Thread 4460704

Buffalo Edition

Please post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.
old thread: >>4457140

Thread Question: How important is the use of a darkroom to your film photography?

>>4460704 (OP)
Very cool shot. Would look really awesome printed very big. You should do it.

Darkroom is essential for my photography. I need it to make prints and change/load film.

>>4460704 (OP)
I load my sheet film in my darkroom. I have never used a cuck bag. It's the primary use of it, but I also do enlargements occasionally. I'd rate it as medium-high importance

What meter should I get to strap to my Mamiya RB67? I've read mixed things about the one from TTartisan, but it looks neat.

>>4461208
I use some free app on my phone

Any tips as to how I can stop having so many blurry photos? Here's my usual gear and approach:
>Half Frame Kodak
>Usually shoot Kodak ISO 400 or Fuji 200
>Walk around the street and try to capture spur of the moment shots
Do I just have a shaky hand? I really don't want to give up the half-frame because film is so expensive and getting ~80 shots is better than 36.

>>4460704 (OP)
Just as important as Lightroom (or photo editing software of your choice.)

>>4459340
devved scanned posted here >>4461271
picrel wb-adjusted version of one of the shots

>>4461250
>Do I just have a shaky hand?
yeah.
And also doesn't that shit just have one speed or something? maybe invest in another half frame camera. PEN F for quality, Chaika for the lulz.

>>4461282
Yes just one speed, it's a simple point and shoot.
>PEN F for quality, Chaika for the lulz
OK, but buying a new camera won't fix my shaky hand.
I guess I'll write in big letters HOLD STILL just below the viewfinder.
>another shaky shot

>>4461287
Sure shaky hands but that piece of shit you camera is not helping you at all bro. I hate to be a you need a better camera but in this case, I think it really applies

>>4461250
>>4461287
hello fellow hollywood bro, I respect you doing street on film but yeah a half frame camera that's locked at a low-ish shutter speed probably will always have some shake if you don't stop. you have the confidence to shoot folks already so a nicer camera will definitely assist in capturing those moments.

Thoughts on this excerpt? Is it just gay and/or retarded?

>Henri Fantin-Latour also believed that his still lifes should not be a mere slavish pictorial copy of objects. There should be an element of human artifice to elevate these ordinary objects from nature to art. Fantin-Latour masterfully arranged his still lifes to play between geometric shapes and organic lines. Fantin-Latour infused his Still Life with three compositional triangles. Two of the triangles are equilateral and the third is right-angled. They add dynamic movement and prevent the composition of Still Life from falling into the stagnant inactivity of so many inferior still lifes.

>>4461294
>>4461300
Thanks for your comments. I bought the camera because:
>New, thus no prior owner gremlins
>Half frame, save money on film
>Cheap, about $50
>Small, fits in my palm easily
I'll shoot steady and try my other cameras.
Pic rel is a hollywood street shot that's not blurry

repost because I forgot to mention, figured out my film holder flatness issue
guess the guy who makes these doesn't shoot a lot of 35mm, because the track was designed for the exact width of the film
the 120 holder on the other hand is about 1mm over-sized on the width
this means the little errors in 3D printing the 35 holder pinches the film and causes it to buckle
I just took an xacto chisel blade and shaved the bumps off, then finished with high-grit sandpaper, no more issues

>>4461304
Very nice shot. How often do you go shooting? Always the boulevard?

>>4461326
I was just in town for a few days to do tourist stuff and to see the 30 seconds to mars show, I'm not a fan but my friend is and truthfully they put on a pretty good show. I'm planning on going back in a few months, maybe I'll make a thread on /p/ before I do.

>>4461303
>it all falls apart when you see that there is a 4th triangle in this still life

I think I may have made the wrong choice picking a 35mm focal length.
I've shot 50mm, 45mm, and even 28mm and loved them all. So I figured 35mm must be fine right?
So I put all my money into an expensive 35mm to be my end-game lens.
Turns out I don't like the way the photos look.
I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't feel right.
Any tips?

>>4461308
what enlarger you use for these prints?

Hi it's me, Jason

God damn these scans are dirty

I replaced the "pad of death" in my dad's old Yashica Electro 35 and shot a few rolls of ultramax 400 on a recent trip to the PNW. I basically shot a whole roll of just blurry shapes beforehand to make sure it works (didn't focus any of the shots as I'm retarded).

I think I'm getting the hang of it and I'm starting to understand the limitations of an older film camera. First time shooting film outside of disposables and a little old point and shoot camera I had when I was a kid.

More electro stuff

Electro again

And again

>>4461463
I like these fishes

bit blurry

First sheet of 8x10 e100vs has been exposed. I made a little still life with the peels of mango, watermelon, and oranges. It is a test shot, but I did put effort into making it a nice test shot. No eggs, but I have an idea for another egg pic that should be awesome. I may have a series going.
It was the first color film I have ever shot in 8x10 and I cannot wait to see how it looks!

Fun little challenge to keep the entire scene within 5 stops of contrast.

>>4461434
>>4461432
These are my faves. The lil lamb really adds a nice vibe to the pic. I hope to find time to take pictures like yours with 8x10 slide film.

>>4461427
>>4461419
Good shots for the shack thread. Very spooky.

>>4461357
Try changing your perspective a little more, and getting closer. Standing up with camera to face can work sometimes, but a more unique perspective will usually be better. Do you have a shot with a 50 or 28 that you think has what's missing from your 35 shots, maybe?

