Thread 4446953

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've never dev'd your own film

old thread >>>4439126

Thread Question:
Favourite B&W dev ASIDE FROM STAND-DEVELOPED RODINAL YOU RANK FUCKING NOVICES

>>4446953 (OP)
Oh and my favourite dev is T-Max Dev; I just souped 3 rolls in a litre of solution that's already done 11 rolls, that I first mixed in October last year, from a bottle that "expired" 10 years ago, and of course they came out perfect.
Bulletproof stuff.

>>4446953 (OP)
XTOL, it's all in one, version from adox is very cheap. You can use stock for extreme pushes, 1:1 for nice sharpness and still very fine grain, works well with medium speed films and HP5. 1:2 for even more sharpness for fine grain films. Yeah the shelf life is shit but I make 1L solutions so I use it up in few months

>>4446962
nice shot, cool grain and very sharp indeed

>>4446962
And you can develop pretty much anything medium to fast with it.

>>4446953 (OP)
>ASIDE FROM STAND-DEVELOPED RODINAL
1:25 rodinal usually around 8 minutes or so. it's not the same thing!

Gonna repost because didn't see there was a new thread, so:

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

>>4447027
that does look like something diffusing the light at the edges, possibly glass edges depending on how you positioned it, but i've never seen it myself. perhaps take a look at how commercial glass carriers are arrranged, usually the glass is ontop of the film which may or may not make a difference. as far as the blacks issue, it could be related to printing, but it could also be the negative itself, if you overexposed for example it may be harder to get those blacks darker, or even something like the colour/temperature of your light. the best i can suggest with my limited darkroom experience is mess around with test strips rather than wasting full sheets to nail the contrast.

>Favourite B&W dev
Why, rodinal stand of course
>ASIDE FROM STAND-DEVELOPED RODINAL YOU RANK FUCKING NOVICES
Fine, I been liking flicfilm black/white&green a lot lately. It uses a one-shot process and keeps well so it is convenient. I don't like some films (like Kentmere 200) with rodinal, but they look good with b/w&g. Most films like xx and rollei I like better in rodinal.
>>4447027
>my enlarger's light was REALLY dim
It's supposed to be dim, I think 11w is standard and 40w is a lot for big prints, insane for small prints. Are you stopped all the way down? Are you missing lenses from the head? Are you sure you were developing sufficiently? Underdevelopment will also lead to grey blacks.
>I used a piece of glass over the paper to keep it flat
It's better to hold it down by the edges with nothing on top. Even if you don't have a proper easel you can just sit something on the edges. An easel will give you crisp borders.

>>4447033
of course I did test strips, brotha
I feel like this diffusion may be affecting the resolution of my prints, these ones were sufficiently sharp though so I went with it
I'll try making some tests without the glass next time I go to the darkroom, using just the easel to keep the paper flat
By the way, /fgt/, behold my darkroom

>>4447035
>It's supposed to be dim, I think 11w is standard and 40w is a lot for big prints, insane for small prints.
There's nothing written on the lightbulb it came with so I don't know how many watts it is, but it was prohibitively dim, I couldn't even focus it properly because of how weak the light was
Even if I turned out the redlight and took time to have my eyes adapt to the dark it was just VERY dim and a pain in the ass to focus
In the beginning of the last month, when I finished my darkroom, I made test strips and everything came out blank, pure white, when stopped down to f/8
So I increased time from 2-10 with 2" intervals to 10-30" with 5" intervals and still nothing
Decided to make a test strip ranging from 1 to 10 minutes with 1' intervals and images were better at the 7-8 minutes range
This is utterly impractical
With the 40w light I was able to have these images made in the 10 to 20 seconds range with the lens wide open and some contrast filters added, which is more reasonable
>Are you stopped all the way down?
this last time I was using it wide open, which is f/4.5 if I remember correctly
>Are you missing lenses from the head?
Nope, everything's fine, just the lamp was a bit too dim
It says "55W Max." at the light socket, so I figured 40W would be ok
>Are you sure you were developing sufficiently?
I think so, but it's possible that I made a weak solution
Used D-72 at 1:2 ratio
>It's better to hold it down by the edges with nothing on top
will do
Thanks, man!

>>4447036
You have to use some form of mask to create the borders of your print or you'll get that. Some enlargers have built in adjustable masks. You can get easels that have them as well.

>>4447036
Wait no it's probably from the glass. Forgot youre doing that. You can do a test strip to check.

>>4446953 (OP)
Pyro based developers. Super sharp, one shot, true speed, easy to mix, one of the cheapest developers around, good shelf life, easy contrast control, good for stand development, "silver bullet" HDpyrocat two bath development, stain makes printing easy.

The only bad part is that they are actually toxic.

Just look at this negative.

>>4447036
Are your negatives too dense? What paper are you using? Post a pic of a negative maybe.

>>4447047
Don't have them with me right now but they're properly exposed, not too dense
I used Foma matte paper, but also have Foma glossy paper and Ilford fiber paper
Haven't used the latter yet because I'd like to tackle these issues first before using them
I'll make new prints this week using the easel instead of the glass and also make some tests with the built-in filters, and with different apertures to see how everything goes
AH I also started bulk loading, /fgt/!
>picrel
bought this AP Bobinquick loader and a pack of HP5 for starters

>>4447054
Matte paper doesn't have nearly the same dmax as glossy. If you want really black blacks you should be using glossy paper. Fiber glossy paper is really nice.
Most paper + dev combos will produce a slight colored tone. If you play around with selenium toning you can sometimes make the off colored blacks more neutral black.

Have some camera gore lads. Just came in the mail, seemed to be working without any film so I went and bought a roll of the cheap lomo stuff. Put it in and it wound stiff once then jammed up lol. Thought I’d poke around inside to see if I could sort it but after this disaster you see it looks like a couple springs came off their anchors, the advance catch jammed without a spring to pull it back, and the sensing pin had little tension so it wasn’t releasing the catch. I really sent a winding stroke and I guess it grenaded itself internally lol. Moral of the story: ewaste gonna ewaste. For the 30 bucks it cost I still got four lenses I can fuck around with.

>>4447027
I would bet those borders are caused by the glass reflecting internally, yes. Just get an adjustable easel or make one for the sizes you want to use.
Regarding wattage, for reference my D2 uses a 75W bulb and does up to 4x5. That'd be 15W converted down to 6x7 by area alone. Are your condenser lenses fucked somehow?
>>4447036
>By the way, /fgt/, behold my darkroom
behold

>favourite B&W dev
Perceptol for FP4, XT-3 for everything else
I am forever enslaved to smoothnes of FP4 but Fomapan 200 rated ASA 125 in XT-3 is somewhat close.
Shame that medium-format Foma QC is in the gutter nowadays

>>4446962
I do ally bw in tmax dev. I'm pushing 1-2 stops almost always, works great for that.

asspill me on the leica m7

>>4447423
its a light tight box but they charge idiots thousands of dollars because idiots think the brand name will make people like them and their photos more

>>4447234
>I would bet those borders are caused by the glass reflecting internally, yes.
I suppose this would mean that every sharp edge in the images would get slightly unfocused from reflection then, right?
I'll just use the easel next time and post results here, thanks for helping, man
>Are your condenser lenses fucked somehow?
I don't think so, it looks fine
Do you think the glass itself could be reflecting away too much light to the point of affecting the blacks in my photos, making it harder for the light to pass sufficiently?
I find it hard to believe but can't think of alternatives right now
Maybe the paper itself is fucked lol
>>4447058
>Matte paper doesn't have nearly the same dmax as glossy. If you want really black blacks you should be using glossy paper. Fiber glossy paper is really nice.
Will try this as well, thanks!
>>4447424
Unironically this

>>4447423
A Leica CLE, Ikon ZM, or Bessa RxA will do the same thing, arguably better in some ways.

Here's a first attempt at trichrome. Used delta 100. The negatives came out higher contrast and a bit overexposed but the result isn't too far off.

And a couple shots from the 4th

I have some photos developed on a trip between Italy and Greece.

>>4448127
actually all these are just Greece

>>4448132
Here's one I took in London before I left.

