File: 0006_2026-02_Barcelona-y-bosque_10.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

lets get the thread of the ground

File: 85350010.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4497690 (Cross-thread)
>Those edges are a disaster
no doubt, this one is really bad.
easy fix with simple edit tho. cant beat it for $30, the non-pano pics look much better

File: 2026_0009_007.jpg (356.9 KB)

356.9 KB JPG

For the record, I spent about 3 minutes "editing" this one.

>>4497863
Printing one image that I haven't printed before usually takes 20ish minutes, but sometimes it can take a lot longer if I didn't set myself up for success through exposure and development. Usually I'll print them straight or with some split contrast printing and then stare at them once dry to see if I want to do anymore to the print.

File: DSC_3689.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

first time scanning

>>4497894
Looks great anon

File: IMGP4925.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4497875

Finally finished the first pass through a roll I want to expose twice. This makes me so unreasonably nervous some how, because I really don't want to fuck it up.
Last double exposure I did like this was very experimental so I was kinda chill about it. But this time I have a bunch of portraits of friends on it and would like to have at least some of them turn out good so I can give one to each of them.

File: snowhampshire.jpg (847.7 KB)

847.7 KB JPG

>>4497875
>>4497964
Nice to live in an area with snow for b&w. Good pics.

File: 12947.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

Funny thread, just got back my first rolls of c41 in over a year and not looking forward to dealing with colour scanning/editing. Only shoot bw, takes me a couple min max to edit a photo.

>>4497970
why didnt you walk forward slightly? now its just a snapshit

File: 2025_0030_015.jpg (440.9 KB)

440.9 KB JPG

Fuji 200, aka Gold but in a green cassette

File: P_20260216_000806.jpg (254.3 KB)

254.3 KB JPG

>>4497892
>20ish minutes
Nice, I guess that comes with experience. I was able to do some printing the other night again, but somehow it took me almost 3 hours trying to get one print right, and I still didn't get it how I wanted. Including setting up the shit and then breaking it down and washing and all, over 4 hours for unsatisfactory results. But I take it as a learning experience. I only had a 20+ years headstart doing digital scanning that now feels natural like breathing, but I'll get there.
I'm already considering buying roll paper next time and cutting to size myself, this shit runs out fast with all the trial and error, and suddenly, after adding up just the cost of film, paper and chems you could feed a small nation with each finished print.

My dad found his old film cameras the other day and I thought about getting them in working condition and use them, but there's something I find strange with film these days.
Seeing contemporary life on photos shot on film and old cameras looks so weird to me. It's uncanny to me in a strange way. I'm seeing an image where I'm in a strange way expecting to see "past life", but it's a couple in a cafe sitting with an iphone and contemporary clothing.

Two of the cameras he has I was most interest ind is a Pentax 67 with a 105mm lens and a Polaroid 600 se (that still has some film in the cartridge). But I think a new cartridge for the Polaroid is $100 for ten shots or something.
I remember playing with his old cameras like they were toys as a kid....

File: 000739480021.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4498115
The Pentax 67 is really popular because it's just a gigantic SLR that shoots medium format. Almost certainly worth sending it in and getting serviced/fixed.

File: IMGP4927.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4497970
yeah but i hate the cold and don't take pics unless they drag me out on a skiing trip or something

File: DSCF4035-positive.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4497876
Not as bad in that one, probably because the building is closer to the foreground.
>MAGfest
Wish I got tickets in time. I wanted to go see the Protomen.
>>4498112
Gold/Fuji200 is such a weird stock. Every time I see other people's photos with it, I like them. But every time I try it, I can't stand it.
>>4498127
I like taking shots in the snow, but my camera's shutters tend to start locking up once it starts dropping below 20F, so I don't do it as much as I'd like to.

