the majority of my photos I wouldn't actually want to pay that much more. This hypothetical film would probably be like $20 or more easily and at that point I'd buy a few rolls a year just to have on hand and do my regular snapping with the cheaper stuff anyway.

So to answer the question in short, actually no, I probably wouldn't happily pay more. I would maybe begrudgingly pay more on rare occasions. I'd only "happily" pay more if it were like a dollar or two more per roll and was a 3200 ISO film with nice colors and super fine grain. Then I'd be pretty happy to pay a bit more.

As it is, this film looks like it's more on the level of some of the Orwo/Inoviscoat offerings, so even below shit like Colorplus. I can't see myself using this too much. I was hoping the changs would pull through and save us from Kodak Alaris's retardation especially after their decision to stop allowing bulk motion picture film sales to people for respooling.

any of you ever bought a Benrido print? wanna start buying prints and shit to display

>>4438478
dang that looks like shit
It must be real bad if this is what they choose to market it with.
>>4438471
>$7/roll plus tip
lol

>>4438478
lol they chose a guy who looks like a dead chicken to promote color film

Aristapan 100 (AKA Orwo NP100?), at $4/roll it is currently the absolute cheapest film as far as I can find, cheaper than spooling foma or kentmere yourself even.
Looks like shit in rodinal but I'll find something that works.

>>4438688
Jealous you yuros have this, getting it imported across the pond makes it cost as much as kentmere and foma so it’s not really worth it.

>>4438698
I am burger, got it from freestyle. It's not listed as expired but the expiration date on the box is blank. And orwo is run by retards and likely going bankrupt soon, I don't think they've made anything new in years. So lots of opportunity for firesales.

Word on the forums is this is spooled by reflx labs in china, which seems likely by how similar the box and spool are to other reflx labs films.
If you look close you might see a family of turtles.

>>4437903
get rid of the fence

>>4438751
I can't. :(
I like how it makes the house look tucked/nestled between the trees.

>>4438478
>>4438556
I guess you can make the scan look a bit better, there's a pretty good chance the film isn't as bad as it seems and it's the scan that looked bad. Maybe I bumped up the saturation too much though

>>4438709
>And orwo is run by retards and likely going bankrupt soon
what's going on with them? I thought they finally were doing well. I did get a bunch of NC400 from Freestyle recently, at a big discount, for $5 a roll.

>>4438471
Here's a sample of it in 120. It's an inversion of a photo of a negative, so it's not ideal, but based on this it actually looks pretty good to me.

Here is my latest egg based photograph. Pretty fun little shot and I think it will make an attractive print.

Using the old 8x10 monorail in the vertical orientation is always a fun time.

Foma 100 @ 100 developed in 510 pyro.

>>4438820
It lacks the geometric perfection that makes large format photography of boring shit stand out. It’s just a snapshot of eggs.
>inb4 i tried so hard
And got so far but in the end it didn’t even matter

>>4438823
Thanks. I think that the uniqueness of each egg actually makes the photo even better than if I used exactly the same shape and size egg and it was perfect. Almost like it was intentional. :D
It's also pretty freaking close to being a repeating pattern. Did you notice the checker pattern between light and dark eggs?

This was an easy shot to set up because I have a special vertical table clamp mount for my monorail. You should have said inb4 lets see you do it better lol noob.

>>4438823
Agreed, the egg tray not being square to the camera doesn’t make it interesting, it just makes it irritating

>>4438834
I left a little tiny margin for cropping while framing... totally fine to do that.
It can be difficult to get really precise framing/sizing when you're doing close up stuff and it is better to have a tiny bit extra than slightly cutting off a part of it.

>>4438823
Yeah. Nothing is square. Nigga had perspective correction and couldn't get an egg tray (or the table) square with the camera.

The imperfect shadow angling is shit too. Nigga had artificial light and couldn't manage his shadow direction. It could even have NO shadows, but alas that is too artistic an idea.

>>4438836
No, it's not the rotation, it's not square. the right side is closer to the camera.

>>4438842
It crops fineeee, but I do see your point. It was an oversight. It's tough to see because of how the camera is setup. I set up parallelity between the front and rear standards and checked level with the table, but alas it was not level enough.