>>4461250
pugs are so fucking funny looking

>>4461523
That's a frenchie. Both a pretty goofy tbqhwy

>>4461521
How would you measure the 5 stops of contrast? That part caught my attention.

>>4461533
Difference in spot meter readings between darkest shadow you want to preserve information in and highest highlight you want to have info in.

>>4461362
>nooo you can't take film photos unless you priiiint

Yep, I'm thinking it's gimmick time.
Fucked up the framing unfortunately; I think red and blue exposures should have been swapped and the green needed to be between the panels and the tree but you get the idea

>>4461594
could be an album cover

>>4461534
Oh lol for whatever reason I was thinking contrast in color or something, like the wavelengths of visible color. I wasn’t thinking about just dynamic range/stops of light lmao that makes way more sense. It’s just metering light to make sure you have 5 EVs worth of light range.

>>4461594
Kino

Trying to get the Daido Moriyama look. I have a Canon AE1 with a 50mm lens (I know he used a 28mm mostly, I'll get one eventually). What film would get me closest to his grainy, high-contrast look?

>>4461619
Is this shot on half-frame? What do you use and do you like it?

>>4461669
the shittiest one you can find. Try Shanghai GP3 developed in Rodinal

I am somewhat new to film, and recently came into a Minolta XG-M and some Kodak Max 400 film that expired in 2006. I shot a roll of it and it came out decent (very grainy, but not destroyed), and am going to shoot the other 2 rolls I have. I read that overexposing expired film can compensate for some of its chemical deterioration.

My question is if I should push the film by turning the exposure adjustment on the camera to +1 or +2, or by setting the film speed control on the camera to 200 or 100?

>>4461669
these are my first shots on that Canon AE1, the camera is from my parents who bought it way back in the '80s. I'm shooting Fomapan 200 and I had the roll developed and scanned.

Those horizontal and vertical lines you see everywhere (most clearly on the top left corner), can anybody tell me what those are? Is there a way to fix that? Is it the shutter leaking? Is it the scanning process they did? Is my lens dirty? The lens is the regular Canon 50mm that came with the camera.

>>4461754
>horizontal and vertical lines
you can see them better here on the right. Any thought what this could be?

>>4461756
the film is getting scratched. Might be that you camera has some debris inside, maybe the dude processing it not being careful when loading into the development reel. Or fomapan being thin as shit so easier to scratch

>>4461750
Just change the iso dial.

>>4461757
thank you for the quick reply.
>Might be that you camera has some debris inside
if this were the case, any tips on how to fix it? Maybe I loaded it wrong? It's my first time working with film so I may be a bit clumsy

>>4461762
I mean, you can just inspect that with your eyes. Get a blower and a set of some brushes to clean it. One of this would be enough, but again it could be also the other two things too.
Have you shoot any other film with it apart of fomapan?

>>4461756
>>4461754
Anyone else think the focal plane looks fucked?

>>4461772
could be the scan or anon not knowing how to focus

>>4461776
True. Bottom one almost looks like tilt shift and the top the bricks looks weirdly sharper than everything else

>>4461765
I haven't shot anything else with it, this is my first roll of film.

>>4461772
>>4461776
I probably don't know how to focus, true, still learning this shit. What do you mean exactly the focal plane is fucked?

>>4461789
>the focal plane
It would mean the film isn't lying flat and was bulging somewhere in front of the shutter. Either loaded incorrectly or something up with the film pressure plate (which could also potentially scratch film)

>>4461793
yeah, I think I'm loading it incorrectly, but if the film is a bit loose and bulging in front of the shutter, wouldn't that be fixed after the first shot, when I wind up the film for the next shot?

I think this is it. I'll try to load the next one better.

Guys I’m little bit worried about Kodak existence
Things doesn’t looks good

>>4461878
Fake news

Looking for some input

Just starting out with film, pictures are looking super soft like this. Is this an issue with focusing, light metering, developing, scanning, or just to be expected with older lenses?

>>4461898
:^)

>>4461899
>>4461898
One more example

>>4461899
looks about right for gold or whatever, what did you expect?

>>4461898
This is reasonably sharp, nothing wrong with it. It's film, not digital. What camera/lens/film stock were you using? What settings, if you recall?

>>4461909
Less soft, presumably.
>>4461913
Leica M3, 35mm summicron f2 v1, fujifilm 200, 1/250, f16 for the dock photo. Portra 400, 1/250, f8 for the flower.


I'll probably pick up a modern 50mm to try out and compare. Might just be that I don't like old glass as much as I was expecting.

>>4461688
>Is this shot on half-frame?
Yes
>What do you use and do you like it?
Kodak Ektar h35, brand new it's about $50. I like that it's new, I've had bad luck and 'gremlins' with my previous Olympus film camera and decided that i'd rather have something new even if it's not top quality. I also like that I get about ~75 exposures from a roll of 36, and that it's nearly small enough to fit in my palm.
For better or worse, it's just a point and shoot so I don't waste time considering settings or modes. I just think about the sunlight and shadows and focus on capturing good moments as I see them.

melbourne f1 snapshits
fuji superia 400
m6, voigtlander 35mm

>>4461931
There's definitely some NR from the scanner so it could be a little sharper but if you wanted sharp you should've used 6x9 at f/22 or skip right to large format. Also that lens is 50 years old it's not gonna be tack sharp especially if you're gonna bokeh the fuck out of everything.

