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 can't pan Velvia with a 300mm at 1/30

old thread >>>4434198

Thread Question:
Do normies deserve to have their events shot on film by a patrician such as you, or do they only deserve digislop?

>>4438961
kino
also why does gold look so damn yellow online but when i shoot it its hardly any different than colorplus. skill issue or online chuddery?

>>4439134
Gold and colorplus are both yellow, gold just has higher sturation and finer grain.

just developed the first few sheets from my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 kodak film pack, expired 1977
Hc110 dilution B 10ish minutes
fucked one up, two sheets touching in the tank, guess kodak was always curly garbage
but yeah vacation snapshits with my speed graphic

>>4439141
oh yeah forgot to say it was tri x pan professional, shot at around 160 iso

took my 6x6 Ikonta out of storage and it seems to be in almost perfect working condition. Where can I get cheap 120 film? I wanted to try a roll of Provia but it's out of stock everywhere, so I might get some Gold 200.

>>4439154
Foma and kentmere

>>4438452
>>4439133
Anon, sweatie, the book is titled 76-88. When do you suppose the pictures are from? I’ll give you a minute.

>>4439184
2026???

>>4439184
Man, didn't know they brought back Kodachrome in 2076. Gives me something to look forward to in the nursing home.
/s

>>4439199
>

>>4439199
Is that the sci-fi film of future?

>>4439155
I ended up getting 5 rolls of Gold. I found a good deal on www.shopmoment.com, and they had a $10 new member credit, so even after taxes and shipping it comes out to under $7 a roll which is lower than I've seen elsewhere.

I might still pick up some B&W though but the last time I used foma I didn't like it, although that time was foma 400 in 35mm developed in rodinal. terrible grain but surely better in 120. I like the retro packaging

>>4439202
Foma 400 is actually 200. I hate how curly it is. It's pretty okay in sheet film sizs.

>>4439202
>foma 400 in 35mm developed in rodinal. terrible grain
nonsense. it's absolutely aesthetic

>>4439206
Not the hecking blurry doggo!

>>4439208
it's totally the vibe my dude

>>4439208
if i was trying to shoot clean perfect images i have a lovely eos r with an assortment of professional L glass, or even my griii and iiix. I love the grain.

>>4439209
I know I'm joking. I like XX shot at 800 + rodinal stand more for that super grain type vibe.

>>4439211
now THAT sounds sexy. never tried cine black and white myself but i see good things

>>4439213
It is arguably the best b&w film ever made. You can shoot it anywhere from 25 to 1600 and get good to great results from it.

Yellow filter makes it even more amazing.

>>4439213
These aren't with a yellow filter, but they are shot at 800 and devved in rodinal. XX is also cheap if you load it yourself.

>>4439032
I have a set I printed of 18 prints, 8 landscape and 10 portrait, so im going to display them in 4 shelves im making, so they have a top strip and bottom strip they slot into.

>>4439206
That looks fine. Mine turned out worse

>>4439210
>there's no point shooting film if it gives you a clear, sharp photograph with fine grain
disagree desu

>>4439214
>You can shoot it anywhere from 25 to 1600 and get good to great results from it.
can you tell us more? And didn't they stop selling this because Alaris killed the sale of motion picture film to the public?

>>4439232
Yeah you get finer grain and less contrast with lower iso and big grain + more contrast with higher. 400-800 is pretty nice for general use. You can do stand dev for like 150-1600 iso. Anything lower you want reduced dev times. 25 iso you use 1+100 rodinal for like 5 minutes lol.

This is what xx at 25 looks like.

It seems like theres still a lot of places you can buy bulk loaded xx from. I got a 400 foot roll a while back and still have some. :) I should have gotten another and some vision3! Oh well. Maybe they will change their policy one day.

wista 45sp just arrived this tripod I have won't do it's absolute shit, I think I will get a geared head

>>4439238
Geared heads are awesome for view cameras. A tripod without the center height tube will help stability a lot as well. You don't really need it for view cameras.

>>4439241
I have a cambo and a nice chunky benro tripod but I can’t bring myself to splurge for a geared head, even though it seems like what I need really. Even cheap ones are many times more than a beefy ball head. I’m just riding on the bare legs for now lol it’s quite un-versatile.

>>4439241
I could see how movements could compensate for the lack of a head but what about like rotation? Would I have to fiddle with the legs to get it leveled? That sounds annoying x.x

>>4439245
Leveling is easy as long as your tripod has a ball level on it. It's sort of hard to describe my method, but basically you start with one leg then move it until the ball in the level lines up with the second leg, then you move the second leg until it lines with the third leg then when you move the third leg and it will always become level.

>>4439244
It's a luxury, but not entirely necessary. I really don't mind using these sinar heads. You just have to level the tripod/camera more carefully. Sometimes my geared head adds more height than I want as well.

>>4439245
>>4439244
The gitzo 2 way fluid heads look nice and they arent too expensive I guess. 180 usd for the 4kg one.
I've always hated ball head for view cameras...

>>4439249
Hmm, leveling head sounds like it might work? I tightened some shit on my head and the issue I think is that the plate is a bit too small and the weight of the camera shifts around too much maybe I could first try getting a bigger plate

>>4439259
Nice, that one looks pretty sturdy. Tempted to get this one if the plate thing doesn't work out.

Fuck can't wait for my changing bag to get here I'm gonna shoot so many 4x5 snapshits.

just got back 3 rolls from the lab. i'll post one from each of them. anybody else into self scanning? i'm using a canon 6d,ef 100mm 2.8 macro and valoi easy35 paired with negative lab pro.

portra 800 shot on canon eos 7s, 50mm 1.8

>>4439403

ilford hp5 pushed to 1600 , eos 3 with 28mm 1.8 (test roll)

>>4439405

and mira 800 (vision 3 500t with the remjet removed), 7s with the 28mm. used the built in flash

>>4439140
gold and colorplus are literally the same film
https://youtu.be/zw9woROB_rI

>>4439325
Yeah leveling base looks cool and it seems like they are very rigid just remember the height thing and the added weight. I've never had trouble using the legs to make mine level, but it would add some convenience.

Shooting 4x5 snaps is really the most fun thing. I like taking 6 shots out because thats how many fit on the mod54 sheet holder for developing.

What lenses did you get for it and what will you be shooting mainly?

>>4439403
>self scanning
RGB backlight essential for colour camera scanning

>>4439408
Pic related from your own video m8.
This is an absolute midwit attempt to compare these by the way.
>different sources
>different batches/ages
>no chain of custody from the manufacturer or even distributor
>shot in a habblesad with jank 3d printed adaptors
>too dumb to realise that the jank adaptors are putting the film plane in the wrong spot and giving incorrect focus for the Gold, conclude the gold is just a softer film (?!)
>home dev in the sink, rather than just running them side by side in an actual c41 processor
>dslr scan is actually the most scientific thing they've done, but we just have to assume that the scanning exposure is the same
>not masking the rebate, causing light piping and loss of contrast
>not editing the images to full contrast, but even at lomo-tier contrast and saturation a difference in colour balance is clearly visible
How they would do all this and still be so ignorant as to conclude that they're the same is baffling to me.
The difference I see is that the gold is recording colour differences further into the shadow areas, where the colorplus is washed out greener in the shadows, meaning you get a less vibrant image at the same edit or would need to push it harder to get the same contrast, losing shadow detail and emphasising the appearance of grain.
The differences are minor, but entirely within the scope of what film manufacturers pushed as different stocks back in the day. "Pro" film was literally just the same shit but with cold-chain storage keeping it fresher for longer, special version were released when a master roll had aged just right.
If you don't see the difference then just buy the cheaper one and you'll be happy, but know that you're on the same level as someone saying that they can't taste the difference between a $10 wine and a $50 one.