File: 000109560003.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4494826
>>4495999
Canon AF35ML point and shoot in low light anon from last thread here, got the film back. Basically just how expected - missed focuses and soft exposures here and there, but still did surprisingly well in quite low light, and I'm excited to shoot my roll of Cinestill with some adjustments to help the hit rate. I'm seeing where the camera is struggling a bit. It definitely prefers to focus farther, and the autofocus generally needs to be coddled a bit. I'll definitely try focus locking on a large surface and recomposing for closer shots, and just giving it a bit longer to set. For most of them I did focus directly on a light just to get the camera shake to not go off, but the focus got confused. I'm going to shoot it at 1000; I'm happy with the exposure I'm getting and this was 400 film on the 400 setting, so 800 film at 1000 should just be less soft. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Overall, fucking thrilled. We're at the image limit or I'd post some

File: 000109550021.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4498179
Breaking: not at image limit

File: 000109560018.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4498180

File: 000109550013.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4498181
And not surprisingly it excels once I give in and pop the flash

File: 000109560014.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4498182

File: 000109560009.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4498184

File: DSCF3815-positive.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4498179
I don't have any personal experience with that specific camera, but for most point-n-shoots, they tend to blast the aperture wide open before dropping the shutter speed very much, so you're going to see a lot of soft shots because of that.
It's got some pretty solid clarity when it's not wide open though. >>4498182 especially is a great shot.

File: 1000004258.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4498188
Thanks. And that makes sense; would you say that applies to all lighting conditions, or that it's exacerbated in lower light? Seems like the latter. I did a few daytime shots of picrel. I was focusing on the background through the overpass and was hoping the overpass would be blurred but instead it just chose a higher aperture, maybe 12 or 13? I do like getting small aperture shots so I'm honestly glad it tends towards them, I just have to get better at coaxing the autofocus.

>>4498113
You'll get there with more practice. Printing is naturally a time consuming process and progress can be slow because of it.
My advice is to study the zone system or densitometry and how developing influences contrast/density. The idea is that you want a negative that gives you a good print with as little fuss as possible, and the zone system is a good way to get there. Scanning without ever printing can lead to some bad habits when setting exposure and/or developing that can lead to negatives that don't print well.
6 stops of contrast is what paper gives you before you need to either give up detail, use techniques like dodge and burn, flashing, split contrast printing, etc. or pulling your film to reduce contrast.
Shoot large format and develop each sheet individually or in batches woth the same push/pull so you can put your theory into practice without making compromises on a 36 exposure roll if you have the enlarger to print them, or you could just contact print them. You can take notes on each exposure, decide if you need any pushing or pulling, and then see how much easier it is to print after you nail the first two steps in the process!

File: 2025_0030_001.jpg (291.4 KB)

291.4 KB JPG

Same roll.
>>4498147
>Gold/Fuji200 is such a weird stock. Every time I see other people's photos with it, I like them. But every time I try it, I can't stand it.
What's wrong with it? Or how can you go wrong with it? Whenever I go back to Gold after messing around with meme or niche stocks, I feel like the world would be all right if Gold was the only color stock that existed.
>>4497690
>I'm just an idiot and uploaded the uncropped WIP version, but thanks!
Ah, thought it was intentional with how it was literally uncropped full frame. I think it could still work that way if only the frame was grey or even black.
>>4497520
>>4497523
>>4497522
Those are bangers, I'm disappointed nobody has said a word. What stock? Looks almost like it dips into IR a little.
>>4497494
Vuescan has nothing on SilverFast. Well except the UI not being a torture device. But in terms of scan quality, and scanner support and compatibility it really pales.
>>4497477
>UK weather
>Back to Gold 200 for colour
Yeah, don't bother with Orwo then unless you save it for the rare sunny day.
From my years living in Ireland, Gold is just the perfect good ol' reliable that magically turns dreary into cozy. Sometimes, anyway.

File: 2026_0009_002.jpg (420.9 KB)

420.9 KB JPG

Don't ask what's going on on top of the frame because I don't know. It's actually visible on unexposed, undeveloped film on emulsion side. I suspect some chemical fogging or contamination from storage.
Bottom right is just regular light leak from bad respooling (not done by me). Shame cos I'd have liked this shot without all the junk.
>>4498218
I never formally studied or used zone system, but I know the basics of it and probably have been unintentionally using some of its principles anyway. Like when I know a scene is tricky or I just want it in a specific way then I'll switch to spot meter for one subject and eyeball exposure compensation from there if needed, while keeping the dynamic range of the whole scene in mind.
Either way, everything about my process (especially from developing) has been calibrated for digital scanning. (Calibrated in the loose sense of the word, just arriving at what works best through trial and error without turning it into scientific endeavor). So it might take a while to unlearn all that and find what works best for printing. And just having this extra set of variables - paper developer, dilution and development time - to interact with their equivalents used for film scares me a little right now. At least once the film is developed then I know my scanner will give me constant results, so if I fucked up then it will show in a predictable way and I'll know where the problem happened. But printing to paper is another layer of abstraction on top of that.
LF sounds like fun but I think I'll save it for another decade lol. I already started shooting medium and printing in the last 3 years and those were two massive steps that I've been pushing away since forever.