>>4461688
>>4461899
hello local anon(s)
>>4461750
for metering in older cameras like that both controls essentially do the same thing, so it's a matter of how convenient each control is for adjustment based on how the designers envisioned it to be used
film speed is typically intentionally more difficult to adjust because you're supposed to set it once for a roll, whereas exposure adjustment is meant to be done on an up to per-shot basis
tl;dr >>4461761

>>4461816
post pic of the camera open from the back, like this
>>4461878
you talking about this?
https://www.kodak.com/en/company/blog-post/statement-regarding-misleading-media-reports/
>>4462005
looks like you have a light leak bro

>>4462005
Which Voigtlander 35mm are you using? How are you finding it?
Also what lab do you go to

>>4462052
>post pic of the camera open from the back, like this
thanks for the help. I have a new roll of film just in (before realising I might be loading it wrong) so later I'll rewind it, pop it out and try putting it back in. But yeah, I remember putting it in and the film not being super tight in between the two sprockets, so I'll try to get it tighter in next time.

>>4462059
>film not being super tight in between the two sprockets
really the only one that matters is the one closer to the shutter, the friction of the light seal on the canister will take up the slack across the film plane
as long as you insert the leader into the takeup spindle reasonably far, then align the holes with the sprockets on the other spindle, you should be good for winding

>>4462052
>you talking about this?
Yes. When I read company report like this it looks like they are already fucking dead

>>4462061
got it, I'll make sure to check that. Thanks again!

>>4462057
Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 Version II with the lens hood, got a good deal on marketplace.
I'd like to get the summilux, but that will be later down the line.
I don't really shoot 1.4 often, but I guess its nice to have.

irohas photo in the city have done my last few they seem okay, big scans but the quality can be a little off here and there.
ikigai film lab is a little more expensive but I think they do a better job, downside is I don't think you can pickup your scans, they must be posted. (he is a bit of a shitposter on IG stories, I think he has beef with other labs)
vanbar is okay, haven't been since they moved.

(photo is porty 400 @ 400)

>>4462145
I found a good deal on a 15.5" cooke portrait lens to take pics of my dog with. Stay tuned.

>>4462152
The V2 seems pretty good. I had borrowed the V1 off a friend and found edge sharpness to be quite bad as well as the lens being very soft at wide open so I ended up going with the Ultron but seems like the Nokton V2 would've been a safe choice.
>Irohas
Ah, explains the misframing on that first shot then lol.
Yeah Ikigai is an absolute nutter, dude needs a therapist.

>>4462164
I don't really know the difference desu, I just picked this lens because of the speed and size, I also have a 0.95 mft that works alright.
might just be famed that way for the first shot, but you can also see top right they are not scanned straight
ive also had a roll scanned with a red line though the whole lot, still need to check if its the film, doesn't bother me too much


>nutter
facts, but I feel like if i ever shoot weddings I would get him to scan them, sorta thinking about doing it, but for me its all just a hobby, but if I can make some cash on the side and shot my m6 + f5, might be a bit of fun hey.

This shot might of been shot wide open, it would of been better if I got the focus but I was trying to get the shot before she noticed.
(Superia 400)

Just dropped off 5 photos to the State Fair for judging and display.
I wish they had a different category for film and people who print their own photos with enlargers.
I know ill lose because of the digishit fags who edit the fuck out of their photos, but at least i know i did it the old school way.

>>4462171
Based. That's basically the way your photos get judged on /p/. You should be used to it by now..

https://www.ebay.com/itm/257079151531

INCREDIBLY good deal on full sinar kit. BUY IT IF YOU WANT TO START LARGE FORMAT. YOU CAN MAKE LIKE 800 BUCKS SELLING THE PARTS SEPERATELY IF YOU HATE LARGE FORMAT.

>>4461518
another plane shot

>>4462321
Buy an ad

>>4462330
I occasionally share the incredible camera deals I find on fleabay. Obviously isnt my listing. Now go suck an egg, faglord 5000.

>>4462335
> I occasionally share the incredible camera deals I find
Sure you do, out of the goodness of your bleeding heart none the less.

> Obviously isnt my listing
Yeah, obviously

> suck an egg, faglord 5000
That you in the listing pic, egghead?

>>4462355
>faglord 5000 uncontrollably seething and coping after someone tries to help the bros out.

Kek

>>4462335
I'll buy your mfdb (body+back+lens+battery) for $800. No more no less.

>>4462361
>he admits he wants my camera

Bigger kek

>>4462360
>no u
Projection cope
>>4462361
> assumes every anon is the same person
Kek

>>4462368
>t.

>>4462371
> Anon too poor to buy an ad is revealed to be brown
Many such cases

>>4462380
>nophoto newfag projects again

Kek

>>4462384
>shitposter from the projects again

>>4462389
>t.

This just shipped to my house
got it for around $50
what am I in for, first time getting expired films

>>4462424
Get some benzotriazole ordered as well. Lol

>>4462424
for $50 its worth the fun, I don't think you will get anything good out of it, but its a cheap way to learn how to dev at home.
i shoot 1 stop over for every 10 years.

>>4460704 (OP)
Anon, that is a bison.

byedad
>captcha: topkex

>>4462433
after the shoot, the bison asked me to please call him a buffalo if I post him online so im doing it for his sake

https://filmriss.shop/en
anyone heard or used this one? its piss cheap and i believe its some altered kodak vision

>>4462490
BUY AN AD, CHUD.

Posting some recent scans I got back from this summer. Mostly XA2 and some Bessa R2 voight 35 1.4

Joey Chestnut at the Nathans Hot Dog eating competition, walking past some adoring fans

>>4462537
I really like these

I’m drunk please enjoy my photography from the top of the sears tower

Ricoh XR7
Fuji 200

>>4462656
Who won the egg contest?