>>4439408
that's so dumb, it's known they are different emulsions
not even gonna watch that trash video

>>4439444
I wish someone scientifically tested all the “cheaper” Kodak colour films for comparison. Everyone knows ektar and portra but let’s put gold/ultramax/colourplus and pro image colours to the test to see what’s up. Mite b cool

>>4439475
Do it.

>>4439476
i don't have a c41 processor or the patience to properly do a/b testing.

How important is it to develop film immediately after exposure?
If i keep it in the fridge will there be significant degradation over 2 or 3 months?

lads, i'm feeling exceptionally lazy and only want to do one processing batch tonight, can i put a 400 and 100 speed film in like rodinal stand dev or some shit and have it turn out acceptable?

>>4439410
I got a nikkor 150mm which is the one that is broken, need to get a new shutter, and a 90mm schneider super angulon. The 90 will do nicely for some landscapes I have in mind.

>>4439540
Ya

Does anyone have experience with one or both of 120 and C-41 dev? I'm interested in the least painful, easiest and most reliable method, even if it is expensive or requires buying lots of little things.

>>4439522
Nah I doubt it. But I put my shit in the freezer in a bag with dessicant

>>4439217
>>4439214
>>4439206
Would you show these to strangers and tell them you were proud of them?

>>4439522
I've developed film like a full year after shooting it, no problem. Film is pretty stable, manufacturers made it for your grandma to be able to take pictures.

>>4439985
Yeah. I would make prints of them and happily show friends and strangers. I don't see what's wrong with them, but I would love to hear your critique.

>>4439997
I am proud of you anon

>>4439998
Thanks. :D I really like this one as well. Moo! haha

>>4439985
I’ve printed that and others like it, yes. What’s your issue with it, that it isn’t technically perfect or something? Normies don’t care about that, they love the dog and appreciate the gesture.

Egg DROP. I made 100% sure my board was level this time and tried out a new pattern. Phone scan.

Better or worse than the first one?

>>4440118
>eggs off angle
>uneven spacing
>shadows cut off bottom row
bad

>>4440123
Those are features not flaws egglet.

>>4440118
It's better and I like it.
I liked the first one too.

>>4440123
The individuality and uniqueness of each egg and its place in the image exemplifies the perfectly imperfect nature of the photograph. The simple egg photograph reminds us that it is okay to be different and that our imperfect nature as humans should be cherished rather than hidden away.
The cutoff shadows produces a grounding and clearly defined orientation to the photograph.

This is really basic art stuff, hun.

>>4440125
Thanks!

just digitized roll i shot with my XA, and saw this streaking on only a couple of frames, not on the whole roll. Any ideas what it might be from lads? included borders so you can see it goes beyond the frame. light seals? feel like that would affect the whole roll? Disregard cliche low effort subject thanks.

>>4440139
same area, same time of day with high sun, no streaking, nice solid rebate. Just test shitting the camera so again subject aside, not sure why one shot got it and one didn't.

>>4439475
I have shot a lot of pro image, I think it's a fine film if lacking a bit of latitude. If you overexpose about 1/2-1 stop it'll be a bit more portra like.

>>4439214
saved

This webpage used to have the specs listed for Fujifilm 200 and Fujifilm 400.
As of June 2025 it has now be updated to this.
Fujibros we are so unbelievably back.

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/consumer/support/films/negative-and-reversal
>Pro 400H
I'm on a copium high right now

>>4439475
In popular photography magazine they used to test film all the time, it's too bad they don't do the same thing anymore because many of those tests were fairly detailed.

>>4439126 (OP)
can anyone recommend a good anti-dust brush for film negatives/slides that isn't too expensive?

what are we thinking lads do I buy the chinesium arca swiss cube
https://aliexpress.com/item/1005004109231347.html

Tried a trichrome using the cheapest sheet film (retropan 320) I could buy. Used the same filters I used successfully on FP4+, HP5 and Rollei IR400. This was the outcome, did I fuck something up (apart from film choice) as the original frames looked ok and I got reasonable scans from a lightbox + D800 + macro.

>>4440274
idk

>>4440208
>anti-dust brush
kinetronics

>>4440150
>>4440152
big if true
>>4440221
500 usd? how much does an original used one go for?

>>4440281
x3

>>4440283
holy fuck

>>4440281
>>4440283
Yea, "precision instrument" as boomers on forums would say.

2 image stitch panorama

400 tri-x, around 6-7 years ago shot on an olympus af-10 mini

>>4440150
They been teasing us with shit like this for years. I'll believe it when the walmart film says made in japan.

>>4440293
Shit looks like the photos from the Hinterkaifeck murders. This is to say I like it.

>>4440274
Second one I tried worked better. Another three sheets of retropan 320, because it's so cheap it's 4x5 colour for about than £5/$5 per shot

>>4439126 (OP)
I read all the time about people scanning their 6x7s with Fuji GFXs... but what lens do people use for that when they say that? The system doesn't even really have a good macro lens. The 120mm? Or some bellow and adapter setup?

>>4440290
dunno never used it
I'm using Manfrotto 405 for that purpose

>>4440293
really weird pattern on the right side of the image but I do like it, would look great framed on a wall

>>4440311
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4749601
Seems like they use adapted contraptions

gonna start developing color negatives at home soon
I'll get a sous vide for temperature control and an Adox C41 kit
any tips?
will probably shoot some kodak gold so I won't curse myself too much if I mess up the first couple times

>>4440326
If you’re used to or have done black and white and never colour, be careful c41 is much more strict and inflexible than bw dev. With bw you can be “eh good enough” with temps and time and other things, c41 you really need to stick to them or you’ll start colour shifting. But the nice thing is that all c41 develops the same, doesn’t matter if it’s from different manufacturers or different speed or even the black and white c41. Can batch it all together.

>>4440322
That’s reticulation thanks to the lab. Happens when there’s inconsistent temperatures during development if I remember correctly. Really visible on some frames while on others, not that much… happy accident if you ask me. Was thinking about printing it as well!

https://www.fujifilm.com/us/en/business/professional-photography/film/velvia-100
>As a global leader in imaging, Fujifilm is committed to acting sustainably, and complying with all country regulations. As such, Fujifilm will discontinue FUJICHROME Velvia 100 Professional film in the U.S. effective immediately (July 6, 2021).

How big is their stockpile?

>>4440311
Schneider macro symmar is very good and not overly expensive
https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-50s/schneider-120-5-6-0058-makro-symmar-on-gfx-100s-at-11/

>>4440276
thanks

>>4440326
I don't know if your kit has a stop bath but the one I got didn't. I used distilled water with a shot of distilled white vinegar in it as a stop bath to quickly end development. Definitely do not use a water stop bath

>>4440378
>I don't know if your kit has a stop bath but the one I got didn't. I used distilled water with a shot of distilled white vinegar in it as a stop bath to quickly end development. Definitely do not use a water stop bath
this is the kit I'm planning on getting, I think I don't need a separate stop bath?