After travelling to Greece, I went to Turkey, Georgia, Kazakhstan and now I'm in Uzbekistan. In central asia surprisingly most of the tourists here have film cameras, I have never seen so many in my life and I have no idea why. Also my camera (Olympus RC35) broke in Turkey so I've missed out on taken so many great photos. Only two days ago I managed to get my hands on a crappy point of shoot by trading it for some mushrooms I had with a girl at a hostel.

i like stand developing with rodinal when i use very expired film.

but i usually do foma 400 pushed to 800 or 1600 in rodinal 1:25 because i can very dark darks.


i used to shoot fp4 and use ilford developer mostly but it is too expensive now to use it regularly.

people sleep on the ilford orthochromatic too, but it is a little overpriced

I really loved the harman phoenix but the phoenix 2 doesn't look near as interesting.
Hopefully they keep selling the original, still ording a few rolls of II to try

>>4448298
it's the opposite for me, I like we have a new film that's leaning blue instead or red or yellow

>>4448117
based dollfag

Pretty sure I loaded my camera wrong and shot a whole roll of nothing. Who cares just a bunch of lame snapshits anyway. Gonna drink now

>>4448351
never had this happen
I wonder how people do it

>>4448352
You're not a worthless retarded nigger possibly

>>4448352
>Gonna drink now
he's most likely an alcholic who was blacked out when he tried to load the camera

>>4448352
when i was brand new to film it happened to me once. I learned then to make sure the film was firmly in the spool and to watch the winder spin when I advanced.

>>4448352
Mine popped from the spool on my 3rd or 4th shot when switching to a different camera with a different style takeup bit

we are so fucking back
what do we all think?

>>4448510
I wonder if they'll just totally change the name and rebrand it when they have the final product

>>4448510
looks pretty cool. Seems actually more usable. I love it has strong blue and greens as none other film right now on market, I am gonna try it on medium format.

>>4448510
Neat
personally, I am waiting for this since its going to be cheaper lmao

>>4448510
Something about the way they treated it like a video game console embargo rubbed me the wrong way. You know, the suddenly one day at the same time every YouTube “influencer” has a video up about it, all the websites have articles, everything is a competition for being the first review of it up. Don’t know seems weird, especially since they’re still weirdly claiming it’s an experimental film. And is phoenix 1 dead now? Yeah they’re buying too much into modern marketing bullshit. I know it’s a stupid thing to be annoyed by since it doesn’t affect the film itself but I’m acoustic what do you want

Pentax Spotmatic F
SMC Takumar 50/1.4
Reflx Lab 800T

>>4448719
I can’t believe that there are retards out there who still believe Cinestill that this isn’t the same thing as cs800. Eyes tell the truth.

>>4448510
I ordered a few rolls, I'll let you know once I shoot some. I liked the original phoenix though I haven't shot any in a while and still have some in the freezer.
>>4448706
It is kinda sleazy but everything has embargos nowadays. On the bright side, you can buy it on launch day rather than waiting weeks for places to get it in stock. Influencers are just freelance shills and should be regarded with utter disdain accordingly.

>>4448510
>>4448867
>Influencers are just freelance shills and should be regarded with utter disdain accordingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8g3hlbcDIs
*underdevelops in your path*

>>4448870
You know what I’ll give you attic dark room, at least he seems to be like one of the only people on YouTube that actually experiments with the film and does something different. Every other fucking video about Phoenix 2 Today was the same Lofi chill beats music, pictures of buildings and boring bullshit same as everything from everybody. God, how irritating.

>>4448793
Kodak vision 500t or whatever it is has been rebranded by multiple companies.
Also, there's nothing much especial about it and it's really overpriced just for the halos, that get boring rather fast.

>>4448793
They are different. One is stills film made by Kodak, the other is Kodak ECN-2 movie film modified to C-41 in a Chinese sweatshop. They produce the same results but that doesn't make them the same. They are more different than Gold is from Fujigold, for example, which are two films made by Kodak from the same recipe just with different printing on the canister.
>>4448976
500t does not have much halation and different colors because it has remjet. It is a different film.

>>4449017
But plenty of companies other than cinestill take off the remjet and once you do that it's the same film whether you pay for the cinestill brand name or not

I live in the middle of nowhere.
I just picked up a cheap K1000 for like $20 and want to get it CLA'd, light meter adjusted, and checked over.
Pentaxs guy is super old and hasn't replied to my email to confirm he's still in business and I think he might've died or will die in possession of my camera.
Who should I send my camera to, to get CLA'd?
Is that Garrys Camera guy my best option?

I've got this beauty :DDDD
Also yellow and orange filters and Rolleinars 2 & 3.
Anyone saying that japshit copies are the same is bullshitting you. The build and mechanical quality is better than any camera I've used before. Also these models had a recalculated lens design, so it's the best tessar you can get.
I am developing a test roll, will post results soon.

>>4449222
I have a rolleflex 2.8 that is a joy to use. Good choice on cameras. The rolleinars are really fun to use as well.

>>4449222
Oh yeah.. Mine needed a cla and shutter calibration. The shutter was like a full stop too slow. Made life a lot easier after getting that fixed.

>>4449263
amateur hour

>>4449017
This is the original Cinestill.
I think it's slightly more blue.

Looking for input from


I've been shooting digital for a while and just got into film after finding out you can buy a SLR at goodwill for $10 on their online auctions (Minolta X-370).

Do you each have a 'chosen film'? Or is it more common for people to shoot many different brands of film? How did you settle on a favorite if you have one?

>>4449418
My favorite film is whichever one is cheapest at my local fotoboutique this week. It’s consistently either Kent or foma depending on sales lol.

>>4449418
For deer I would recommend ilford fp4.

>>4449418
different film is like different tools. sometimes you're going to the beach and a nice roll of some gold 200 or pro image 100 is perfect. other times you're just going out and bringing your camera and if you need to load a new roll maybe you want something a bit more flexible in the 400 or 800 range. and then there's stuff like delta/pmax3200, where you can shoot night and pretend you're shooting day. but of course some of those I just mentioned were color (c41) films and others were black and white. and maybe after a while you'll find that actually you'd rather take actual vacation slides.

anyway in the last few months I've shot kodak's 100, 200, and 400 c41 stills offerings, the fuji rebrand of the same 400, cinestill 800t & amber 800t (they are the same thing it was just about price and availability) as well as trying a 3 pack of lomo (metropolis, turquoise, and picrel purple which I quite liked). I also have a couple of different films in the fridge including some slide film and an 8 iso kono monochrome film for a trip I'm taking soon. I guess if I had to pick a favorite I'd say either 800t or pro image 100, but they're very different films that I use for different things so its hard to say.

>>4449418
It depends of the situation, I like to shoot mainly BW. I am trying lucky SHD 400 and I am please with it, but most of the time I just load some fomapan 100, if I need to push it I just throw it in rodinal and that is lmao

>>4447423
heavy, simple, expensive, fun, good looking
t. m3 enjoyer

>>4448117
>>4448121
I thought you snapped some kigurumi faggots
Looks cute

>>4448510
The red one is meh

>load two rolls of film into my developing tank including my very last roll of one of my favourite films c200
>"I know I have some bangers on here from the trip I just came back from"
>thisfinnabegood dot gif
>pour in the bleach
>agitate
>3 minutes 30 seconds are up
>pour bleach back into the bottle
>read the label
>"bleach"
>curl up into a ball and weep

>>4449478
Anon I'm sorry

>>4449222
not the best shot but whatever, it was a test roll
Rolleinars are pretty damn sharp, and this was f8 handheld
Focusing on this camera is a joy, it has the best focusing screen I've seen on TLR. It's BRIGHT, and damn sharp, all other fresnel lens on Yashica or Minolta autocords were pain in the ass to focus, on this first roll I've set the focus exactly where I wanted on every photo
also looks like the shutter works fine on fast speeds

Im losing my mind trying to buy an M3. Do I just have to send it on any of them that look ok? Are japanese vendors legit?