>>4462659
And fin.

>>4462658
No one voted!! Did you have a favorite?

>>4462662
Uhh I was in and out of that thread so I don’t really remember, if u have them saved I would love to take a gander

>>4462672
Here you are, sir

>>4458499

>>4461326
Beautiful, what was the exposure settings?

>>4461287
I started with a Ektar H35 (curious if you have that or the H35N). Just basic camera holding technique will fix it, elbows to the chest shoot on exhale, look up how to hold a camera and do it more and it will come easy to you. See attached for half frame photo, I like them for parties, bar, snapshits if you will

>>4462675
4
3
2
5
1

I like them all however, this has inspired me to do still life in the near future.

What the fuck happened with this
Aristapan 100, XTol 1+2, 13:00 at 20C

>>4462691
And by this, I mean the black dots all over the place where it looks like blotches of underdevelopment or emulsion that fell off (can it do that?) . Happened on both rolls about the same size and distribution.

>>4462650
Thank you anon

>>4462678
ty, shot on 800T at 1/30, I can't remember if I was wide open at 1.8 or if I stopped down to 2.8 in an effort to get a bit more contrast in the reflected light vs dark sky.

>>4462656
>>4462658
>>4462659
>>4462660
Hello Chicago anon

>>4462697
Unfortunately just was visiting, but I loved every second of it. Tried deep dish, Italian Beef, olde style, Chicago hot dog, and malort.

>>4462678
>Ektar H35
Yes I have that one also. Thanks for the tips, I'll try to remember it next time I go out to shoot.
>Giglo festival

>>4462680
Thanks for voting even if you placed me in second to last in front of a mistake picture. This is okay. I like them all too, and think we are all winners because we had fun taking egg pics!
We definitely need more still life shooters on /p/. It is really a lot of fun, harder than it looks to get just right and a great excuse to get a view camera and some lights. I posted a few other egg still lifes in the previous fgt if you wanted to see them. I think they're a lot more interesting than my submission to the contest.

Im working on another one with the cooke portrait lens I just got today. It's going to be a bit psychotic and include soft focus, but no eggs! Should have a scan tonight or tommorow morning. :D

>>4462706
Please do another film contest thingy, I will contribute

>>4462707
Yeah! Would you be down to do a still life contest? I can make a new thread for it. Well get more submissions if both film and digital shooters can contribute.

>>4462708
Yes, I’ve never done any still life’s before any tips?

>>4462537
>Bessa R2 voight 35 1.4
nice that was my setup most of last year. this year it's been mostly r2m main, but i've shot a bunch on the r2 as well.

>>4462709
I could write a LOT about still lifes, but I'll try to keep it somewhat short and to the point.

Study still life paintings and photographs

Spend all the time you need fiddling with composition and lighting. You have all the time in the world to get what you want.

Focus on negative space as much as the objects in your still life.

Putting stuff on the corner/edge of table creates tension.

Balance is really important and very challenging.

Do not over clutter your composition unless you specifically intend to create a chaotic scene. Often times less is more with still lifes.

Smaller formats of film will have better DoF, so it will be easier to capture a full scene, BUT in my opinion bigger film looks a lot better for still lifes.

I like using continuous lighting for my still lifes because it is basically wysiwyg

Have fun! Hah

>>4462710
Nice, how do you like it? I'm thinking of just getting an M6 desu, the build quality of my fm2n honestly feels tankier than the r2

>>4462709
I forgot a very important tip. PRINT your still lifes!!!

>>4462717
i like them but yeah, i'm not confident about their longevity. the r2 already has issues with the shutter not firing sometimes, and the r2m this past month has had some frame overlapping glitches. might be better to go for the m6.

I think this pic really sucks, but at least I got a test shot with the new cooke IV portrait lens. I screwed up focus, but the in focus parts are really quite sharp.
There is no glowy softness, which means you need large aperture + softness dial turned up to get soft effect. Makes sense considering that the softness comes from spherical aberration, I think. It will be very challenging to balance DoF with soft effect for still lifes.

Tommorow I try again with a larger aperture, and different subject. Either way these old ass lenses are really quite impressive.

>>4462742

Which Cooke lens? I’ve been trying to get a hold of a P945 for the longest time. You should do a test shot outside or with more light. I’d like to see the detail and fall off.

>>4462717
>>4462722

Remember it’s the lens and film that decides the look. The body is just a body. I’ve had an M4 for a few years now and I had a CLA on it about two years ago and after almost daily use it’s about time for another CLA. Just take care of your tools, they all have a lifecycle and they all need maintenance after a certain amount of actuations. You can stick to the R2 and R2M, just give it regular maintenance but don’t homebrew fixes.

>>4462490

It says what filmstock they respool right there in the description lmao what kinda half assed attempt at grassroots advertising is this?

>>4462722
This looks a lot sharper than my 35 1.4. How are you scanning?

>>4462777
While your 100% right I turn 30 in November and I'm getting an m6

>>4462719
I unfortunately don’t have the stuff to make prints, maybe I’ll rent a darkroom just for this

>>4462719
Actually I think you can clear something up for me, are there different enlargers for black and white vs color?

>>4462797

Oh I’m not telling you not to. Get a brass body though, don’t go zinc. And don’t baby it!

Have you considered the original line of M4s? Mine is from 1967 and it’s so fucking cool to hold something designed decades ago but still influencing modern cameras. Especially external look.

>>4462810
Yeah the m4s look really great, but I'm hesitant to not have a built in light meter, and would be annoyed with attaching a third party extension on the hotshoe.