File: 2026_0008_035.jpg (402.9 KB)

402.9 KB JPG

Sometimes 16:9 just works better.

File: 2026_0008_036.jpg (431.6 KB)

431.6 KB JPG

>>4498225

>>4498223
>scan quality
how are they any different?
unless you’re doing negative inversion and/or lossy scans

File: 100S9759.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

fuji 200

>>4498226
cool textures

>>4497894
>>4497874
i like it

File: 000073320033.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

horse apple

File: 000073320020.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

sunset with bonus birb

File: 000073320006.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

street, night edition

File: 000073320011 edit.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4498303
>>4498304
>>4498305
fuji400 on an old ass pentax spotmatic f with 55mm f1.8 smc takumar (the lens they shipped with these things)

just getting into this as a hobby
whats a good way to lower the file size that doesnt make the photos look different?

File: 000073320035 edit.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4498307
ohh and one last one

car

File: browniesnapshits.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

Foma ortho 400 curled on me pretty bad after drying

>>4498314
Damn I wish my gf knew how to use a camera so we could take cute beach pics together. :(

File: IMG_7015.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

Was a nice walk at least

Yeah so I kinda used my ilfosol 3 dilution five times before reading online that its a 1 use solution
Negs came out on the soft side, and the contrast in the midtones wasn't great, but overall not that bad
What are your opinions on BW developers anons, any you prefer?
Also is developing and scanning C41 much harder than bw?

>>4498484
Powder dev is where its at if you have the storage containers available to make 5L batches (or 3L or whatever).
You'll save more money IF you're developing rolls fast enough to not have the solution lose effectiveness due to age / poor storage conditions.

>Also is developing and scanning C41 much harder than bw?
Developing is more involved. Harsher temp controls are needed (versus B&W not giving a fuck until you're like 10*c out of range) and you can't push/pull without introducing colour casts.
Scanning is basically the same.

File: IMG24958 — Pentax K-1, HD PENTAX-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW @ 50.0mm f4.0 1_100s, ISO 200.jpg (666.8 KB)

666.8 KB JPG

figured out how to store my 6x8 negs
cut them up individually and put them in a PrintFile 120-9HB
their website says the 9HB only fits 6x7 but I'm pretty sure that's a typo, and they meant 6x9
individual negatives also makes scanning a lot easier
scans incoming

File: s-l1600 (1).jpg (302.9 KB)

302.9 KB JPG

>>4498542
I think ULT 120-3HB should work too if you don't want to cut individual frames.
I've been using 120-4B because they are perfect fit for 6x6 and 6x9 which are the two formats that I use.
What camera even does 6x8, other than GX680?

File: Acr de triomf birds_02.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4498489
Thanks anon, I'll look into the powdered stuff.

Heres some pan f+ expired in 2007, pushed it 1 stop. Dont like how this film looks pushed at all, or maybe its the old film. Either way, do any anons have recommendations on how to process BW scans in lightroom? I just move the tone curve until the highlights and shadows are where I want them, don't know if theres some better way of doing it

File: 07 — 2025-10-18 1808 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f4.0 1_8s.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4498545
I considered that one, but I think then the negative strips would be too long for my CS9000's tray
>What camera even does 6x8, other than GX680?
no idea

File: 05 — 2025-10-17 0729 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f16 1_15s.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4498551
the lenses for this thing are fucking fantastic, no surprise
I have that 100mm cranked all the way to the right and you can just barely make out some swirly bokeh in the OOF area
this was (and is) one of the system's "cheap" lenses
actually all of these were taken with the 100/4 now that I think about it, didn't get my other two lenses until a bit later

File: 02 — 2025-10-16 1755 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f8.0 1s.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4498552

File: 08 — 2025-11-02 1800 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f16 1_250s.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4498553
I enjoy larping as an early-2000s studio photographer

File: 06 — 2025-10-17 1654 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f16 1_250s.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4498554
another church

File: 09 — 2025-11-02 2026 01.1 — Kodak Portra 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M100mm F4 @ 100 mm f4.0 1_250s.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4498555
doll