So I'm low on fixer because I accidentally dumped it out instead of my developer
I don't think I can make enough using the dilution the kodafix bottle recommends
Could I dilute it a bit thinner, like 1:4 or 1:5 instead of 1:3 and just fix it for longer?

what are some fun m42 lenses? been thinken bout buyedering a spotmatic for fun. i already have some pentax m lenses so prefferably no pentax/takumars

>>4440403
Should be fine, just do a dip test. Snip the leader off and put it in a small amount of your planned dilution. Like 10ml really don’t need much. However long it takes the snip to fully clear, double that time to fix your film. This is what I’ve seen boomers recommend and it’s worked pretty well for me.

>>4440381
water wash is stop bath. I tried once to add vinegar but haven't noticed any differance

>>4440414
I'm using sheet film though
But I'll try to just slice a corner off I guess

>>4440412
The Jupiter-37 is dirt cheap, and one of the best telephotos I own. It's honestly an incredible lens.

>>4440412
>>4440421
Seconding the Jupiter 37a, I love this lens. (pic related, it's not shot on film pic tho, sorry!)
I also really like the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8, it's one of my favorite 50mm primes and also incredibly cheap.
Has a closer minimum focus distance than most 50mm lenses, super fun.

>>4440412
>>4440432
example of the Pentacon 50mm f/1.8

>>4440433
and here's one stopped down

i need help fellas, so no matter how much i try fucking around with the values of my negatives I can never get it to not look fucked up. I have some luck with some, but others just turn out like shit like pic rel. need tips bros - I dont have a scanner, i've just been doing the light table and camera method.

pic is a good example, they look super dark (i adjust for what the light meter tells me) if I reduce the greens it's too dark, if i lower the blues i cant make out details. it's just overall too dark on some of my rolls i find

cam is minolta xg1 and film canon gold 200

>>4440415
Vinegar neutralizes the developer faster which can reduce uneven development, but it depends on your setup/technique. With blix kits I always just dumped the blix in with no wash and never had a problem but with bleach/fix kits I saw significant improvement with a vinegar stop bath. I'm pretty sure the red staining around the sprocket holes like in >>4439444 is a sign of inadequate stop - the developer stays near the sprocket holes due to surface tension longer so the area ends up overdeveloped.

>>4440415
>water wash is stop bath.
disagree. Nothing about water actually stops developing action other than physically transporting the developer away. But if you've ever done a pre-bath, you may have noticed dyes coming out when you empty the tank. Not all of the dyes come out with a single tankful of water, it's probably like 80%. It would take multiple complete rinses to get rid of all the dye. Similarly, developer in the emulsion might not be fully removed with just a water rinse, whereas a dilute acid will chemically stop development.

Obviously, a water rinse will do most of the job, but given that I've seen people have issues with color shifts or slight overdevelopment that were fixed with using an actual stop bath vs. a water rinse, I am inclined to suggest it.

The c41 kit I got didn't have one either, but a tiny splash of vinegar in some water probably costs a couple cents and is not much of a hassle. Most people probably won't notice a difference like you said, but the same can be said for being a couple degrees over or under the right temperature, or being a bit over or under the development time.

Still, I think it's better to keep your process as controlled as possible and eliminate potential problem areas so if and when something is a problem, you have less to eliminate as the cause.

>>4440381
You can get away with it, but that kit does not have a stop bath. I may be wrong and maybe an acidic stop could interfere with the blix (I've only used separate bleach + fix kits) but see above, I would still recommend an actual stop bath.

The people begged me for egg based perfection. Did they even think it was possible? Doubt it.
Well here you are chuddies and chuddets. Egg perfection. I call it "egg flower in black and white" Enjoy and thanks.

>>4440574
You post like you’re trolling but unironically this is more interesting that just a regular old tray of eggs, and I’m not sure if you can actually even realize that anymore with all the shitposting

>>4440577
Of course! I'm making the pics silly. The joke is that the last ones haven't been perfectly symmetrical,spaced, .0001 mm tolerances, etc and that's why they were 0/10 snapshits. I spent extra time making sure this one was very symmetrical. I purposefully chose different sized eggs for the petals in the middle because I think it looks better. My view camera has lots of gridlines on the GG so I used those to make sure everything was nicely lined up.

Do you like the soft light better? Or do you think they're both good, but different vibes? Look at this goofy light modifier I setup to get that lighting.

>>4440582
i think it's bordering on too soft for my taste, would like the egg shells a bit more defined, but the pattern you put them in and how it almost looks like you've got a grid on the light makes it more visually appealing, i think. The square grid of eggs you did before would probably be elevated if you were able to get like brown and all other shades of eggs to add more texture.

>>4440139
>>4440140
going through and editing more from this roll i did on the XA and this picture fucking really shows me that i'm terrible at using the thing. i think it might actually be too small. Not a good picture by any means but you can see all the flaws with this camera. fat finger in frame, rotation is off even though it felt okay handholding. parallax is way off due to the rangefinder. looked centered in the viewfinder but we're offset. and so on. it's a neat little camera but it has a lot of quirks. Not sure if i love it desu. Maybe i just need to use it more to get used to the adjustments it needs but eh, with other cameras to use not sure if i'll go back to it much. the one thing it has is the compactness that's so pocketable that nothing else i have comes close. My minox35 is scale focus so it doesn't really compare.

>>4440587
damn if it isn't a neat little lens when you get the focus though. Part of it might be conditioning from other cameras with firmer shuttter buttons, that require full presses and such, the xa has a very light hairtrigger almost touch release. not used to that. thank you forr reading my blog.

>>4440584
I agree with you about the definition thing. I believe that a part of that is the phone scan vs. Flatbed scan. check these out >>4440477 >>4440476 I think the super fine tonality of 8x10 will create that definition when it's actually available to be seen.
I chose soft light because I thought it would look nicer mainly, but it was also to see how it looked on eggs. It's kind of tricky to place harder shadows with something like this. I may get a second light soon. I think it would be useful.

Brown/white/blue eggs only look ever so slightly different actually. You would need very dark eggs for them to really stand out. I could also paint them lol.

>>4440562
>You can get away with it, but that kit does not have a stop bath. I may be wrong and maybe an acidic stop could interfere with the blix (I've only used separate bleach + fix kits) but see above, I would still recommend an actual stop bath.
I already have some Adostop and seems stop baths work for both color and b&w.
I'll try to find out if it can interfere.

>>4440592
>chose soft light
you should use both soft and hard light

>>4440676
spot (hard) light create definition of objects and soft light is just for the fill

how come when I see people shooting portraits on large format they use a continuous strobe then also a flash? What's the point, why not just a big ass flash once?

>>4440685
You need a lot of light to focus. The ground glass is not bright when wide open is f/8.
I assume that is the reason.

>>4440693
You right I'm retarded

>>4440676
Is this really what I need to become the best eggtographer?