>>4449520
unless the thing is absolutely clapped out it's a generally reliable (inb4 reeeeing about shutter adjustments) mechanism that can be sent off for repair if it's mildly cocked up. i got my m3 from an "untested/asis" listing of the "found in a box of grandpa's stuff" variety. if there's enough photos you can generally see if the thing was abused or not. i ended up paying aboutt half of what m3s go for, it's not a pretty model but the only problem it had was inaccurate slow gears. but it's risky, could have been grenaded on the inside you just don't know. even with the jap sellers, i can almost cerrtainly say those fuckers don't test the shit half the time they say 'working" and possibly don't even have it in their posession (seems like a lot of warehouse stock movement in their listings rather than "hey i have this thing")

>>4446953 (OP)
I have recently come into possession of a Canon AE-1 from a relative that had it plus a 50mm F1.8 and 2 lenses that are third party (I think they're both sears-brand)
Im aware that I need a 28L battery to get it working but is there anything else I should account for? I think it's been left to languish in a closet for a decade at least so I dunno if I should expect something like a dysfunctional shutter curtain

>>4449542
it has an electromagnetic shutter so you don't have to worry about slow speeds or anything like that, your issues would be more bad/old electronic components, dried out/decayed light seals, a sitting old camera may have a battery that squirted fun acidic juice all over the inside, and so on.

>>4449543
the light seals I figured and I fished out the old battery to find it hadn't exploded over God and Creation so I think all that's left is flinging a new 28L and running some ultra max through it to see what happens

I think I can find a CLA guy for it if I look hard enough

>>4449478
At least you won't make that mistake again

>>4449468
>kigurumi
Contrary to how it may appear, I'm not gay
>>4449497
Based and lilypilled

are there any new production lenses for older mounts? obviously sony a was originally minolta's autofocus mount and so there's some compatibility there, but what about say SR bayonet mount lenses? or olympus film era lenses? old school F mount?

>>4449625
i think some chinese brands make m42 lenses

>>4449630
Essentially m42/l39/M would be the only old mounts anyone is making lenses for recently. Can’t think of any other. Pentax I guess technically lol

And another trichrome, this one turned out better but the sun was setting as I was taking them. Went from EV 11.5 to EV 9.6 to EV 8.7 between red/green/blue exposures. But I metered better than the last one using a gray card out of frame, and it seems to have helped a lot in the result.
>missed focus

>>4449625
>old school F mount?
Not an expert on Niggons but I'm pretty sure they do fit, they just had two different types of autofocus that aren't compatible. Which doesn't really matter because you can just focus manually.

23-year expired home spooled pan F I bought on ebay. It's a bit fogged but not bad at all.
>>4449478
Use different style of bottles or paint them in dramatic colors so you learn to recognize them instinctively.
One time I accidentally mixed blix part A and color developer instead of blix parts A and B. I caught that before trying to use it, since it mixed to the wrong color.

ae-1 cleaned, new battery, light seals replaced, seems to work
(different anon than >>4449542 btw)
>>4449649
>Lily with lilies
nice
would probably look good in color

>>4449625
Actually, forget this>>4449657, newer lenses have electronically controlled aperture as well. So they'll only work if you shoot everything wide open or have a manual aperture ring which you probably won't find in anything modern outside of third party chink glass and a couple of Nikons own primes.

>>4449661
I use an "E"lectronic aperture lens on my N80. There's a trick: if you mount the lens on a camera that supports "E" you can set the aperture. Then unmount the lens without turning the camera off, the aperture will stay at that setting. Then you can put it on your non-E camera and use it as a fixed aperture lens. For DSLRs you probably would have to unmount while DOF preview is on or during long exposure, for mirrorless it keeps the aperture where you set it.

I know it sounds like a pain in the ass but the lens I use is a f4 tele that I just use wide open all the time anyway.

should I get a pentax 67 or a rb67? I don't do flash yet

>>4449663
That is a pretty convoluted method to get them working kek. I can see it being useful though, say if you were metering on a digital camera for a shot you really want on film. I thought it was bad how I half dismount and hold the lens to the body on a Pnentacks ME just to get a DOF preview.

>>4449649
Front tilt would have probably gotten the whole umbrella in focus if you think would have been nice. Kind of distracting blurry thing top left. Overall pretty well executed.

Have you been playing around with camera movements at all? I just realized how lucky you are because of how flat your dolls are lol.
A dog's head is quite long so it is difficult to get tip of nose to ears in focus when attempting a headshot.

I want to shoot my first double exposure.
My plan is to shoot through a whole roll twice (because my film release button is a bit janky and shooting twice without advancing the film doesn't quite work and gives results like picrel). Has anyone done that? I was thinking of marking putting some markers on the film so I can load it the exact same way the second time. I've seen people do it online and apparently it worked, though the 60 year old guy at the lab who I talked to about this said I'm crazy and it will never work.
Also I'm assuming I want half the amount of light on each exposure, right? So if I use 200 ISO film and set the ISO for my lightmeter one stop lower to 100 I should be good to go, right?

>>4449650
I love the ghostly people. You should do one in a more croweded area

>>4449719
never tried but thought about doing the same as you. give it a go and post results.

>>4449719
I did it by accident once. I bought a camera at a thrift which came with a bunch of unused film rolls. One was missing the leader, and I assumed someone had just wound it into the can. So I retrieved it and put it into a camera. Results were kinda neat, probably helped that I wasn't thinking "this is frame xx which I think I took of yy, what would pair nicely as a double exposure?"

I definitely wasn't thinking about getting the frames to align, so maybe I just lucked out. The photo lab lab didn't say anything about that, nor do I recall partial overlaps. If your camera auto loads, I imagine the precaution you take should get the frames to likely line up reasonably well.
I don't think the images were particularly overexposed either, so I don't think you'll need to underexpose each round. What might be the sky the first time around might be a brick wall the next.

>>4449486
T-thanks, you too
>>4449658
I'd be fuming about the wasted chemicals though, they're so expensive now
>>4449478
Update: The sticky latch on my canon sprint just opened while I was taking it out of my pocket and it ruined the 26 shots I'd already shot with it. This is the third roll I was putting through it since I got it, after the aforementioned 2 that were ruined. I really thought this roll would be my redemption after bleaching those two...
>>4449666
Checked.
I had the same dilemma about 3 years ago and I ended up getting an rz67. Absolutely no ragrets, if anything I have buyer's relief every time the pentax is mentioned. With 6x7 I find myself wanting to shoot portrait orientation a lot more often than with 35mm because the aspect ratio is so close to square. The rotating back and the wlf make this trivial, and I'd imagine the pentax being a lot more uncomfortable to hold sideways. I quite like the wlf's perspective in general, and the removable film backs are great. You can even get a polaroid and a 645 back although I've never tried either, and I'm pretty sure the 645 back still only gives you 10 exposures.

Today's tip. Don't use P-Touch labels on your Nikon 35TI. :(

>>4449721
If I don't forget, I will.
>>4449722
>this is frame xx which I think I took of yy, what would pair nicely as a double exposure?
Yeah. I think the happy little accidents is what I want to get. Maybe I'll have a rough plan, like remembering that the first 10 shots are from a forest and the last 20 are from the city and take that into consideration on the second shoot, but I want to take a highly experimental approach of just seeing what comes out and hopefully of 36 pics a couple will be neat.

Any photo books with a focus on portraits you lot would recommend?
Unashamedly looking for inspiration.

>>4449982
most recent one i've consumed, warning it has boobies.

>>4449543
I have obtained a battery for it and it winds and fires at all speeds. now for running a roll of film through it when I can

Will report back when I have the photos

Peep the 4x5 studio dog portraits if you want. I think the two headshots came out great. The imagon shot is pretty cool.
Ive been putting a lot of effort into figuring all this studio lighting stuff out so I can take some amazing pics with my slide film and it has been paying off! :D

8x10 foma100 tonight I think.

>>4450111
>>4450110
>>4450107

Thanks for checking out my blog

>>4450284
Is there a reason you have shit everywhere on your film?
Oh wait never mind; dog owner, right.

>>4450293
We don’t lovably call him doghair for nothing

>>4450293
I'm sorry. I almost spent the time removing the dust, but I said ehhhh whatevah! I have an anti static cloth and I wipe down everything before I load the film, but dust and dirt always finds a way onto my negatives.

>>4450303
The secret reason I shoot 8x10 is because you can barely see the dust particles on the scans lol

>>4450306
In any case, >>4450107 looks good and is my favorite of the three

>>4450323
Thank you! That's my fav as well. Im sad I will only be able to contact print them or I would have already made some 8x10 or 11x14 prints. :D One day I will have my real darkroom set up for it.