I'm still pissed that I missed a good condition M7 0.58 (I'm a glasses wearer) for 3500 on keh but I've heard bad things about them recently so maybe I dodged a bullet.

Plan is to sell my Nikon fm2n and Bessa and it'll make the investment into an M body not feel so bad

>>4462815

That’s a good plan, sell the equipment you won’t use for the new body you’ll be using instead. No need to hoard. If you’re looking for M mount lenses, Voigtlander beats out all the classic Leica glass in performance for a fraction of the price. It’s only the newer Leica lenses that sometimes edge out, ever so slightly, in performance.

I wouldn’t go with an M7, I have a few friends that aren’t afraid of the circuitry potentially dying but they can easily afford another body if it dies. I’m not as cool as them so I have an M4, I usually meter on my phone every few shots because my phone camera sensor is more accurate than anything inside a film Leica. I haven’t metered wrong since, sometimes I only meter once a roll— sometimes I meter every shot. It mainly depends on if the light changes.

Amsterdam Camera Repair recently came out with new circuit boards for the original generation of M6 but I don’t think they have a replacement for the TTL circuitry yet and certainly not for the M7.

>>4462815
>just 3500 for a light tight box with a cloth shutter
my brother in christ just get an olympus

>>4462833
Olympus glass sucks.

PENTAX NUMBAH ONE

>>4462831
Thanks for the info anon. Sounds like and M6 is the way to go. I've seen them in really good condition from 2-2.5k

>>4462833
I have an Olympus XA2 that's what the above Mexico photos were taken with. Only other Olympus I'd be interested in owning is an MJU but I'm not overpaying for plastic that could potentially die on me

>>4462834
It doesn't. It's so good, digital users are uninterested in it because it's the same thing they already have instead of a bloomy mess.

>>4462836
The OM-2 is leica sized, more ergonomic, more reliable, and is a superior slr instead of shitty ww1 tech. The OM-1 is its all manual cousin.

>>4462777
>needing a "CLA" every 2 years
what the actual fuck is wrong with leicas? are they made out of butter? cameras need a CLA every 70 years

>>4462837
>>4462838
Look I love the design and ergos of the OM cameras but let's not pretend like they don't have their own specific jank issues. Trying to say they're more reliable than liecas is straight retarded, I'd hear you out if you made the case for nikons

>>4462774
It's a 15.5" series VI. Big bitch of a brass lens. I'm going to figure something better out today!

Good luck finding that ps945 lens. Rarer than hens teeth is my guess lol. Probably like 5k+ also. Get a series IIb while you wait.

>>4462802
You can just scan them and then use a printer! Seeing prints off the screen and holding them is what really counts. Still lifes can be kinda boring, but look really nice as prints on a wall. It's a strange phenomenon.

>color vs. B&W enlarger
Yes. A color enlarger can do b&w, but a b&w enlarger can't just do color.

>>4462840
They ARE more reliable than leicas. The worst thing that plagues an om-2n is a shitty prism (get an om-4 instead)

>>4462840
What's wrong with Olympus? I have an om-2n and it just works. Metering is solid day or night, haven't had any shutter issues.
>>4462842
The prism seems fine to me

>>4462793
do you think it's a big sharpness difference? i'm talking about the 35/1.4 nokton classic ii, to be clear. these are scanned via nikon 60mm micro on gfx plus valoi 360 film holder. i think both of those shots were around f2.8
>>4462777
of course. i simply enjoy machines that last a long time. i've also entertained the thought of getting an m4 or m6
>>4462837
you will never sway someone from leica m with a practicality argument. if it was about that, they wouldn't be considering the leica in the first place.

>>4462847
We have the exact same lense, but It sounds like your scanning setup is alot more advanced. I'm using an xpro2 with 55mm vintage Olympus macro lense. The Mexico photos were scanned with a flatbed tho

>>4461362
I'm not printing, I'm talking about the film holder for scanning
I have one of the modular holders for the Coolscan 9000 made by Stephan Scharf

>>4460825
>stark daylight
>flat colors
>boring composition
>"very cool shot"
are these the people who lurk here?

I found a bag full of about 50 rolls of film that are all probably about 15-20 years old. Is the only way to check if they've been used to develop them?

t. film noob

>>4462916
>rockwellian tier printlet

Kek

>>4462919
Do they have little bits of film sticking out or are they just cans with no film sticking out?

>>4462921
They do have the leader still sticking out for all of them, which made me assume they hadn't been used. But it just seems odd specifically because they're all in little canisters that you'd only really use for used films. Pic related.

>>4462916
Careful, critiquing the board is a bannable offense. We have the most sensitive people on the entire site here.

Couple more pics with the cooke. This one is at f8 and I fucked it up. All these goats were released into the field I was working in so I was a bit rushed.

Don't really know what happened with the tree on the left, but it is weirdly harsh. This would have looked a lot better if I was able to use f5.6 and there was no wind.

>>4462951
2/2 This was shot at f5.6 with full softness setting, a bit underexposed. You can see the pleasing softness/glow on the blackberries.

This lens is really interesting and has a ton of character, but that means it is going to take some shooting to understand what works and what doesn't. It is a lot more subtle than the imagon. Ill be taking some portraits with it soon. I think it's going to be quite nice.

Thoughts?

>>4462953
>>4462951
ah yes leaves and twigs

>>4462975
Your inability to contextualize anything is quite entertaining. Thanks for the lol, lil bro.

I don't and will never post portraits because of posters like you.