Jokes aside both is a good idea. I use bounce cards on the 2/3 sides opposite of the light, so I kind of do that anyways.
I have one of those poseable scientific fiber optic light with two beams I can use, but it's kinda small. Maybe I do a higher mag shot today... Stay tuned.

>>4440685
On my old strobes those are called modeling lights. It gives you precision/preview when setting up your lights. People used polaroid backs for their view cameras to preview lighting setups back in the day, but before the first actual test shot the modelling lights gave you a close estimate to what your strobes would produce.

>>4440667
yeah, that should work, but make sure it's not a citric acid (odorless) stop bath. This could interfere with the color process. I know I've recommended a stop bath and I still do just for consistency's sake for the home user, but as always do your own research because they're your negatives that could get messed up.

>>4440577
I liked the tray better

>>4440574
it's too dark, you're metering for the eggs and the camera is placing them in the middle of the curve, but the eggs are white, you should expose more

>>4440587
>not sure if i'll go back to it much.
I'll take it off your hands then

>>4440762
I just need to push the film by a stop or two. The whole scene was only around 3 stops of contrast. I'm still figuring out how to controllably do that with my film + dev combo. Foma100 and 510 pyro

The print came out really pretty with a delicate and soft look. I thought it would be nicer as a square, but I think the full rectangular framing with dark outline will look quite nice.

lads i think i've asked this before but i lost which thread it was in. For digitizing your films with a camera (sorry even though i understand that a sensor works in a similar princible to a flatbed my autism makes so i cannot use the S word for this if i'm not using the machine), how do you determine exposure settings? full manual and calibrate to the light, or with a blank frame, or just auto and let the camera work its magic or what? i've been doing manual so far and it's worked ok, but the last two rolls i did i must have been way off on exposure on the frame i used to calibrate and everything came out overcooked. here's one of the better results just straight as i shot it, only edit is inverting the levels. it's too light/washed out and other photos were even worse. feel like the negative shouldn't be this washed out. Yes, my lazy ass could just go and set everything up again and run it through with different settings, but i could just ask here instead lol.

>>4440920
As with all digital photos you should be exposing so nothing you care about is clipped or touching the noise floor in the RAW. If your camera has a decent histogram you can use that to expose to the right. Contrast is not affected by exposure at all, contrast comes from processing. If nothing is clipped and you want more contrast, just increase the contrast.

>>4440953
so really, just treat it like if i was photographing any other scene? it's a bit of a mind pretzel since the film is essentially static and should all digitize well at a single setting, no?

>>4440962
If you expose the base fog to the right that will give you good results. I would expect that to be consistent for a roll of film but will vary between different films.
I think ETTR is more important since you will be inverting, which means the log compression is going the wrong direction. That probably varies by camera though.

>>4440969
hmm, makes sense i guess, the camera doesn't know the difference from a landscape to a light table. Im also just realizing for real important films i could probably just shoot a bracket, would still be fast, and would cover me. but you'rre right, the washed out stuff can still be massaged a bit so maybe i'm worrying over nothing, picrel

>>4440676
>lighting advert
>poorly photoshopped shadows

>>4440421
>>4440432
lmfao look at this thing https://www.ebay.com/itm/146607173050
>>4440920
how much did you buy your 680iii for?

>>4440969
I did another roll that was done drying with foma 100 in rodinal, and used your expose to the right tip in Av, and by golly the results are excellent with no editing other than crop and inverting levels. picrel, thanks anon that's awesome. great base to start editing from than before.
>>4441039
i'm embarrassed to say because i overspent since one turned up local and i paind for instant gratification. with a second body and 6 lenses, 3 grand canadian. no ragrets.

>>4441043
oh and it also has the rare masking kit for 645, 66, 6x7 as well and a couple extra film backs, and some other uncommon accessories like macro rails and such. i think it was a studio guy finally clearing out his stash.

>>4441043
love the old summarit 50. i know it's considered boomer cope round here but they rreally are nice lenses. not clinically nice like modern glass but still. I imagine what a good photographer could do with them lol.

>>4441048
Leica glass is nice but as with anything expensive and highly regarded it gets a lot of unreasonable hate.
I am using the LLL Elcan a lot currently, it's basically a simplified 50mm Summicron but it's as small as a 35mm.

>>4441043
>3 grand canadian
eh if you compare against ebay prices that's fine for what you got

>>4440574
do you have any high res scans?

>>4441211
Yeah. The full scans are around 800MB at 2000dpi. I can post a 100% crop later.
There are flatbed scans I posted in rpt I have linked here >>4440592

>>4441214
eggscellent

>>4440354
I'm asking because every retailer around has gradually had less Fujichrome in stock, but then suddenly the lab has a box of fresh RVP100 in the fridge. Might buy some more next week.

>>4441229
It’s always been rumoured that Fuji has a big stock of old emulsion just frozen away that they thaw out and sell as new, but it’s never been proven to my knowledge. Supposedly that’s why they switched to Kodak emulsion for their C 41 film, when they ran out. Who knows.

Fuji peel apart when

Is there really a need to put B&W film in the freezer or fridge?

>>4441229
If you like it and can get more you better buy it, I don't think it's coming back but I'd like to be proven wrong.
>>4441231
Never. I got two packs left, probably ruined by now, I should sell it for some japanese import velvia with the insane ebay prices.
>>4441232
For a few years? No it doesn't matter. If you expect to pass it down to your grandchildren, maybe.

my first experiences with 120 film and using a yashica D TLR

>1. dont forget to advance the fucking film (at least only the first pic was a double exposure)
>2. once you cock the shutter you need to take a picture because otherwise you're just going to accidently snap a pic of the roof of the car.
>3. I hope to god my phone metered correctly or ive just fucked myself out of pics and money

all in all a fun camera to shoot with.
im excited to see how 120 film turns out compared to 35mm.

>>4441215
Here is egg at full resolution. This has 0 sharpening on it and was shot at f45. I took this using one of the best large format macro lenses you can buy at optimal magnification.

>>4441215
And for fun here is a 100% crop of that tree and shack picture. This was taken with a semi modern "top of the line" apo 8x10 lens. Also unsharpened. There is 100% more detail in this if my scanner was capable of capturing it. Egg pic is foma and this was fp4 or delta.

>>4441230
That rumor's been around for decades at this point. If it were true, then that freezer'd have to be the size of New Jersey.

>>4441048
Just received an M2 i took a chance on buying "untested as is". Came with a non-fungussy non hazy summicron and an MR4 meter basically for the price of what the camera alone goes for. Luckily it seems mosttly in order, except it's got the typical unserviced slow shutter curtain brake issue, see big streak on the right. Not sure what the light around the sprockets in the left is all about though. Maybe this is what i needed to step into diy CLAs. have a week of work off coming up just in time...

>something starts burning down near my house at night
>go check it out and see a ton of opportunities for cool shots
>camera is currently loaded with 200 and I'm only halfway through the roll
>can't switch film to a higher ISO and get the shots

maybe I do need two cameras

>>4441532
You can if you're careful or have a film leader grabber.

>>4441532
Or consider the Rollei sl2000f. It is a 35mm slr with interchangeable film backs. Kind of expensive, but I hear they are pretty fun to use.