>>4449723
>and I'm pretty sure the 645 back still only gives you 10 exposures.
No, you get 15 exposures out of the 6 x 4.5 back
P.s.: sorry about your latest experiences with your rolls, this must suck
>>4450284
These are beautiful, man
I wish my dog could sit still for more than half a fucking second

Anybody else developed the old kodak film packs
I got lucky with a tri x one and it must've been stored cold, doesn't really look foggy in spite of the 1977 expiry date

>>4449986
I almost bought this at a neighborhood market a while back, can confirm it has boobies

>>4450635
The photographer is based, he has like four or five different books on the same theme, real jungle fever with him (I think he’s German or something). And they’re fully unique books, not like “revised/updated editions” either. That’s a man with a passion. For choco milkies.

>>4450360
Thank you! They fill me with joy when I look at them. I have 2 8x10 shots that need developing now. :D

If you practice sit stay a lot I bet you could do it! We have been practicing for a good while and he gets the whole stay really still until flash or shutter release goes off thing now.

Pinhole trichrome worked. Came out alright except I missed the framing and cut off a boot. The glass panes are completely see-through in the blue exposure, slightly reflective in green, and basically a complete mirror in red.
Exposures were red 9.3" which came out about a stop thin, green 72", blue 25.3"

>>4450830
You can just say you were going for a Annie Leibovitz style portrait.

And this one turned out great using my new Schneider SA 90mm f/8 lens at f/9.5

>>4450830
How would I go about making a pinhole camera for a specific film size?

>>4450927
Here's my spreadsheet. Go nuts
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18csCAPFlfHY4ik78rnHj2pgP_5Pz-2llRzDH8rZ9NUA/edit?usp=sharing

>>4450952
Looks like it would be pretty useful after I learn about it more. Thanks. I just asked chatgpt to tell me the answers.

>>4450927
Duck for pinhole calculator. Large format and s the usual but even aps-c is possible. Wide angle gives sharper result.

(Old least failed snap with zone plate on 135 film.).

>>4449625
idk about the others but for f mount theres lomo, voigtlander, meyer optik gorlitz, kipon, the ten cheapo chinese manufacturers.. the list goes on
>>4449982
i don't know many photobooks but i have Stranger Passing by joel sternfeld. it's great if you like street portraits

>>4450996
I want to use 11x14 litho film!

>>4449719
it should be 400 per exposure to equal 200 though, right? otherwise you would overexpose both exposures by one full stop

>>4451001
Yeah you're right. I went out shooting yesterday and luckily noticed m mistake after the first shot

some more Rolleinar stuff, I love the way they render
Surprised it's sharp, since it was 1/8s and the poppy was slightly swaying.
and yeah, should have pushed that grass from the frame

This Tessar is sharp as fuck, I don't see a good reason to overpay for a Planar

>>4450999
I've tried litho film and in my experience getting tones (other than black) out of it was rather challenging.
If I remember right my best (rather thin) results came exposure around ISO 1-3 and under developing with 1:200 Rodinal clone.
I think pre-flashing just enough might give better results with less exposure but did not try it then.

>>4451095
Did you try using dektol? You can dev litho film under a safelight and stop it when it looks good.

Finally landed in Peru after what seemed an eternity.
Wish me a lot of fun

Just wanted to make a PSA about shitty fixer.

KODAK RAPID FIXER WITH HARDENER SUCKS. DO NOT USE IT.

>>4451141
Don't airport X-ray machines ruin film, or is that an old rumor and no longer true?
Or did you just tell them to please not put your bag with the film through it?

Finally got my scans back. Been waiting forever for these.
Most of them just have sentimental value, because I shot this role while visiting a dear friend, but some could be nice enough to share
>>4450996
Honestly, I kinda like it
>>4448719
Looks cozy
>>4448125
very nice reflection and good call to shoot it while a person was in the frame. Maybe should have waited just a second so they would be fully visible in the reflection. Then again than they might be less visible because of the dark door behind them

>>4451166
This one's Cliche as fuck, but I couldn't not take it.
To bad we went there in the evening during cloudy weather. I assume it looks better in the sun and when the water is calmer

>>4451165
Depends on the scanner, some are film-safe so their effect is negligible. I play it safe and talk my way out of getting my film scanned, myself.

i just started camera scanning. how 2 keep lint off of negatives??

>>4451180
1. have a proper film holder without any glass bullshit because it's a magnet for dust
2. clean your room bucko
3. use a blower on every frame

>>4451184
i already do 1 and 3 so do you have any specifics on 2? my room isn't especially messy and i already run an air purifier so am i supposed to just dust and vacuum all the tiem?

>>4451188
Run your film through an anti static cloth or brush if you struggle with dust.

>>4451180
You've really just got to scan asap after dev, and keep a tidy setup. Don't let the film touch anything before it scans. I've found a good way to dust is with optic wipes. Isopropyl alcohol doesn't "wet" the gelatin emulsion, so you get a proper clean without softening or swelling the film base and risking more damage.

>>4451194
I should have added a pic related.
Dust always wins, but you can always try harder.

>>4451172
I'm flying to Iceland soonish and am debating on if I want to risk taking my film with me or just be safe and go with digital

Shooting 8x10 film is so often a humbling experience. Unfortunately these did not turn out well, but that is why I am slowly working my way to slide film...

Somehow the light perfectly made his head darker than his body. I am going to try my large softbox for the next practice shots.

Does anyone know what causes these white spots to appear all over the film? I've run into this problem on a few occasions. My film was foma100, 510-pyro, and kodak rapid fixer with hardener.

Please enjoy my failure. This may actually contact print looking okay-ish, but it is not at the level I am willing to accept for slide film.

You can also appreciate just how thin the DoF is when attempting 8x10 portraiture. 300mm lens about 5 feet away from subject at f25.

>>4451165
Some machines are only damaging to rolls that are in the 3000 iso zone. The bag you can see in the picture has lead in it as to prevent things like this from happening. I still ask them not to pass it through the xray machine

Found an old Kodak No. 2 Brownie in my parents attic. Shooting with it was fun, but the bellows were degraded and the scans came back with artifacts. Wanted to go deeper into analog with something that works, and bought a second hand Nikon F70 and 35-105mm lens. Here's some results from my first film roll. I like the lighting in this one, almost like a calling to childhood.

>>4451211
This is probably my favorite. Kind of abstract and industrial.

>>4446953 (OP)
Today I am going to go test out mom's old Sigma SA-1 that's been brought out of storage.
Dad thinks there is some sort of issue with focusing but he cannot remember exactly what.
Seems like it's having a bit of trouble obtaining infinity focus? Possibly?
The lens was already getting stuck between 2.8 and 11, I think I fixed that. I think the detent ball got wedged somewhere. Was also fucking up the light meter as I believe there's an arm that connects from the body the lens uses to tell the camera what aperture it's on so it was probably stuck at f/11 constantly.

Got some 20 year old film I found in a box and a roll of new Fuji 400 I got from Walmart of all places would you believe.

Not much online about these besides that they are basically a clone of the Ricoh XR7 and also sold as the Sears KS-2 and it uses the Pentax K mount. Not particularly valuable. Not sure if mom wants this back if I can verify it's working or not.

If the lens ends up being faulty I'm not putting any more time into it and I'll probably invest in a cheap old Pentax 50 or something to put on it. Not convinced the lens isn't the issue still. Someone's been inside it before me. Shit was all misaligned.

This will also be a test of my local lab. This is my 3rd time shooting film in the last 20 years basically.

Wish me luck anons. See if we get anything good out of it.

>>4451202
>>4451203
There are so many defects in these negs/scans that it's impossible to say what you're even referring to as "white spots", but I think you mean the mottling that is the signature of all low quality film.
It just means the emulsion is thin and uneven, nothing fixes it except for shooting ilford, fuji or kodak.
You could also be referring to the mould/fungal blooms, or the hard water marks, or the handling damage, or the dust.

>>4451226
All that stuff only happens when Im using foma100. I kinda figured that it had something to do with the film... Thankfully it doesn't really show up on contact prints..

I can't really get better scans either because there are no holders for 8x10, so I just have to slap my sheets on the glass. I mean I could stitch something with my 40MP mfdb+ 4 shot multishot, but goddamn that would be a pain in the ass.

Thanks. I was worried that it may be from something I was actually doing wrong aside from the dust. I give all my film a rinse in photoflo, but sometimes it dries too quick I think. The previous 4x5 shots I posted are all pretty good and not too dusty or fucked up.