>>4438840
Very very boring with no shadows the hard light adds to the depth/shape of the eggs and I like the overall look of the image. I couldn't get the light any higher or the camera would cast a shadow on my scene as well. I tried setting up my 50/50 mirror to get light from above, but it's too small for macro sadly

>>4438842
Yes my makeshift table of plywood screwed onto a sawhorse is actually warped now that I look at it. My tiny little float level was not long enough to detect it. It crops fine.

>>4438851
looks weird, falls flat

>>4438845
you could have done more perfectly angled shadows or multidirectional shadows

you are not autistic enough for lf. retvrn to leica and dslr.

>>4438851
>i layed my eggs on a piece of plywood and my egg photo is wonky how could this happen
deffo not autistic enough for lf

The 8x10 egg pictures will NOT stop. Lol. They're too fun to make.

>>4438899
I didn't want it perfect. The whole point is that it ISNT perfect. You are the autistic one if you can't understand why I wouldn't want the shadows and eggs to be perfect. It's not a difficult concept, and it isnt even feasible to make it perfect because no two eggs are the same!

I will make sure the perspective is not warped for my next shot because I think that would actually make it better. I thought I had it correct on my first attempt, but obv it wasn't. Learning and improving from the one real piece of criticism.

>>4438900
You didn't even look at the picture if you think I "layed eggs on a piece of plywood". Embarrassing...

>>4438899
Part of why I think it lacks impact is because I just took a pic of the negative with my phone before it was dry. I'm going to scan it tommorow. There's a lot of fine detail/tonality that will make the picture look better.

>>4438796
Oh yeah I got a bunch of that too, it's not good but sure is cheap! The nc500 is explicitly listed as expired though.
As best I can tell most of their problems stem from the owner being a stingy asshole who's always trying to screw over his customers and suppliers. They don't actually make anything themselves (everything is contracted out) so pissed off suppliers means no more film. You can see evidence of this in how many different types of packaging they use. Presumably the check for spooling got "lost in the mail" a few times and they had to switch to different spoolers. Add to that a few bad batches that they just sold anyway like nothing was wrong and all the distributors are just trying to dump this stuff before it expires.
Not that I really know anything, this is mostly based off random posts on boomer forums. Maybe they got it all sorted out now.

scanned some of my glass cyanotypes
4x5 sheet film, I think it was CatLabs, contact printed on a cyanotype gelatin mixture I poured on glass plate.

Kinda fun, wanna get better at exposing it and also coating, had some issues with the surface tension of it as it cooled back to room temp.
Also need to rescan these properly, rushed this a bit.

>>4438966

>>4438968
>>4438966
Cool and good job! How are you displaying them?

Yeah, this is a really cool looking print. I need to frame it still, but I don't think the perspective issue is even that detrimental to it. You guys were smoking crack. I get it tho real photography demands perfection.

I think I will go higher contrast for my next print.

>>4439092
I think I may still retake the image to see if I can get perfect parallelity between table and camera.

is tap water fine for developing, rinsing, etc. as long as i use distilled for the final rinse? tap water smells bad like sulfur btw

>>4439100
also do you think a metal ammunition box is light tight

>>4439100
I think some developers are more sensitive than others. Do some testing first and switch to distilled if needed.

>>4439100
using distilled just for final rinse has worked for me when using Rodinal
haven't used any other developers yet
>>4439102
I wouldn't bet on it

new tread
>>4439126
>>4439126
>>4439126
>>4439126

>>4435337
where find more, i like it!!!

>>4438456
kodachrome in 2025? that pic is made with that film?

>>4438961
I had no idea, but it's at least good to know that it's Orwo and not Inoviscoat (the actual coating company that presumably does their stuff) that's having problems.

I believe Inoviscoat does some of Lomography's film as well

>>4439130
Twitter, /jp/ bjd thread

>>4439224
Do they sell doll sized strobe kits for doll sized photography?

>>4439242
Not that I've seen, but there are mini rolleiflex cameras and mirrorless cameras from gachapon machines

>>4439383
They jave these gooseneck microscope illuminators. I have one. They are pretty fun to use. I bet they work really well for doll type photography.