>>4441532
you can always set fire to something else when you're ready

>>4441532
tripod retard

>>4441287
nice and you missed focus.

I fucked up when rewinding my film and opened the back cover while the whole roll was still on the film advance spindle
Is the entire roll trash, or just the few outer layers/shots?
I was under shadows but it was bright outside. It was open for a second or so

>>4441598
this, all the great photos taken were staged to some extent
>>4441618
>just use a longer shutter speed for something in motion lol

>>4441622
no way to really know until you develop it unfortunately. likely if you didn't wind any of it up, the photos all the way in the center might be fine, maybe streaking at the edges. the closer you get to the outside of the roll, as it were, the w orse your chances. but film is pretty good at blocking light itself so unless you left it out in open sun for a long time, probably somewhat salvageable.

>>4441640
I didn't set it aside so I'm not sure which roll it even is now, hopefully a few shots aren't too bad.
It's a shame because the last 3 shots on the roll were a crow that got strangely close to me

>>4441619
Nah. 8x10 is too powerful for mere small format shooters to comprehend.

>>4441287
Honestly you don’t need 8x10 film for this

>>4441666
I know, but I prefer using film for contact printing. Also the format is part of the ART.
You don't really need 8x10 for anything unless you are contact printing!

>>4441666
The fine details of those eggs are not discernible on a print unless you use magnification to see them, but that does not matter.
8x10 is not really for maximum pixelpeeping, although you can have fun with it. It is for maximum tonality enjoying, and that does, objectively improve these pics/prints!

Broke up with my gf and I have an undeveloped roll full of pics of her
I don't think I will be sending that one to the lab lads

>>4441685
Just develop it and keep it stored somewhere. Come back to it many years & tears later for scanning. It’s always nice to have memories be them bad or good. It can wait. Good luck anon, you’ll get over this :)

>>4441686
> It’s always nice to have memories be them bad or good
Fuck this hits me, it’s been 7 years now and I deeply regret culling large chunks of photos with her in them in a sadrage. The memories are fading already. Don’t do it bros, if nothing else like he said, store them away, give it time and decide later if you truly want to be rid of them.

>>4441685
don't develop
just throw it in some drawer you don't open often.

First attempt at using strobes with large format. While it worked out, the entire process felt like guessing. Inconsistent firing of the light meter, the cold shoe mount on the front standard somehow triggering the strobes seemingly at random, double and triple-checking that the shutter would fire the strobes consistently, and then just sending it without really seeing what the strobes would make the lighting look like before developing. Most of these gripes are gear related, but knowledge of what the scene will look like is a fundamental issue. I think I'll just stick with constant lighting since it's much easier to work with on the ground glass--what you see is what you get, and with all the time to set up the shot it's nicer to know what to expect.

I may have flown a little too close to the sun with this one.
I used a tray to contain the straw, but it forced me to bend my arm in an unnatural looking way. It kind of looked like I tried to eat all the eggs and died from an egg overdose mid egg grab.

A natural pose for hand is harder than it seems, but I like the idea so I'll keep working on it. We are all learning here.
Also look at how amazingly incredible human looks with 8x10 levels of tonality and from a phone scan!


>>4441715
Do your strobes have modelling lights? Sometimes I will use a digital camera to do test shots before exposing my film.

Constant lighting is totally great for still life stuff as long as your camera set up is perfectly rigid and you don't mind long exposures. I have a vibrationless electronic shutter that I can set 1/500-30 minute exposures on. It is a truly wonderful luxury for studio work.

>>4441715
Which light meter?

>>4441719
Yes they have modeling lights but they don't really do much.
Your shutter sounds nice; I'm just working off of a cable release and I haven't had too much of an issue with most of my exposures being ~1/4-1/60 of a second. It isn't too hard to not shake the camera in a studio environment.
>>4441763
Minolta Spotmeter F. It works fine. When I said 'inconsistent firing of the light meter' I meant, 'inconsistent flash firing when the light meter took a sample'. I don't think it's the meter's fault, I think it's my shitty neewer flashes, and the cheap sync cord having intermittent connections on where it plugged into the flash body. The damn remote trigger wouldn't work with the sync cable, unfortunately. The quirk with it is that in flash mode it will report back to you a recommended aperture f-stop instead of EV which is what I normally read from it when doing exposure calcs without flash, so it's just another step to take

>>4441783
>neewer
well there's your problem
never go more chinkshit that 神牛

>>4441798
I was just starting out please understand

I am so happy with how this print came out I decided to scan it to share. I got it as close to what the actual print looks like in person.

This picture is actually growing on me and I think it may be my best egg picture yet. Aside from how extremely beautiful it looks I love the contrast between my hand and the egg I'm holding. Almost like the egg is more important than I am or it is weighing me down. Symbolic of the sacrifice I make to raise chickens for their eggs, maybe.
I shot this a little above 1:1 and it is kind of strange seeing my hand but bigger on a print.

>>4441783
You can get professional strobes for not too much money on ebay, but they won't be wireless and they'll be enormous and potentially dangerous monsters. Speedotron makes some beastly flashes and the modeling light actually does something. They still repair and sell shit for their systems. The black box ones are the high end models

>>4441798
wow the doll collecting faggot is a racist too. you are a real winner aren't you champ?

>>4441831
my next doll will be a cute chocolate mdd and you can't stop me

>>4441622
>1-2 seconds in shade on a sunny day (EV 12-14 maybe)
it's going to be almost totally ruined, but you might be able to salvage a few frames that were shielded from light by the rest of the film.

>>4441830
>hand darker than eggs
This guy is a, dare I say it

Negger

>>4441886
How dare you. The cursed inverse square law strikes again!

>>4441783
You should go with Godox. It has a more consistent light output than both Broncolor or Prothoto
https://youtu.be/Ir6ahHW9HA0?si=4C2niVj_dss3Geq7
dunno about Minolta. I'm using Sekonic l-858 with godox wireless triggering module installed inside lightmeter and it trigger everytime with perfect precision.

>>4441903
You should have one of your dolls hugging an egg or something like that. I think it would be a really cool picture. Maybe one of your best.

Forgot to post here

>>4441906
I don't have dolls only figures
they have fixed joints

>>4441908

>>4441909
Dammit.

>>4441910

>>4441912

>>4441913

>>4441914

>>4441915
All for now

>>4441909
this was lighten with Dedolight

>>4441919
I think that tungsten light gives stronger contrast with b&w film

>>4441909
approx 200

>>4441919
Are they worth 250 used? I was thinking of getting some.

Is there a general consensus on svema 100? It's remarkably cheap. Is it worth getting 50 sheets to mess around with?

>>4441992
DLH4 spotlight and DLH1x150 soft light Definitely!
If you need more power there are models like DLH1000 etc…

>>4442029
but you need to have main spotlight and dimmer regulator

>>4442031

>>4442032
>>4442029
Nice. Ty. I'll add them to the list of photography things I need.

i have shot digital for the last ten years and bought an analog camera a month ago. i just finished my first roll (half frame) and had more fun taking pictures than i ever had before. now i am looking at a lab (in europe) and it's fucking 35€ to develop the film (+ prints and scans). how do people do it? is a good lab the place to go? do you only get the negatives and the scans but not the prints? do you develop yourself? or do you just spend thousands of euros/dollars on film and don't care?