>>4451226
If you're shooting 8x10 just to scan it you're doing something wrong also. I scanned to get a good look at my technique and ask about those stupid white spots.

>>4451226
Wait actually drum scanning then printing big is also a pretty good use of 8x10 film.

>>4451203
>>4451202
This dog seems to be getting uglier with time. Bring back the husky!

One day I'll learn to quit wasting my time with all these snowflake films and just use gold for everything.

This is fine and all but I feel like it would've been better on gold and I would've saved a few bucks

>>4451254
>>4451255
>Photos of literally nothing
Anon I'm afraid you're wasting your time regardless.

>>4451256
It's true I may as well shoot nothing on gold.

>>4451258
i've said it every now and then in these threads but the final blackpill is that gold is literally good enough for everything and all of this hairsplitting about colour stocks is autistic peenstroking. glad to see someone else have the veil lifted.

>>4451274
I said this back when Pro Image was brought to N. America at $18 for a 5 pack of 36exp rolls. Everyone was too busy jerking to their photos of trashcans on $10/roll Portra tho

>>4451290
pro image is a great film

Putting the rangefinder down for a bit and going full Robert Frank mode for a bit. I love Stylus Epics so much.

konica t3
80-200mm f4
portra 400

unsure if lack of contrast on the horizon is some kind of lens flaring or just atmospheric haze

>>4451294
40mm 1.8 pancake

>>4451294
when i was last in LA all my photos were hazy too and i was using modern coated RF glass. I think that's just LA. sure it's no longer covered in smog like it used to be in the 90s but there's still somethin.

>>4451294
>>4451297
LA is a polluted shithole. This isn't surprising

>>4451224
I’ve wondered what one of their modern SA mount Art lenses would look like on film.

>>4451209
>>4451210
>>4451211
>>4451213
Really nice work, these are beautiful. I think my favorite is >>4451209 but they are all nice.

>>4451099
Litho film is designed for opaque black and clear transparent result.
I only tried what I had on hand: generic print dev, D-76 and Rodinal clone. Normal dilutions resulted black and clean with no tones. So I tried increasingly diluted Rodinal until I got thin result with at least some tones on it.
If you want cheap AND tones, I'd suggest trying paper negatives.
(Multigrade RC paper negative, 18x24cm(?), a piece of yellow gel on pinhole to make it soft grade, about 7min exposure if I remember right.
Fow. more than 110 degrees diagonal I guess...The scan is from 2014)

>>4451330
Okay, so I did some research. Litho film has a development accelerator in the emulsion. It does something called infectious development. That's why it is hard to develop with continuous tones even in very dilute developers. A 3-5 minute presoak in 5% anhydrous sodium sulfite solution before developing in standard dilution film developer apparently allows for continuous tones and normal development times!

I ordered a 600 um precision pinhole to build a pinhole camera for a 28mm equivalent focal length on 11x14. I will definitely be posting results when I get some.

>>4451330
Paper negatives are quite fun. I've messed around with them a tiny bit. Usually to check my work. I've seen some negative enlargement processes that use paper to contact print a negstive onto litho film.

>>4451290
I'd take gold over proimage any day. There was a short time where proimage was cheaper but now it's more. Proimage has a sort of brown cast for me, while gold is more neutral and colorful.
It seems like with 50d and also aerocolor there is a strong red-green contrast but purple/blue/yellow/orange just sorta sit on the sidelines.

>>4451206
Interesting. I suppose there's no harm taking an empty film with me and asking them if it's cool to not have it go through the scanner

>>4451390
Try it, they are surprisingly cooperative

>>4451391
Yeah, all the interactions I've had with airport security so far were super nice.

>>4451343
Interesting. looks like Hypo Clear would do the job (mostly sodium sulfite, + some bisulfite, neutral buffer and edta). If I ever dust off my film stuff and do litho again I'll try that.

(4x5, litho, IF I remember right)

fucked up my 2nd roll of home-developed color film somewhat
there was a sticky residue on the last 12 frames, I think I did not properly do one of the wash phases
but it's okay because it kinda looks cool
was yellow and gooey and the emulsion also ripped in some spots
I did wash them again with soapy water but it didn't help much
I put them in separate plastic bags for storage because I couldn't even slide them in the print files
on the flip side, this was my first roll shot with a rangefinder with 0 empty exposures because I remembered to take off the lens cap every time

>>4451577
Nice photo nontheless

>>4451329
Appreciated.
Was very happy to see the second-hand equipment working without problems.

Very cool article about an interesting way to scan film.

https://petapixel.com/2025/07/23/new-multispectral-film-scanner-is-a-breakthrough-for-analog-photography/

>>4451762
>what's the difference between this and a dedicated film scanner
>it's not old and out of production
fair point but I'll stick with my CS9000 for now
when it bites the dust I'll yank the lens and use it with a K3 monochrome
>multispectral film scanner
also disappointing because I thought it meant "multi" as in "more than RGB+I" which would definitely be cool
you'd need to use broadband white light + filters to get a broader spectrum coverage though, LEDs tend to be fairly narrow-band

How expensive are a halfway decent printer and scanner?
It's not urgent but I think I would like to eventually future proof myself against my local photo lab closing down. The owner is fast approaching retirement and I don't know if anyone is going to take over his business after that.

I like the new phoenix 2, though the halations are jarring. It looks good on skin.
>>4451794
>you'd need to use broadband white light + filters to get a broader spectrum coverage though, LEDs tend to be fairly narrow-band
The narrow band makes them ideal, you just need multiple different ones. It's like a light with a filter already one it, and cheaper.
The idea is kind of pointless though, as film usually only has 3 color layers. Maybe for superia with 4 color layers you could get a benefit from an extra color but idk if it actually uses a different dye.

I’m a dirty little gear whore someone please spank me

>>4451848
The point was to not have bayer getting in the way.

How about some ilford hp5+ @800?

Behold the sweet fruits of my labor. Lovely little plat/palladium prints that will last multiple lifetimes.

>>4452059
nice practice photos. when do you upgrade to people and landscapes?

>>4452059
Interesting how did you make that, aren't plat group elements dangerous to work with?

>>4452059
they can call you whatever names they want but this is cool as shit

>>4452076
It's ziatype. It's a pretty straightforward version of plat/palladium printing that controls contrast chemically rather than through humidity and it is also a print out process so you can check on your development to get it where you want. Bostick and sullivan sell the kits.

You use droppers with various chemicals to blend an emulsion drop wise and in mine I like to add a small percentage of platinum salt because it gives it a really beautiful tone and contrast imo.

As for the dangers I wear gloves and try my best not to use the dichromate salt because it's a carcinogen. You can use gold chloride to increase contrast instead and it works just fine. I don't think the other salts are all that bad really and you only use very small quantities. 4x5 uses 12 drops, 8x10 uses 40 drops.

>>4452077
>>4452076
These are the guidelines in the instructions for mixing emulsion. You can get cool, neutral, warm tones, and even do split toning. It's really fun and I would say it is advanced beginner to intermediate level. Wetplate and albumen are way more difficult. The process allows for a pretty wide contrast margin for your negatives unlike albumen.

>>4452078
Ok i didn't know if you were doing real mad chemist stuff with significant vapors or not
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinosis

>>4452080
That's really cool. I'm going to try and search some samples of those various emulsions. The descriptions have me curious.

>>4452081
Daguerrotype uses mercury vapor. Haven't heard of other processes that do crazy shit like that. I think photo gravure has some crazy shit as well, but I don't have the space or insanity to get into that.

I may try gum printing for my next alt process kit.

>>4452084
Top left us 50/50 FAO, LiPd
Right is 12 FAO, 10 LiPD, 2 Gold chloride
Bottom is 6 FAO, 4 LiPD, 2 platinum salt

Top left is what a print dried in lower humidity looks like. The more you dry the warmer the tone.