File: 2026-02-24 02_02_24-ILFORD ORTHO PLUS - Chromium.jpg (81.3 KB)

81.3 KB JPG

>>4498484
>>4498546
Avoid the powdered stuff, it sucks. It sucks to mix to begin with, it sucks to warm up/cool down the solution to the right temperature in a water bath (depending on season and where you live), it sucks having to remember to keep count of rolls developed and recalculate the times each time with the reusable ones like ID-11.
Get Rodinal or HC-110 (or both), get your tap water to the right temperature (much easier than heating/cooling a room temperature solution), mix, develop, dump because it's a one-shot solution.
The other anon >>4498489 is delusional talking about +/- 10 degrees making no difference. In the 10 to 20 minutes range, 2°C is a difference of about 2 minutes in development time. And for many stocks 2 minutes more or less is ablout 1 stop push/pull. More if your times are shorter than 10 minutes.
That said, yes, C-41 is even more sensitive to temperature control. But it's not much more difficult. Get a stick type sous vide heater, a big enough plastic tub, set the temperature, put your bottles in and wait for the solutions to reach the temperature. It's only more involved in the sense that it has one or two extra solutions to use (depending if you get bleach and fixer separately, or combined as blix). And yes, you also need to keep adjusting the times with each new batch of film. It's best to accumulate enough rolls that you work through the whole capacity in one go. Working solutions don't store for very long anyway.
Plus you can make some fucking good sous vide food with it when not developing.

File: 000031130005 - Editted (2).jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

Phoenix II colours suck and I cant fix them with my horrible editting "skills"

>>4498581
>And yes, you also need to keep adjusting the times with each new batch of film. It's best to accumulate enough rolls that you work through the whole capacity in one go. Working solutions don't store for very long anyway.
completely forgot to mention, the storage+replenishment technique I got off reddit is working well
these were all developed with C-41 chems I mixed back in August
>>4498542
I’ll re-summarize later for anyone who doesn’t remember what I’m talking about

File: IMG20260224222133.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

hey /fgt/. Gonna develop a roll of film in Rodinal. Dilution is 1:50. The film i shot on was Agfa APX400. Come join me ! ^_^

File: IMG20260224225405.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

i don't know if you can see anything, but I loaded the film onto the reels. Here is me loading them in my bathroom which i converted into a darkroom.

File: IMG20260224225911.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

Gonna do 4 times of these and mix it into my beaker.

File: IMG20260224230153.jpg (4 MB)

4 MB JPG

Done and Sitrred.

File: IMG20260224230213.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

Time to pour !

File: IMG20260224230401.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

And now for the waiting game.

File: IMG20260224231447.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

Time to pour out the developer !

File: IMG20260224231515.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

Dev out. Stop bath in.

File: IMG20260224231738.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

Stop bath out. Fixer in. Although i forgot to take a picture of it. tehe~. Gonna use a 2 bath fixer for this.

File: IMG20260224231947.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

Fixer 1 in!

File: IMG20260224232839.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

Fixer 2 in ! After this, gonna have to rinse and dry the roll out. Will post the results tomorrow.

File: IMG20260224233315.jpg (4 MB)

4 MB JPG

Quite regrettably, thete may be something wrong with my camera.

>>4498603
Lmao

>>4498603
lmao
what cam? and have you used it before?

File: 100S8327web.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

>>4498585
here's my phoenix 2 shot. honestly i prefer the pinkish hue of yours. the first phoenix was very pnk/red like that

File: 000032850031.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

Im taking an introductory B/W dev class and I am required to bring my camera (leica m3) and a roll of b/w film with me.

What is the most unhinged roll that I could pack for my first day?

>>4498648
From currently available? Ferrania Orto, Ilford SFX, or XP2 Super because fuck you (if they didn't say it couldn't be C-41). Or one of the Orwo piece of shit low ISO ones like DN21.