>>4442034
lol
in my slav cuntry it costs equivalent of 3.5 euro to develop color film and 4 euro for B&W. Scans may costs around 10 euro from a shitty flatbed, so that's why I do it myself

>>4442034
Everything at home. If you get cheap everything it isn't so bad.

>>4442034
I am new to film as well and so far have the film developed and scanned at the lab but only get the ones i really like or want to gift printed.
Soon I'll get some sort of digital camera and macro lens to try doing my own scans.
You can look into doing your own dslr scanning. You may already have most of what you need.

In burgerland it can be a bit cheaper, but the local lab is pretty expensive. Around 24/roll c41 developed and scanned. I'm trying a mail in place and it is about 12/roll for develop and scan after shipping and tax added.

>>4442034
it's 10 euros in my cunt for 2161 x 3224 but that's simply too low and the larger option is 16 euros.

>be me
>not a filmfag but inherited a film camera
>have 10 expired film rolls that I shot on ~7 years ago
>never got them developed
>no photo labs anywhere near me
>want to send them to a lab in another state to get them developed
>it's gonna cost over $150

I have $4 to my name, I realize that they're probably too fucked up at this point to salvage anything but I'm resourceful, I would at least use the chaotic imagery that I receive back. And if there is anything salvageable, then they served as a unique time capsule considering I have forgotten everything I shot on them.

I hate being a poortographer.

>>4442137
i bet if you asked chatgpt to come up with a sob story and you posted it on preddit, some homosexual would take pity and develop them for you.
Shit, i'd probably do it for you for the lulz but i'd never actually open myself to interacting with any one of you mongoloids.

>>4442137
I inherited a camera with some provia 100f in it that had been sitting in the camera for 15 years. It developed , just with incorrect colors. My brother who had shot 30 of 36 exposures on that roll saw the results and said something to the effect of "mind blown". It'll be worth it to develop them, but at this point if you don't have the money you can probably afford to wait a few years until you do.

>>4439143
thats pretty sick anon <3

>>4439155
>>4439206
Iam a huge fan of fomapan film
My last foma 120 films all had too much antihalogen or whatever it's called on the backing paper.
They were all useless.
Also i've switched from hc-110 to rodinal and didn't like it either.
Want to restock foma 120 but afraid that it will be the same again.

I developed my first roll of 35mm at home and it was really enjoyable. It was AristaEDU Ultra 400 using Ilfosol 3, all the photos came out good development wise. Sorry for poor scan quality this is just on my phone.

>>4442242
Ilfosol is good stuff, I would use it more if it was cheaper lol. Like the nice clean negatives it gave me compared to Rodinal. But Rodinal is my queen for that shelf life and cheapness, unpleasant acutance be damned.

My film got stuck inside the canister, what do?

Also should I be messing with the canister and stuff in a darker room?

>>4442251
Use your hands to tear open the canister before loading it in your dev tank. (Complete darkness)

>>4442251
you mean the leader rolled back into the canister?
If yes, get a piece of used film, wet it just a little bit and push inside, it should stick to the leader and you should be able to pull it out

>>4442251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0oqhZ5aPE
if you don't have a chunk of film laying around, any similar thin long object should do

I took two rolls of film to get developed and they were both exposed.

I got some fujichrome 50D. What should I take pictures of???

>>4442339
ass

>>4442344
Why ass tho? Serious question asking for a friend thanks

>>4442347
your ass specifically..

>>4442382
I'm flattered you would want to see my ass, but I don't think I have the skill to take such photographs.

filmbros... I just paid $28 for a 3 pack of fujimax at walmart. It's been $24 for years. Kentmere bulk is now $100 on b&h instead of $70. How are we holding up against the inflationary scourge?

>>4442409
I sell pictures of my ass to pay for film.

>>4442409
canada here so far, still holding ok for black and white (can get 100ft roll of "flicfilm" in 100/200/400 for 80 bucks), but colour is rising same as everywhere. can't wait for harman to stop dicking around with phoenix and make a proper emulsion, and the pressure from the chinks with lucky. Wishful thinking is that will press prices down, but the way things are its more likely that the currrent market just lets them get away with pricing high to start.

>>4442409
I have been thinking of getting into bulk loading, a roll of Fomashit200 is a mere 50 bucks here.

>>4442034
I mail mine to a lab, but I live in America. It costs me $5 to develop and $5 to scan. I also have the capability to scan at home with a cheap flatbed but the results are pretty terrible compared to lab scans in terms of detail and sharpness.

I started developing color at home. It requires some initial investment but frankly developing at home is easier and cheaper to do well than scanning at home, which is unfortunate because it would make more sense to try to have the lab develop it and scan it yourself to save money.

But the actually good scanners are $500 or more and even then they aren't great as far as I know.

My local labs charge $22 and above. This is why I use a mail-in lab. You should look for one.

>do you only get the negatives and the scans but not the prints?
Yes, almost always. Most labs are just doing digital printing anyway, not making real enlargements, so I don't see much point. I can make prints at a Kodak kiosk and I also got a 4x6 dye sub printer at home.

>>4442251
Just keep a leader retriever ($10) with your cameras.

>>4442339
I got some Velvia 50 myself and for my first test roll I'm doing bracketed exposures, mostly landscape stuff, and mostly at sunset/dusk.

>>4442409
I scored a 3 pack of fuji 400 for $16 at a pharmacy. Then I found a deal online and got a 3 pack for $20, then I found another deal and got 2 3-packs for $15 each, and I also got a 5-pack of Gold 120 for $35.

I only buy good deals, never full price, but I stay stocked up so I never feel like I need to buy something at full price right away

>>4442525
>lucky
reminds me, here's the latest update.

>>4442739
And here is a look at the canister. It says 24exp but the $7 price estimate is for a 36exp roll.

>>4442739
Are relfx labs and lucky the same? I only know reflx labs cause those chads are the only ones I’ve seen still making “220” film and they have cheap colour 4x5. Interesting. Guess the chinamen will be the saviour of photography after all. They already clone all the notable lenses for old film cameras (7a/TTa/LLL/thypoch etc), how long before they just start cloning the cameras themselves?

>>4442754
Reflx labs pro100 is Kodak aerocolor ?

>>4442754
No, but Reflx is chinese and probably has the biggest presence in the US film community

>>4442764
yes

Lol this guy spotted

Processing portra 160 digitally is making me think that maybe darktable isn't the answer. Getting the exposure value right prior to passing it to negadoctor is a nightmare. This still isn't right but it's close

>>4442786
Do people talk to you about your dolls often?

>>4442788
Depends on where I am but yes when it's a high traffic place like the beachfront. Moreover they ask about the monorail 4x5. A lot of people think that I'm doing this as a job or getting paid for it somehow.

Delta 100 is sick

>>4442791
That's pretty cool. The big cameras can really draw attention.

I like delta 100 a lot as well. Give fp4+ a shot if you haven't already. Slightly bigger grain, but some say it has nicer tonality than delta.

Should I buy the 2000 foot roll of expired fuji black and white cinema film? 400ish bucks for 350 rolls of film is a pretty banging deal.