>>4451848
that's not quite how LEDs work
the RGB that humans can detect is fairly broadband, so we'll look at two things and call them "red" but they may not have much spectral overlap
so an RGB LED scanner might not reproduce a specific color film all that well
you'd think you could just select LEDs that match the peaks of the film dye's curves, but a) you'd probably want CMY instead of RGB and b) LEDs only come in a handful of specific wavelengths, based on their construction
using filters in front of a broadband white light gives you much more flexibility in selecting peaks, because you're not limited to materials you can construct an LED from
>>4451978
yeah but like I said definitely not something novel
still pretty cool though

>>4452105
>a) you'd probably want CMY instead of RGB
scratch that part I'm dumb

>>4452087
>he printed the ugly one
lawd

>>4452105
>the RGB that humans can detect is fairly broadband, so we'll look at two things and call them "red" but they may not have much spectral overlap
Human perception has almost nothing to do with digitizing film. Displaying it sure, but digitizing is a simple matter of counting molecules of dye per unit area. There are 3 different dyes, so you get 3 different counts.
>LEDs only come in a handful of specific wavelengths, based on their construction
LEDs are available in a staggering variety of wavelengths, in reels of a thousand or more for pennies apiece. It would absolutely be possible to make a light source with LEDs every 10-20nm and get 40+ channels of color. But there are just 3 dyes so most of those would be redundant.

>>4452087
>right 12 FAO, 10 LiPD, 2 gold
That one looks really nice

>>4452148
A little too high contrast for that negative, but yeah the split tone purple is a pretty neat look. You can get some really nice blues as well.

>>4452122
Twice, actually. I learned from it, so it was worth it in my books. I think it's pretty cute and goofy also. I framed this one too. I know the mat is dirty. I was doing a test run with an old cutout to see if my cutter could cut one this small. I need to order some 5x7 mats.

I want to have maybe 9 or 12 framed 4x5 studio dog portrait prints to hang somewhere. It will be a neat little series to have. :D Our imperfections are something that can be embraced and enjoyed, ya'know?

Anyone use flash?

Looking for recommendations for my M3. Never shot flash before.

>>4452142
>Human perception has almost nothing to do with digitizing film
that wasn't my point, I was trying to say that just saying "red LED" isn't enough to describe what you need for taking a dye density measurement
>But there are just 3 dyes
for any given film sure, but different films use different dyes right?
your chosen set of LEDs isn't going to line up with the transmittance curves of the dyes for every color film out there, which means you need adjustment profiles (if you care that much)
but that's totally sufficient for the vast majority of people's film digitization purposes, it's what almost every scanning setup does, but that's why I'm just a little disappointed that the "multispectral film scanner" doesn't actually provide anything new in that regard
did not know so many wavelengths of LEDs were available, guess my knowledge is a couple decade out of date
where did you get that list & prices

Ladies and gentlemen... Please behold the corniest dog picture ever posted to 4channel. The rodenstock imagon is such a godly lens.

I showed this pic to the gf and she said waaaaaaait I want one. Lool

>>4452222
Such a pleasing softness/glow.

>>4452223
These three are my favorite from the six I took tonight.
Adding a gridded strobe to light up the backdrop makes such a big difference.

>>4452223
What a heavenly image.

>>4452224
Erm…how do you avoid releasing your exif data on this board? I can haz answer?

>>4452225
Right? I had to try out the hair light+ imagon combo.
I think everyone should own an imagon. They are so amazing. They even have them adapted for slrs!

>>4452227
There is no more exif? You just remove everything when you're exporting your jpgs. Theres an option in lightroom.

>>4452229
O! Um, crushed blacks lel.

>>4452227
They removed exif data for all boards except /p/ years ago and you couldn't post photos with exif here unless you first removed location data (if any was present) because the mod team are technologically inept and unable to automate it. Now it's gone here since the hack because they probably think including exif is another attack vector (technologically inept, as I said.)
I'm phonefagging right now but you can strip exif by right clicking and going through properties in windows, or do it in whatever you use to edit photos normally.

>>4452222
>and she said
I mean it shouldn't surprise anyone at this point that you talk to the dog as well...

>>4452166
My recommendation is to use literally any other camera with a hotshoe or even a regular pc sync port.
Alternatively, buy the dumb adapter or cable for leica-to-rest of world, and then use fully manual flash calculations with a max shutter of 1/50 and zone focus in the dark.

Some cinestill 400 tomfoolery in japan

>>4452175
>different films use different dyes right?
That might be true, I'm not sure. I think most of the difference between films is in the sensitivity of the silver and the filters between layers but there might be some variation in the dyes.
>I'm just a little disappointed that the "multispectral film scanner" doesn't actually provide anything new in that regard
The article claims he had previously built a true multispectral camera but gave up on it. It also describes it as "RRGBB" which I'm not sure if that means there are two different R and G frequencies or what.
>>He says he created a film scanner with 80 different spectral bands, but “a lot of them, you don’t need.”
>where did you get that list & prices
That's from mouser. Of course some are more expensive than others and some are weird packages. I am planning out a backlight based off https://github.com/jackw01/scanlight but bigger for medium format on a flatbed. His recommendation is
>the ideal wavelengths are >650nm for red, 520-550nm for green, and <450nm for blue
so I have picked out a 657nm, 528nm and 449nm LED which are about $1 a piece. I figure I will need about 10 each to cover the area, and lots of diffusion. Smaller LEDs and more of them would be cheaper and better, but I'm hand soldering so I picked big ones.

What is a good starting scanner? The Kodak slide n scan seems to be an alright balance of cost and quality.

>>4452280
>but “a lot of them, you don’t need
film CMY dyes cover full visible spectrum
if you scan only part ot that spectrum you will get partial spectrum

>>4452357
>The Kodak slide n scan
its just a rebranded chink shit scanner. Just use your digital camera and some 3d printed supports

Is scanning a whole hog in itself? Im thinking of buying a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE

It will save me a lot on scanning costs. Is it an art form in and of itself or is it scan and forget?

>>4452397
Scanning is gay

>>4452402
Yes but is it a worthwhile gay

>>4452420
Depends what your end goal is. What is your end goal?

>>4452421
Minimize costs without sacrificing quality

>>4452424
No I mean what is your end goal with the scans. Do you just post them on instagram or /p/? Do you intend to make digital prints, etc.

>>4452426
To see my film shots, share to my friends /senpai, post on my private IG, have a digital copy/archive

Not trying to win a Pulitzer but I dont want to be a total pleb and sac quality. I just wanna know if it's within reasonable means to achieve or surpass lab quality scans. If it's worth the time to learn or develop a workflow vs paying my local hipster to do it

>>4452429
I'd just get a decent digital camera rig for speed and efficiency probably. I think it's good enough compared to dedicated scanners and way way way faster. Camera scanner is best for 35mm and 120.

Do you have a digicam and macro lens?

>>4452434
I do have access to a DSLR and a macro lens. But from pic related, Im leaning towrds the dedicated scanner more

In terms of post scan processing, it's implying that camera scans would requrijmore work, and dust may be an issue vs IR scanners.

>>4452447
You could always rig something up really quick to get a feel for camera scanning and the PP involved.

>>4452447
I own and use both, both will require some post processing to get a look you want scanner or camera. Personally I’d go with the camera route if you have it just because it’s quicker. Can shoot a whole roll in like 5 minutes maybe faster

>>4452447
if you already have the macro lens and dslr save the money imo

Finally purchased everything that I need to scan at home. Someone I know said they'd be able to make me a copy stand with the stuff they have lying around in their shop, so I'm interested to see how it turns out.

The 50 degree beauty dish + bounce light + backdrop light is such a nice lighting setup for dog. I love the stronger contrast it produces, and the subtle gradient on the backdrop adds a really pretty element and good subject seperation from the background.

The apo lanthar I used for these produced amazing looking contact prints. 105mm is a bit too wide. I need the 150mm or 300mm now lol.

>>4452549
Pic of your station, please

>haven't shot in a while
>last time I bought film was 20 months ago
>two 3x36exp packs of ultramax for 75€ shipped
>still have one roll left and vacations are approaching
>check film prices
>they've gone up again
Still cheaper than a gorillion dollar mirrorless and related glass, but still, price has gone up 5000% in 15 years it's ridiculous.

>>4452397
I have that scanner except without the SE. Dunno what the SE means. I ended up buying vuescan because I couldn't get the free shit to work.
It's great. Sure it takes a few seconds per image but I just spend that time sorting the images, editing, uploading, shitposting etc. It's faster than DSLR scanning because I don't have to spend an hour releveling and adjusting everything after my cat walked over it.