>>4462982
ah yes cope post

>>4462986
>STILL can't contextualize anything

KEK. Thanks, lil bro.

>>4462951
>>4462953
That looks very promising anon! Could you do portraits?

>>4462988
I could, and tonight I will!
Maybe I will post a very small crop of one to show off how it makes skin look.

I was doing some more reading about these lenses and apparently the soft effect dial influences the image differently at each aperture AND the focal distance also influences the effect. On top of all of that the picture on the GG is not entirely representative of the final image youll get.
A lot to learn about this lens. FUN.

>>4462922
Those are what new film comes in. It is very unlikely it has been shot if the leader is out, the only way that would happen is if it was owned by an autismo who homedevs and saves the cassettes. Unless you deliberately leave it out the leader sucks back into the cassette when you rewind it.

>>4462923

Eh, nah, most of us take it in stride. I was once dragged in the thread cause one dude I just so happen to photograph on the street ended up looking burnt brown orange in the negative. It was Portra 160 VC and white balance was correct, it’s just how he turned out and what he looked like in the harsh sun on that expired film. Checked the phone pic I had taken and the film scan was close enough to what the phone had captured, there was a slight shift due to expiry probably. I tried to fix it but oh well that was the shot. Dudes started pretending to be me and they started arguing amongst each other and one even edited my photo to make him even more orange while pretending to be me defending the photo. Anyway, point is, I think the trolls and the people giving disingenuous critiques are bitter with a thinner skin than the people actually shooting film and posting. Even the other large format anon takes all the bullshit in stride. I’ve had people start threads with my work before and pretending to be me and I had to defend myself and show the roll of film. I don’t think the people earnestly trying to contribute actually get butthurt like the people trying to mock them. Give honest, constructive feedback and I’m sure people will take it.

>>4462841

I contacted Robert White a looong time ago about the PS945 but I never got a response. I gave up on it but every couple of months I remember it again and look it up. I think I’ve settled on the idea that I’ll eventually build a 110/150/210 SSXL kit. Yeah, none of them are really the same thing as the PS945 but I’ve grown to really love the Super Symmars even with their flaws. I actually like portraiture I can do with the 150 and even 110. I’ve yet to get the 210 but I had the chance in March unfortunately the guy wouldn’t budge on the price even when I offered cash. (He was asking 7,000 online and I told him I could do that in person if he also threw in a Summicron he had for sale.)

>>4462953

I like the detail in the blackberries and the dreamy fall off. I guess one of the reasons I never did pursue the PS945 more seriously is because I’m not entirely convinced this type of lens is for me. I like the overall look but it still wouldn’t be the usual lens I’d go for if I was taking my kit out for the day.

>>4462838

Well yeah, all complex tools/equipment need regular maintenance. The more you use a tool like that the briefer the time between maintenance. IIRC my M4 has steel gears with only a few brass components, so the internals don’t wear away like older Leicas but it still needs a CLA after maybe 50-60 rolls. I take it with me everywhere so I definitely use it a lot and that estimate might be on the low end. Even Hasselblad used to recommend yearly maintenance/preventative care for professionals that shot a lot of volume. Sure we’re hobbyists, but we still shoot large enough volume to make film labs become a thing again so I’m sure we use these cameras a comparable amount. The age of the cameras adds to that frequency of maintenance needed too.

>>4463033
>>4463031
>film is yet again the only medium that convincingly renders atmospheric haze
is it some UV magic or what

>>4463033
The lens is definitely promising. I just need to keep learning it. Thankfully I still have about 30 sheets of tpx 320 I got for 3 dollars per sheet. Usually I can get a feel for a lens after 2 or 3 shots, but this one is going to take more time. Hopefully my model won't be too tired tommorow either hah. In the meantime I have some more ideas and things I want to try out. I sort of thought it would be cool for still lifes, and it still may, but I will need to adapt to using a shallow DoF instead of f45 or f64..
>criticism
I've got my hilarious stories too and remember the one you told. Did you see the worst photographer on /p/ thread? I pissed that guy off to the point he made that funny thread for me.
It's quite strange how upset some people get over pictures and cameras. Oh well... Even if their criticism is disingenuous or crab buckety it still makes me want to do better.

Small dump. Took a chance on an untested olympus XA for $50 and got lucky.

>>4463070
Shot with my 3d printed Goodman 6x12 w/ a fujinon swd 65mm f5.6. Still learning how to frame for 1:2

>>4463073
Shot on my Mamiya 645 w/ 55mm f2.8 and portra 160

I will dump some of my photos. Fomapan 400, Zenit 12 XP + Tessar 2.8/50 Jena. Developed myself with Rodinal 1+50

>>4463113
And that would be all.

Has anyone tried the new Leica stock?

>>4463136

No, locally it’s still out of stock or only pre-orders.

>>4463048

I think I remember that thread, vaguely. I don’t pay attention to much of the noise. I stopped posting images for a while and just lurked because of that one person passing off my work as theirs claiming it might be their best work so far. It was kind of insulting lmfao.

>>4463232
>out of focus pineapple
truly, the pinnacle of photography

>>4463243
viewing images larger than 150x300px is pixel peeping you soulless gearfag hylic stembug snoyboy

>>4463243

If you look at the pebbles it’s right about at the front of the pineapple, maybe I should have focused a little further back BUT I think there’s also shake/blurr from movement. Unfortunately the camera I was using doesn’t have mirror lock up so the mirror shake on a 6x7 could have also been a contributing factor. It’s not a portfolio piece but good enough to share with you baby.