>>4442795
yeah fuck it

>>4442793
That's what I started with, but I didn't have any clue what I was doing desu. This one turned out ok, but yeah the grain is more noticeable. Something like 20/25 of them were also pinhole like this one

>>4442795
How expired are we talking here

>>4442797
>>4442796
The film was discontinued in 2012, so my guess is less than 25 years old. I cant see any dates on the label. Maybe you can?
EI of 700 would mean overexposing by a stop or two would still give me good daytime snapshitting film.

Seller says it was kept cold.

>>4442797
I like pyro developers with fp4. What dev do you use?

>>4442799
I cannot find anything online about the film either... Maybe if I get it I will offer some cheap bulk loaded film for you guys.

>>4442799
>I like pyro developers with fp4. What dev do you use?
Arista's knockoff D-76
>>4442804
keep it and try to do a roll a day for a year

>>4442805
Never tried d76. I think I'm settled on pyro for the time being. It's nice, cheap, and gives me exactly what I want. Maybe if I ever notice myself getting poisoned from it I'll stop hahaha.

One roll of film for a whole year would be ridiculous considering 1 shot a day is good enough for me lol.

>>4442786
>linux or opensores problems
kek you do this to yourself.

This egg picture was a failure. My new lighting setup left the top section of the negative too dark for my liking and I missed focus a little. I like this enough that I will be retaking this picture, but better.
I want three egg hand pictures to frame and hang next to each other. I think it will be pretty cool. I framed the first egg hand print and it looks incredible.

8x10 fomapan is not too expensive. We continue onwards.

>>4442826
Make the new genny. I need it…

New MacBook user here.

>>4442831
Are you talking about /dog/? Lmfao. There's still plenty of posts left in this thread.

>>4442835
I need it

>>4442835
>>4442831
What the fuck? We didnt say you could invite more /an/ retards here.

>>4442835
Make the thread egg boy

>>4442837
I'm fem tho.

>>4442837
Stop egging on the situation

>>4442837
Are you yolking me?

>>4442837
I did NOT invite him here. Trust me.

>>4442826
Eggcellent photo.

>>4442836
But wait do you like my latest egg print? You should contribute to this thread some.
Any suggestions on how I could make it better aside from what I already said about the lighting and focus?

>>4442844
I'm female thoughever

>/fgt/
kek!!!

New MacBook user here

How do I upload?

>>4442851
nigga u srs?

>>4442739
>$7
so they will be $12 or so when they hit the shelves

>>4442786
just pirate lr and nlp

>>4442851
install gentoo

>>4442786
>Getting the exposure value right prior to passing it to negadoctor is a nightmare
what do you mean
do you mean compensating for the scanner's exposure, or adjusting the final post-inversion exposure?
I usually let inversion automatically handle the former (plus my CS9k is very consistent), latter just put an exposure module instance after negadoctor in the stack

finally got around to developing my cn from my portugal trip a good month and a half ago or something

>>4442786
I had a go at it and it wasn't hard, you were almost there.
I hope you don't mind.
What I did was manual white balance, boosting mids in tone curve and nudging the purple towards red in HSL adjustments.

>>4442918
some kind of hippie gathering put on a cool fire show
guessed exposure and for what its worth, im satisfied
gold 200, handheld, summicron 50
might have been f2.8 or f4 at 1/15 or 1/30 or something i dont remember i was high and drunk

>>4442921
they had a medicine wheel and everything

>>4442922

>>4442923
cute zoomer had a neat canon ae-1 so i took a picture

>>4442935

>>4442936
>scanned half the shots upside down
oh well it is what it is

>>4442921
man this is cool, how do you even begin to guess settings for something like this? there's no way that's sub 1 second exposure,it seems like they would have to been moving insanely fast for that

>>4442966
you are right, i don't think they moved that fast in hindsight
the m3 is 1s on the slowest setting that is not bulb
im sure i didnt use bulb
my memory is a bit shoddy of the night but there were two dancers
looks like the girl on the left did about one full circle during exposure, so 1-1/4 might have been?
anyway, i have no idea how to guess exposure for these things, i got lucky

>>4442935
more creepshots pls

I have a strong urge to buy a Rolleiflex
and I don't know if I can hold back this time

They're dumb expensive for what they are IMO, just get a later model yashica. Not my money though.

>>4442974
i lack the self confidence for creeps but respect those who do
anyway, that was at pena palace
it is such a terrible place to visit, massive amounts of people and it was still somewhat off-season
full of indians/pakis/chinese and don't even get me started on the portugese. they are scammers deluxe
they charge you €20 to go up, €20 for entrance, and €5 to go down
they can even charge you to to use the bus to get from the entrance to the palace and then down again lmao
fuck that place

should i take the pentaxpill? should i pentaxmaxx? pentmaxx.

wanted to send u guys this pic but then i opened my gallery and there she was hahaha anyway found this account (kelseacallister) that shoots film but makes them look kinda painted thought it was cool

>>4443025
damn that's grainy
looks like half-frame
cool shot tho

>>4442991
The only Rolleiflex you should buy is 6008

>>4443107
Or the 2000f if you're exceptionally based.

>>4442905
If they are then they're more expensive than Kodak. I doubt it'll be that much honestly

>>4442966
>how do you even begin to guess settings for something like this?
stop down all the way and shoot with the longest shutter speed you can

>>4442921
this is absolutely not 1/15 dude lol and I'm impressed by how steady your hand is on what is probably a 1s or longer exposure

>>4443139
i could easily see them only making it like a dollar cheaper, we're so desperate for more colour stocks that it'll sell. Shit, harman sells phoenix for more than gold/colourplus, fujigold, and some lomography colour films that are usable. usual competitive pricing dynamics don't apply to this niche i think.

>>4442921
>I'm impressed by how steady your hand is on what is probably a 1s or longer exposure
so am i, might just not remember placing the camera on a table but i dont think there were any of those that close to the fire dance
who knows
memory after nightfall is like a swiss cheese

>>4443140
>>4443274
wrong quote
heres a couple more

>>4443277

Any suggestions for improving workflow? I’m currently shooting on a Pentax 17 and developing and scanning at a lab. I thought about developing bw at home but I only go through like one roll a month. The scans I get are okay, thought about getting a dedicated scanner. I feel like I shoot too little at the moment to invest more money into this. It would be nice to have high quality negatives and scans

>>4443360
pentax 17 done at home is no different than other film, which can be done cheap or expensive depending on what you want. Developing can be done cheapish, chemistry is cheap and you just have to buy a tank and reel (pricey new but often sold used or on ebay, etc). then you don't need anything special, just load it in a dark closet and you're off. could probably do it for 50 bucks or less. Digitizing is a different story. do you already have a dslr/mirrorless camera? if not, forget about it. one roll a month is not worth the investment if you weren't already planning on using the camera/scanner for something else. imo.