>>4452558
My god man have some discretion with your shutter presses
>clipped ear
>tilted, wrinkled backdrop
>way off to the side borderline clipped
>way off to the side wrinkled backdrop basically a phone photo on 8x10 and then again
It is ok to just not press the button, straighten out the backing, and reposition your dog.

>>4452572
shop has gold 120 on sale for 60/5pk. canada prices, this is actually a very good deal in recent time but i cant bring myself to pull the trigger, just cause its a good price recently doesn't mean it isn't robbery still. ffs

>>4452644
>says to have discretion
>makes a really stupid post

Those are all 4x5 shots first off, and the framing is fine on most of them. Clipped ear doesn't take anything away from that shot and I actually dont mind how it is balanced like that. Just because a shot breaks the "rules" does not make it bad.

The thing that you fail to understand is that you can't make a dog stay perfectly still. You frame it up as best you can, move quickly to set your camera, and hope he stayed in the same spot. Hopefully You know that you cant see the ground glass/framing after you put your film holder in, right?
Using 3 strobes, 4x5 film, and a hand painted backdrop to take pictures of your dog is about as far from a phone snapshit as you can get.

Last thing I will mention is that my current project is not about perfection from the start. It's about progress, and learning something new. I have taken 11 film pictures of dog in studio.
Every time I have a studio session I think of a few ways to improve what I'm doing after printing all the images from the previous session.
Day one was the starting point, day two was to improve the lighting and pose, day three will be to fix the backdrop, improve framing, work on new poses. After I have maybe 20-30 pictures I will choose pictures from each day then frame and hang in a 3x3 or 3x4 grid in order. It's going to be really cool.

>>4452685
Telling you how to improve is like trying to help ken rockwell with editing

>>4452705
You are simply nitpicking the absolute lowest hanging fruit and being stupid. Not helpful in the slightest.

>>4452709
>fuck up basics
>complain when its pointed out

>>4452265
>>4452266
>>4452267
>>4452268

They look cool!

>>4452749
I am unconcerned with the wrinkles in my tarp at the moment, obviously. It makes a 2% difference. No one is going woooow that tarp is so clean and unwrinkled! They're focusing on the subject and the lighting. My studio is on carpet, so I need to tape it down and probably put something under the floor to keep it from sagging if I wanted to appease the autistics. Not letting that stop me from practicing whats important.
I am focusing on more important things like lighting, getting consistently in focus shots, composition, and training my dog. 11 shots on film so far.
A couple shots could have been framed better yeah, obviously, but they are not far off all things considered.
Regardless, I know you arent here to help me. You are here to nitpick low hanging fruit and hilariously mistake 4x5 contact prints for 8x10.

>>4451165
>>4451206
All scanners cause some damage to film, no matter the ISO or type of scanner. This is just how film works, exposure is exposure.

X-rays are less harmful because the exposure is lesser, which is why they're often considered "film safe" up to 1600 ISO. This is actually untrue, you will see the impact at around 800 ISO. For 200 and 400 ISO I haven't had any issues with single passes from X-ray scanners.

CT scanners are for all intents and purposes just X-ray scanners that rotate, to create a 3D projection. This means more exposure which means even lower ISO film will be damaged.

The best video on the topic is on youtube from Lina Bessonova, which explains the damage you may expect, how to identify different scanners and potential defense methods.

Picture is Gold 200 run through the X-ray machine at Vienna airport.

Who here gets prints?

>>4452778
Did you take this with your film phone, muddafucka? That skull is awfully high in the frame and his DANG cranium is clipped and cropped.

>>4452777
I got prints with my last roll of gold, just 4x6s nothing special, but felt extremely comfy to look through them. very nostalgic. I still digitized the negs but it's not the same. prints truly are the missing step in all of this.

>>4452777
I scan everything and then order big prints of the good ones. Or print in the darkroom for b&w.

>>4452565
I'm still waiting on everything to arrive, but I'll try to remember to post everything once it shows up.
I'm basically just doing the 1 inch pipe and super clamp setup.

Found myself passing the airport and decided to pull into the local sporting spot to take some shots. Catch is I only have my pentax17 with me lel. I expect nothing but mite b fun. Joys of having an urban airport. Anyone else snapping planes on film? Curious to see results

I just loaded up 30 rolls of XX.

What should I take pictures of?

>>4452956
Ur dik

>>4452956
Dogs
Eggs
Goat placenta

>>4452958
You wish! Sadly it is too big for 35mm film.

>>4452966
Really great ideas that only truly excellent photographers photograph, but I was thinking baby pigs, ackshully. 17 pigs were birthed last week by 3 pigs. They are absolutely thriving.
Ill take the ol' M3 out for a spin. It has been too long, really.

>>4452966
Well I took pictures of wood and leaves, building corners, goats, baby goats, and pigs. I hope you will like a couple of the shots.

>>4453040
>>4453040
i did the same today lel, plus the planes >>4452942, i had 72 images to fill up (it's a lot when you don't have a plan!). If i get one or two good shots honestly it's a good roll lmao, just got the chemistry warming up out the fridge. starting to grow to like the p17 though i still don't think its worth the cost. and i still dont understand/accept pentax's reasoning for going with half frame, my minox (picrel) and my xa are just as compact if not smaller, and full frame. i think they literally maybe just forgot how to engineer things small (though the Q wasnt so long ago)

>>4453044
>add prominent design element screws to the front
>not even aligned
fuck me i never even noticed and now i can't unsee it. GG pentax what the fuck lmao.

>>4453044
>and i still dont understand/accept pentax's reasoning for going with half frame
the raising prices of film obvi

I got this big bitch in the mail today.

>>4453184
hey, i saw that on ebay! was tempted but found literally no info about it. you know how to shoot it?

>>4453184
good luck fren

>>4453186
>>4453191
I loaded up a canister. Did some bracketed shots at various ISO then did stand dev in rodinal. I got this result! I was having extreme difficulty loading the polyester backed film onto the spool for some reason so I fucked it incredibly badly, but still. Very promising results!

Decent density at 50 and 100 iso! I'm going to try and load up something like 100 feet of this film into my bulk loader tonight and dial in dev times with a better developer tommorow.

I think this was an incredible score for 450ish bucks. The guy probably has more, so keep an eye out on ebay if you want 1.5 dollar rolls of film.

>>4453196
damn, not bad if it reliably shoots 50-100. steal. and it's a clear base?

>>4453199
Yep. Those top three shots are a ±1 stop bracketed shot at 100 iso I believe.

The film is quite weird. Undeveloped it has a blue emulsion and is like two or three times as translucent as normal films. I was so worried it was going to be like a litho film with only blacks and whites.

>>4453184
https://youtu.be/3pgvquJ2ghU?t=4697

>>4453184
What are the chances of customs destroying that with X-rays or other means if it gets shipped internationally? Australia btw where customs are known to do shit like drilling holes through engine pistons to make sure nothing is inside.

Film has successfully been transferred from mother roll to bulk load roll. Very scarey working with thst giant roll.

It took a long time, but went pretty smoothly. If you have a darkroom to work in you can totally handle one of these big rolls with no specialized equipment. A jig would make it go faster, but not necessary.

>>4453226
Basically me.

>>4453234
You're asking the wrong person about that.

>>4453234
Melbourne airport are cunts, its a coin flip if they feel like doing a hand check.
I got 20 rolls hand checked from Darwin airport, old fuji 400, bless them.
Ideally you want the film in a clear bag, out of the canisters, so they can see it without opening each one.

If you import something from overseas, very good change its getting x-rayed, got a knife seized from china the other year.
Also had the feds open a letter from the US (stickers from /o/osg/)

Its not the end of the world to get a xray or two (120 gets hit harder), try to avoid it for commercial work, but if its no film or xray, ill cry a little and put it though. If you do go through a airport, try and get the line with the smaller box X-Ray scanners, the massive bubble CT scanners (smiths detection) fuck it more.

Snapshit time. XX@200 devved in 510-pyro. I just felt like wandering around with my M3 and 35mm summaron. Been a long while since I have shot anything other than sheet film. Was nice.

>>4453044
Did you get your pics scanned?

>>4453241
Pigs.

My scanner has been clipping highlights like crazy. My suspicion is that the stain from the pyro developer has something to do with. In any case these will print fine through an enlarger.