>>4463232
Very mysterious. Looks like a pretty tasty specimen. Did you grab it for snacking on?

>>4463252

It was in the middle of the sidewalk at night on a street near Hell’s Kitchen. Of course I took it home, my girl didn’t trust it and didn’t have any but it was fucking tasty.

>>4463255
Damn nice. I would have done the exact same thing as you.
I found a big ass avocado, perfectly ripe, on the street one time underneath a huge avocado tree.
The lady I was with at the time didn't seem to understand why I was so excited about it. Things didn't work out between us in the end...

>>4463264

I’ve been in a similar situation but I was in Queens. I found a whole store crate worth of avocado on the street. Easily probably like 60 dollars worth of avocados. I left it alone though, it was right outside a neighbors stoop so I assumed they probably didn’t bring it inside yet.

More cooke fun. Both were taken wide open with softness maxed out. Next pics will be with less softness.

>>4463276
Doing your part to keep society honest and moral is more important than a weeks worth of avocado toast these days, so good on ya.

>>4463281
And no.2 I really like how this one came out. The fall off is really quite pleasing.

Too bad for the dev errors. I tried using less agitation and it did the thing that happens when the dev gets stuck.

>>4463282

This one is beautiful. Nicely done.

Somebody shill me a TLR with a nice sharp lens but not rollei priced
I got an ikoflex and it's great to use but the lens is decentered and everything comes out blurry
I got a mamiya C but it's too big and clunky for casual use
Should I get a less jacked up ikoflex? autocord? yashica? something else?

>>4463043
film doesn't have dehaze applied sooc

>>4463113
I really like the transition from subtle tone in the foreground to posterized in the background
>>4463243
>>4463245
it's taken with a downward angle, so of course the plane of focus intersects the ground in front of the pineapple
so focus distance is correct but the DoF was way too narrow to fit the entire pineapple
>>4463281
>>4463282
yeah these are good
then again I might just be a bokeh whore

>>4463326
Thank you!

>>4463351
I'm more of an everything in focus kinda guy when it comes to large format, but this lens is pushing me to embrace shallower DoF. Having faster than 1 second exposures is pretty nice also.

I did some research on this lens and it cost 259 dollars new when it was made between 1908-1930. Translates to almost 9k dollars in today money.

>>4463357
>I'm more of an everything in focus kinda guy when it comes to large format
I've noticed
how about try this: everything IMPORTANT is in focus, use your movements
or at least play around with it for a few more shots idk
I feel some of the common criticisms of your LF work may be caused by you trying to cram as much detail in as possible corner-to-corner in frame
but hey that's just imo

>>4463359
>If I'm paying for 80 square inches of film per shot I damn well want it ALL in focus.

Lol. Fairly valid criticism. I cannot stand still lifes with blurry elements aside from the background, but on everything else aside from that totally agreed.

Thinking about buying a H35N, anyone have one?

Sometimes I carry a disposable at work for when I see cool shit, I guess the H35 will replace that and give me double the photos.
I know its not the best quality, I have other cameras for that.

>>4463425
That looks fun and essentially doubles your film... Very cool. I might get one but is there one that isn't fixed lens?

>>4463455
>>4463425
Less pictures is always better.

>>4463462
Explain yourself

>>4463464
What more is there to explain? Less pictures is always better. I will say I should have said almost always better I guess, cause there's always an edge case and exception to these things.

>>4463425
I bought it today. Waiting for delivery. I will just load it with cheap fomapan and take snapshits, then develop them and scan some of them. Will post it here in a week.

>>4463425
I have the older model, the non N version. One of my problems is blurry photos but that's most likely user error. I think if you treat it like a disposable you'll do fine.
Of course, I enjoy 'doubling' my film and I get about ~75 exposures from a roll of 36.
Depending on your film development, you get two photos in one scan leading to some interesting compositions.

>>4463488
Somebody get these lads a sandwich

>>4463477
Do labs cut it for you when you decide to print them?

>>4463477
Would it be blashemy to use cinestill on this lol

>>4463506
I develop photos by myself, not sending them to the labs at the current moment. I don't know if they would cut the half frame. Who knows.
As for the blasphemy - no, lol. Just use whatever film you like. I'm gonna use the fomapan because i have shitload of them laying in my drawer.

MAN I FUCKING LOVE

>>4463538
CLOUDS

>>4463540
AND AGING INFRASTRUCTURE

>>4463538
is that a bug you scanned?

>>4463542
Ive done that before.

>>4463542
lmao, looks like a bug, but its on the emulsion.
Unless they got it trapped in there during manufacturing or something

>buy film camera
>buy digital camera* to take digital photos of your film photos
humiliation ritual

(*a dedicated scanner is just another kind of digital camera)

Slowly setting up a home darkroom. Spent more on the cart than on the enlarger.

>>4463573
>eggdog

How dare you create conspiracy theories about your true identity while being as based as that.

>>4462008
>>4462007
>>4462006
Really decent, I rate a 7.678/10

>>4463488
Second frame would have been 10/10 excellent with more direct, central framing.

I just came back from my holidays in Italy with a Rollei 400s B&W roll ready to be developed. How high are the changes of me fucking up the development, given it would be my first time doing it? I don't want to lose my holiday pics, should I just send it to be developed and then practice development on another roll?

Posted more Peru photos here >>4463698

And a photo of some pupper for the dog people here

I got a pentax ES with a 55mm f1.8 for almost nothing at flex market. I never tried film before. I think the camera works. How do i into film?