>>4443360
Good scanners are really expensive, which makes developing at home pointless unless you plan to develop then send them out for scanning. It might still save you money. With one roll a month taking it to a good lab is the best idea IMO

>>4443371
it all depends on what you consider good and expensive
i bought a defective coolscan ls-4000 with SA-21 and MA-20 adapters and a pcie firewire card two years ago for like €200
two new ICs following the repair instructions of the fag in link related made it work
https://www.shtengel.com/gleb/nikon_coolscan_4000_disassembly_and_scanhead_gear_repair.htm
while its not the best possible scan, i'm more than satisfied since it scans my entire roll without me interfering with it
did the solder-mod to convert the SA-21 to an SA-30 too
you can see some scans here >>4442918

>>4443374
wrong link lmao
https://www.shtengel.com/gleb/Nikon_ls4000_ed_Firewire_repair.htm

I just "fixed" the sticky shutters on two of my old cameras and was surprised at how easy it was. A Brownie Six-20 and Argoflex 75 ... admittedly not the most complex mechanisms or involved repairs. Just flooded the mechanism with lighter fluid and fired them over and over.

So I'm wondering if some of my other cameras would be receptive to similar treatment. But they have more complex things going (ie self-timers) so I'm a little apprehensive.

Nettar 515 that sticks if I shoot 1/30 or slower.
Yashica 635 that got wonky when I tried the timer lever. And when I cock the shutter, its lever needs a little nudge to snap back. But otherwise seems to fire ok (I'm waiting for my first roll to come back.)
And a Kodak Retina IIa that seems to stick when I set it at 1/500.

>>4443691
unless there's some kind of physical damage, in general mechanical shutters all work on the same principle, just with more or less gears and such. so if it's gunked up with old grease, can't hurt to try it. at least that way you might find out if its something more serious. Sticking/nudging/ slow etc is usually just needing a flush out.

>>4443691
Nice that it was so simple
I have a minolta srt 101 and the mirror stays pulled up after taking a picture until you fiddle with the mirror lockup switch
Hopefully it is similarly easy yo remedy as your problem

>>4443691
speaking of repairs, i finally got into my M5 to see why the meter wasn't working and it was just a broken solder joint at the battery contact. quite tight fiddly fit and i burned my finger, but i sorted it. camera repair is satisfying sometimes.

>>4443815
idk if I'd have the balls to mess with my M so good job

>>4443847
Thankfully the battery wiring and circuit board is just under two screws off the baseplate, so not too bad. If it was a wiring fault near the meter or at the needle or something I probably would’ve left it. The boomer videos on YouTube just say “slow and steady” and you too can do it lol

I sold another print today. The chicken feather in a bottle print. :D
A lady looked at them then like 3 weeks later finally decided to buy one! Halfway to my first 100 dollars selling art. Hah

People really love the historical fact that photography studios would keep flocks of chickens for a steady supply of albumen.

>>4443952
congrats anon

>>4443731
I figure it all comes down to just flushing the gunk with solvent. But since the other cameras are more complex in nature, I'm wondering if there's anything I'm overlooking. Though I just watched a video where a guy drowned the shutter mechanism in contact cleaner, (no doubt all over his hands too.) So I suppose it should be ok ... and I guess I could've instead used my can of CRC 2-26 instead of all the hunting around I did for the lighter fluid.

Here goes nothing...

It's here. What sorta snapshits should I use this stuff for besides a portrait of my dog? Only 17 dollars per shot so I need to take some good snaps with it.

Cat for scale.

>>4444863
I recommend a bundle of dog hair

>>4444877
That's included with the pictures of my dog, silly! Maybe a doghair still life would be funny, wonderfully artistic, and nicely seethe inducing.

If I get some good shots I may make a backlit frame for them to hang on the wall or something cool like that.

>>4444863
Fine, take some pet photos, who cares, as long as they’re studio quality with good lighting and a purposefully chosen backdrop instead of the couch, it could be worth it

But please, for the love of god, take at least a few sheets somewhere other than that cluttered farm.

>>4444879
Thank you for giving me permission for pet photos. I was thinking of buying a hand painted studio backdrop to up my studio game, and maybe some softboxes or one of those big beauty dishes.. I love the couch, but there's better set pieces for sure. Hah

Yeah Ive been planning on doing some pictures of dilapidated barns in my area. No promises I'll wake up to catch the sunrise, but maybe I'll have some Burke-like shots to share. :D

>>4444879
What color backdrop do you think would be good for a german shepherd? Maybe a dark blue or a gray?

>>4444879
Big plans and big light modifiers for this slide flim. You WILL say nice shot, that was worth using discontinued film for, AND I don't normally like pet photography but I think this is pretty good!

WAGMI

$17 per shot, my anxiety could never

>>4445137
Not many people can handle the extreme highs and lows of 8x10 photography.

Don't forget that you risk losing the entire bag of film when you are loading it. One mindless error and your 350 dollars of portra is gone in an instant.

im trying to get into street fashion photography.
should i "downgrade" my leica m6 and hasselblad to a canon p and rb67

>>4445248
No. Looks matter when interacting with other people.

>>4445248
why would you even think of this?
scared of getting mugged?

>>4444863
Nice picture of the cat would be great. We had one almost exactly alike when I was a kid

Tested a couple film holders with photographic paper instead of film. This snapshit came out kinda fun so here it is. Pretty fun way to screw around with a view camera and make some images pretty quickly and inexpensively. You can get paper that prints out as a positive, but it is more expensive than normal paper.

>>4445433
1:1 magnification ratio pet photography is my 8x10 white whale. I may give it a shot, but cat is not cooperative like dog. Siamese are menace type cats, but also really cute and fun.

Was a good roll

>>4445248
Why not take it down to a Kodak Funsaver and Holga 120N.

>>4445846
kino

Can someone explain to me what's going on here? It looks to me underexposed. The grain looks weirdly digital, I can't explain it. Is that a scan problem?
This was taken on my EOS-1 on a very hot day, so maybe the film was fucked over by that? I'm trying to get to the point where my photos look correct, and I can worry about taking interesting ones later.

>>4445897
looks 2 or 3 stops underexposed for sure
metering fail?

>>4446041
>metering fail
unless anon shows more from the same roll, it's hard to say. i also have an EOS1 and the meter is pretty solid every time i've used it. perhaps a film without a DX code that needed manual setting? more deets >>4445897 anon, more deets.

Ilford Delta 3200

I will be starting to build a darkroom in my home. Can anyone recommend decent material for darkening?
I was testing cheap black construction foil, its should work well with 2-3 layers. I was thinking also about cloth blackout curtains and using velcro on window frame to hold them down tightly

New Thread
>>4446953
>>4446953
>>4446953
>>4446953

Hi, faggots, long time no see
I set up my lab, but my enlarger's light was REALLY dim, I made one enlargement only because it took me fucking 7 minutes of exposure for the image to show up
So I switched the lightbulb for a 40W one and everything is working fine, but I feel like my blacks aren't really that black in the paper
I don't know if it has anything to do with the light or if I just have to find the right contrast setting
Also I'd like to know what could be causing these weird grey borders
>pic related
I made a tiny enlargement from 35mm film, it's about 3"x4" or something, and I used a piece of glass over the paper to keep it flat
Could this be refraction? Is there a specific type of glass I should be using for this? I just took a piece of glass from a portrait holder, not sure if it's too reflexive

>>4446096
I suppose I thought because the camera is way more advanced than my manual one, that I didn't need to think about it. I just reread the manual and have learned that you can see meter readings in the viewfinder. Maybe it's because it was so sunny but I don't remember seeing it? I've tested it at home and it's there. It's all a learning experience.