>>4453239
I was more wondering about importing 100' rolls in tins through normal freight. I know not everything gets x-ray that way but if monke sees a metal tin, it turns up the rays to look harder perhaps. Or you know, open it up for a look-see. Just wondering if anyone has had that happen because I'd like to start bulk rolling but anything cheap is overseas.

>>4453247
Fin. Thank you for viewing my snaps.

>>4453246
Good chance they won't open it up unless it doesn't look like film, Never heard of them opening film up, and if they do it will break the seal so you will know about it, they also tell you it was searched.

I still have a couple of 100ft rolls of HP5 I need to load up.... one day

>>4453241
lol sorry to disappoint bro I got home yesterday and forgot about developing the roll and played osrs instead. But I’ve got it in the tank already this morning, just waiting for the developer to cool. Trying something new called “classic mq b/w” developer from flicfilm, but it required boiling water to dissolve. Hope it’s decent, I didn’t want to run half frame 400 through rodinal again lol. Too crunchy.

>>4452280
>https://github.com/jackw01/scanlight
oh, that project
it bugs me that he acts like everyone's film scans are bad because of their light source, when it's probably mainly because they don't know how to invert properly
then he dismisses detailing the inversion process at all because "lol no one is interested in accurate colors just aesthetics" then why the fuck are you making this project dipshit

>>4453297
typical STEM sperg.

>>4453297
bro, there is no detailed inversion process
if you have a RGB backlight you just adjust the white balance from the film base, invert the curves and set the black and white points. That's it. And you don't have to pay for Negative Fag Pro.
I've build myself that light and it works great, had no problems with inverting.

Bought a second hand Sigma AF Zoom 75-200mm/3.8 MC for 40 bucks for my Nikon F70 (N70), seemed like a good deal as most reviews describes it as basic but good for that price range. My experience with it so far:
>AF is slow and hunts in bright scenes
>AF will only try to focus if subject is zoomed out, I have to zoom in and refocus incrementally
>Focus indicator in viewfinder is always off
>It only gets the right focus in P mode, not A or S
I have only used a manual lens before, and thought this would help with timing critical shots, but I get focus and exposure right faster manually. One thing I noticed is that the aperture reading changes sporadically, and so does the light meter when in manual mode, almost like it can't decide what the setting is. The contacts look fine, could there be something with the CPU? The nikon reads exposure correctly with all-manual lenses. Took the lens out for a test run this weekend, worried all the shots are exposed wrong.

>>4453297
A lot of film scans are bad. Most of the "inversion process" is just trying to compensate for the shit scan.

>>4453300
I'm glad you get results you like

>>4453241
>>4453268
well, finally got them in. fuckin a full roll at half frame is twice as much scanning, culling, and cropping lol. as expected the spotting with the p17 was mostly faff, but i did get a neat one or two. iso400 still too chunky imo but i think this "MQ" developer did better than rodinal would have. not surre what classic soup it's meant to be copying but its not bad.

>>4453538
lonely bro out there contemplating life to the roar of jet engines. shoulda chatted him up but he was out in the sun and i was in the shade lol.

>>4453541
despite being kind of a "wtf were they thinking" kind of camera, i actually kinda like it ngl. half frame is still a shit format as can be seen but we do this for fun, right? the lens is actually capable of some great quality (not necessarily picrel but just in general). tempted to waste some colour film in it.
thanks for reading my blog.

>>4453546
the planes come in low enough that even for the p17's lens they can be pretty big in frame. not a great shot but you can read the registration # off this. spotting's a great time.

>>4453538
Nice! 36 shots compared to 1 or 6 sheets was a lot for me haha. The lens has a nice modern rendering. Kind of cool with the low res film.

Im doing tests on my mystery film with 510 pyro now. I need to think of a name for the film... Something with dog and maybe hair in it. Lol

>>4453562
yes, the lens is actually really quite nice, guess it would have to be to get the moust out of half frame haha. too bad i didn't really have a plan or idea for this roll it was purely snapshitting outside of the planes.
look forward to seeing what you end up with with that mystery fuji.
>Something with dog and maybe hair in it. Lol
Something hoitytoity like "Canem 100" (latin for dog lel). been meaning to snag a pyro developer, see a few different pre-mixes sold on ebay. worth if i only do 35mm/120 ya think? I do have sheets of 4x5 in the fridge but these days i just cba...

>>4453568
510 and HD are both excellent developers. I prefer HD, but theyre both good. 510 is a glycol solution, so it's a little annoying to work with compared to lower viscosity developers, but a syringe makes it easy enough.
I've been wanting someone on here to give them a shot. I think it would be pretty great for half frame because it has real high accutance unlike rodinal, and great sharpness. Theres a lot you can do with pyro devs to tune the look of your negative. Look up two bath pyrocat HD development if you want to see something really interesting! It's a "silver-bullet" type development method if you are scanning your film.

The stain is really nice for printing as well, but I think it may be blocking up my highlights. I need to do some testing. I think scanning in full color may fix it.

>>4453568
I asked chatgpt for some suggestions. I think canifine HC sounds pretty cool.

Furvia, doggochrome, and barkopan were also pretty good lol

Thanks to Ursula kodak film will soon become cheaper in EU. What a great times

Question for those who dabble with the printing process: how long do chemicals last? Is color much more difficult than black and white? I found a full darkroom kit for sale at a reasonable price, including what I assume are color correction filters for the enlarger (the ad reads "cibachrome print system") and I'm very tempted. I think it would be cool to learn how to dev and print my own photos, but I shoot so little it might not make much sense. I don't want to have to throw away expensive chemicals before they're properly exhausted.

Canifine HC shot at 50 iso. 510 pyro @ 1+200 for 13 minutes. Thin. I am going to try 16 minutes next with same dilution.

The polyester base film really does not like going onto the spools nicely. That's where all the shit and scratches is coming from. Next roll I am going to be especially carefully woth loading so I can get some better negatives. Also fuck my scanner. I am going to see if 5dm3 scanning will be better.

>>4453624
might need to use steel reels for this kind of film? if paterson style is mangling it.

>>4453626
That's what I was thinking. I don't have any. Still working through some tests, so it isn't a huge deal. Still kinda like that pig pic, so no damage would be better..

18 minutes 1+200 510 pyro 50 iso

The film definitely has a look to it! I am going to make a couple prints and see how it does.

>>4453713
Theyre so cute. :D

>>4453714
Man my scanner freaking sucks.

Alright boys and girls. I think I got the solution for canifine HC. 510 pyro diluted to 1+500 semi stand development for 50 minutes! I HATE stand development, so I may look into low contrast developers. I'm pretty happy with what I've got out of this for scanning at least...

>>4453741
I found out that all this mottled dust is from my film holders. Sorry about it.

Now I will dump some cool macro shots I took. I think the film works pretty well with these pictures.

All done.
Does anyone have thoughts on the film? I think it's pretty sweet, crazy fine grain, and a cool look, but it's a little too high contrast for being a great everyday sorta film. Im a little worried about it being difficult to print as well.

new thread

>>4453764

So its some kind of microfilm or duplicating film then seems like? Kodak has a few of those “inter positive” or whatever, super slow like single digit iso films that are interesting. But your results look plenty usable. For the price can’t say it’s too bad.

>>4453766
I asked chatgpt and it was saying it could be for adding text and cues to movie films, which makes sense.
Doesn't look like my 5dm3 or scanner gets even remotely close to resolving any grain. I may use my view camera with macro lens adapted to my 5dm3 to take some 2x or 4x shots to see what I could get from it. Might be kinda interesting.

I have this developer called spur hrx that can be used to develop copex rapid with normal contrast while retaining the super fine grain. I will try it out tommorow using a similar recipe to the copex.

I've got plenty to experiment with lol.

>>4453766
It has been done. I used bellows to get big magnification to take this picture directly off this picture >>4453741 I took two with them sitting there like that.

Film is crazy. I think there's still more if my camera + lens was better. Tommorow I will try with my other macro lens that is designed for 10x magnification. I know I can get a better result than this.

>>4452884
nah

>>4453983
that's the worst grain I've ever seen in my life
could be a vibe tho

>>4453988
it's because I used dehaze

>>4453995
Bro that tower is so far left!

Here's a few from my last roll

>>4454511
>>4454513
You may not like it, but this is what peak Norwegian architecture looks like.

>>4454553
At least its recognisable