>>4463738
If you have to ask, go with the lab.

>>4463738
Development of a BW film isn't hard, but there is some slim chance of fuck up. Just go with the lab, and develop some snapshits for your first time.

>>4463767
>>4463775
yeah, I just went with the lab. Thing is, it cost me $20 to develop and digitize, I figured I might as well spend that money on buying the equipment to do it myself. But no, I chickened out in the end.

>>4463784
There's always tommorow! B&W is extremely easy, but not fool proof to dev at home. Clearly label every jar and container and lid to avoid mix ups. I like one shot developers best.

I even mix my own developer from raw chems at this point. You can make a bunch of different ones once you get like 10-15 different chems its kinda cool and can be really inexpensive per roll. Like 30 american pennies per roll kinda cheap.

>>4463784
B&W development is very forgiving. Watch a video on it, and watch a video on loading reels because that can mess you up and lead to crinkled film if you screw up, and the latest Paterson reels are tricky. Get a thermometer and ensure your developer is at 20C when you start. Even if it heats/cools slightly during development you won't have too much of a change in how it turns out, compared to how color can go wrong. But if you shoot a fair amount of film you'll be saving money on development if you don't consider it a waste of time and do more than one roll at a time. If you don't like the process of doing it yourself, just send it out. There's a reason film labs exist

This is the last shot of the Ektachrome E100 ten-pack. I'll be sending these out to be developed

>>4463873
eh for b&w I can't be assed to actually chill my chems down so I just compensate for temperature, Ilford has some guidelines at least for their films
now if you REALLY need at least SOMETHING out of a b&w roll there's always rodinal stand dev…

>>4463575
Beselers are cool, shame it's nearly impossible to get one in europe
I'am building a darkroom too (in my damn kitchen), I was a lucky to get a Durst M600, it's an older model but it's nearly mint and seems very robust

>>4463541
what film is this? Is this pushed?

hp5? dont you mean a shitter kentmere?

>>4464061
Other way round retard, Kentmere is a shittier HP5 for those who can't afford the professional stuff.

>>4464063
meh, i find hp5 has that hipster "hey look i shoot film" look vs kentmere has a more suble grain and easy printing if you develop properly. + amazing push and pull capabilities at 400

>>4463873
Delta 100 version

A couple more test shots with the cooke. These were taken with sharpness setting 1.

The pictorial-esque style of this shot is kinda fun, but I would have preferred it to be a bit sharper.

>>4464448
Second shot

Stupid film holder leaked light. Really pretty rendering from this lens.

>>4464167
Nicely done.

>>4464060
Lucky SHD 100 ""pro"" not pushed,its just really that contrasty
>>4464167
I wish that I could take photos this cute of my dolls

i love the animal photo. 鳥吉英伸

well lads, I fucked up an entire roll for the first time
was trying out p160 in 120 by taking some self portraits (no nothing of value was lost, except my time)
at some point in the roll I noticed one of my strobes was out of battery, thought it was just a few photos but turns out it was the first 3/4 of the roll
it was the main light so those photos are trash, but though I would have had some recoverable
when I opened by film storage case though the seal had come undone and the roll had partially unwound
closed it immediately but the last few shots (the only good ones) got massive light leaks across them
so 0/12 shots recoverable
woods walk roll from friday seems like it came out great though so at least there's that
thanks for reading my blog

never gonna let someone else spool my reels for me

>brought a homebrewed developer to my darkroom class
>friend asked if he can use it/taught how to (its two bath dev)
>i say sure i have 3 rolls and he has 4 so we can do 2 and 2
>i hand him a steel reel and tank, asking him if he knew
>"yeah i do"
>i should've known he didnt once he was in the dark dark space for 10+ minutes
>he comes out with both of them and we develop
>have a good time teaching him how i usually develop with this "special" film
>stop, fix
>we take it out
>the film is completely stuck together, horrible green shit on there. only some are saved

i spent like 3 hours at night experimenting with motion blur and random shit for once. i guess its what i get for trying to be creative.

>>4464510
>"special" film
meant special developer

it was kentmere 200 too, so i got more 200 yesterday and shot one roll and going to tmrw to see. never gonna let anyone touch my rolls again

>>4463538
clouds n shit NEED a deep red filter itll change your life i promise

>>4463276
I love this picture and it made me smile

hi /p/
haven't posted in a while
I'm busy all the time these last months and my best photos lately have been portraits, which maybe I'll post around here some other day
for now I'll post some stuff as to not accumulate them too much

>>4464569
workers

>>4464496
yes I took this shot a third time

>>4464637
did not intend for there to be sun flares here, kind of neat that they're right down the center of the frame

>>4464638

>>4464576
this is so fucking bizarre and cool I love it
do you know what they were doing?

>>4464641
gold isn't really intended for landscape work but I like it a lot

>>4464642
was busier than I expected down at the river
looking forward to trying this again with fall colors

>>4464643
daytime gas station
scandalous i know

>>4464639
>this is so fucking bizarre and cool I love it
yeah isn't it crazy?
it's a lead sphere weighing 2 tons supported by steel cables. It's an art piece by Elisa Bracher called "Ponto final", which translates to "Period" (as in the . sign)
the guys were just cleaning the stairs, doing their job, not minding the humongous metal sphere they see everyday
btw love these two
>>4464640
>>4464642
something about the logs of wood in the foreground and their textures and colours add to the otherwise peaceful nature backgrounds
it adds an element of change and instability

>>4464459
Anon I like your blind box girls and think they're cute. Hit focus and they'll be even cuter :^)