File: DSC09346editSMBDR.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4498182
Nice one

>>4498603
rip

File: 01 — 2025-11-09 1617 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M80mm F5.6 @ 80 mm f8.0 1_15s.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

continued >>4498542
this time Gold, with mixed results

summarizing >>4498586
I buy the Kodak-branded 2.5L C41 kit (made by Cinestill parent company under license)
https://kodak.photosys.com/products/kodak-color-negative-c-41-kit-2-5l
500mL each goes into working storage (bottles small enough to warm up with sous vide), topped with argon
other 2L of each gets split into fill-it-yourself wine bags off amazon, topped with argon
then I replenish the working storage from the wine bags at the officially recommended rate of 40mL/roll, topping with argon each time
this gives me practically indefinite shelf life, has worked so far (6 months, don't remember roll count)
if it's been a while between batches I run a small test strip of 35mm through the chems as a sanity check

File: 03 — 2026-01-01 1120 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX MD180mm F3.2 @ 180 mm f8.0 1_400s.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4498658
tilt test, unfortunately not an inspiring choice of foreground or background

File: 05 — 2026-01-07 1424 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M80mm F5.6 @ 80 mm f8.0 1_400s.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4498659
using swing "wrong" for fun
meant to move the costco rag someone left there but forgot

File: 06 — 2026-01-07 1437 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M80mm F5.6 @ 80 mm f16 1_125s.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4498660
possibly a bit under-exposed, but I've found I prefer results from under-exposed Gold compared to over-exposed

File: 07 — 2026-01-07 1457 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M80mm F5.6 @ 80 mm f5.6 1_250s.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4498661

File: 09 — 2026-01-07 1519 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX MD180mm F3.2 @ 180 mm f4.8 1_400s.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4498662
and speaking of over-exposed, I really need to figure out a filter solution for the 680
it only has a max shutter speed of 1/400s so I really needed an ND filter for this shot
screwed around with levels a bunch in post to even get it to this point

>>4498648
Bring one of the washi films, preferably the one that has emulsion on washi paper.

File: 008179720017.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

Shot a roll of Portra and virtually every photo has the same identically placed orange light leak streak down middle, with a lot shifted blue outside that streak like pic related which a quick search suggests a rear leak for the former and frontal leak for the latter. Anyone can diagnose from photos alone? I shot two rolls back to back and the other was 100% fine

>>4498671
I almost said a failing horizontal shutter, but then it would be just blown out without orange tint. So yeah light leak somewhere probably.
What camera?

File: 008179720001.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4498674
The good old ae-1. I guess I damaged a foam seal between rolls somehow, but the camera also at times shoots with so much slack on the roll that advancing the film won't rotate the spool for 2 or 3 exposures, is this normal or could it be a factor? I picture the film as not sitting flat and flush with that much slack

>>4498671
how are you scanning & inverting these
the blue shift may not be a leak if there's any white balance involved

File: 008179720024.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4498685
They're done by a lab. I thought about white balance but there's also blueish streaks in a few and blooming at the edges so I think it's from leaks. Could be worse tho, every photo is at least readable and it's quite a vibe

File: DSC09345editSMBDR.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4498700
Orange leak = coming through the back of the film so it's likely a seal around the rear door somewhere.

File: 100S9155.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4498710
yeah, i'm thinking kino

>>4498585
here ya go matey

File: абабагаламага.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>>4498877
tf

got my first camera, now received my first lab scans. 2400x3500 just isn't enough.

>>4498880
Time to get an enlarger

>>4498881
THIS

>>4498880
Yeah its crazy that labs charge more for larfer resolution scans. AFAIK it literally costs them more time to compress the jpgs down to lower sizes.
That's why I invested in the stuff I needed to scan at gome. Granted I alr had a 26mp full frame camera and a 1:1 macro lens, which is the expensive part

oh fug I thought we had this one

File: 100S9753.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4498880
for real? how big are you printing??

File: DSC09331editSMBDR.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4498880
If your lab can't offer decent resolution scans for a reasonable price it's either:
1. Time to find a new lab
2. Time to start scanning yourself with a digital camera (assuming you have one)

File: kodak_nps160 (18).jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

Playing around with expired Fuji NPS160, anyone else have experience with this stuff? I shoot it at 50 iso, so 1.5 stops overexposed, but I have no idea how old the film is.

File: canon_nps400 (16).jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4498925
Also from this batch I got some NPH400, the greens look really good from this stock.

File: Untitled (55)_1 1.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

Egg in burned cable.

File: 299813_original.jpg (764.9 KB)

764.9 KB JPG

>>4498975
I came upon my idea independently of Coppola's famous and often displayed in museums egg and twine image, but I think they're kinda similar. I only remembered this picture existed after having set up my scene.

Do you like one over the other or do you just hate them both equally?

>>4498975
this is cool, anon

>>4498993
Thank you. At the end of may I will have been taking 8x10 egg pictures for one year.

File: 27-28.1.jpg (522.9 KB)

522.9 KB JPG

huh, wonder what caused that
had a lot of sun flares affect neighboring frames in this roll, but neither of these shots were pointed anywhere towards the sun
AE-1, 50&85 1.8

>>4498975
Yo eggy, have you ever considered photographing a cooked egg?

>>4499067
I have taken one cooked egg picture. Maybe more in the future, but the whole egg is a major component of the series I'm working on right now.
It's also easier to spend a while working on whole egg pictures because they take a long time to go bad.

File: 05 — 2025-09-09 0726 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f5.6 1_1000s.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4499057
>>4498663
anyways finished scanning another roll, dumping some

File: 07 — 2025-09-09 1758 02.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f5.6 1_1000s.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4499092

File: 11 — 2025-09-09 1850 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f5.6 1_125s.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4499093

File: 13 — 2025-09-11 1815 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f8.0 1_500s.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4499094
apologies for the daytime gas station photo

File: 16 — 2025-09-13 1816 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 28mm 1:2.8 @ 28 mm f16 1_60s.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4499095

File: 19 — 2025-09-16 0910 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f2.3 1_500s.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

>>4499096

File: 22 — 2025-09-18 1803 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 28mm 1:2.8 @ 28 mm f8.0 1_125s.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4499097

File: 25 — 2025-09-18 1819 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f8.0 1_125s.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

>>4499098
flare test for the FD85/1.8

File: 28 — 2025-09-19 1609 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 85mm 1:1.8 @ 85 mm f16 1_250s.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>4499099

File: 32 — 2025-09-23 0637 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 @ 50 mm f1.8 1_30s.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4499101

File: 34 — 2025-09-27 0831 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 @ 50 mm f2.8 1_1000s.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4499102

File: 35 — 2025-09-27 0832 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 @ 50 mm f4.5 1_1000s.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

>>4499103

File: 36 — 2025-09-27 2017 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Canon AE-1, Canon FD 50mm 1:1.8 @ 50 mm f1.8 1_60s.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4499104
done, thanks for scrolling

>>4497863
Shooting -2exp 0 exp box speed and +2exp and developing at box speed gives you three different looks.

Underexposure makes your shots super saturated with super high contrast and less dynamic range.

Overexposure makers your shots super unsaturated with much lower contrast and higher dynamic range.

File: IMG_7053.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

Guys I need some advice with semistand development. Some shots on the roll come out creamy as fuck, which makes me want to try to solve the bromide drag bullshit that ruins one third of the roll. HP5+ souped in 8ml rodinal at 1:75 1 hour total, inversions the first minute and four more inversions at 30 min. Should I agitate every 20 min instead?

File: IMG_7051.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4499120
Here is one of the unlucky ones (luckily it was a bad shot this time)

>>4499120
Dont use rodinal for stand or semi stand. It's not a very good developer.

File: IMG_7031.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

This one kinda funny with the light leak looking like alien weaponry hitting the building

>>4499122
I like the shelf life. I could consider trying hc-110 or what its called since it has similar properties. Will it serve me better with fp4 and hp5?

File: 08 — 2025-04-20 1951 01.1 — Ilford HP5+ @ 400, Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai, Zenza Bronica Seiko @ 80 mm f2.8 1_125s.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4499122
dunno, works for me

>>4499120
>HP5+ souped in 8ml rodinal at 1:75 1 hour total, inversions the first minute and four more inversions at 30 min.
That's literally my stand dev routine, only that I use 1+100 instead. Never had any problems with bromide drag. No clue why you do. Maybe it's the water (I just use tap, and it's pretty hard here). Maybe ambient temperature - is yours much higher or lower than 20°C? Try putting tank in water bath next time to keep it more stable and see if it makes a difference. Try using 1 liter of solution instead of 600 ml if you have a three reel tank. Afraid you're gonna have to do trial and error troubleshooting until you find and eliminate the cause.
And no, don't agitate more, it would defy the purpose of standing development. And yes, keep using Rodinal, it's the best developer for stand dev (and one of best overall). HC-110 is not similar to Rodinal at all other than being Highly Concentrated and having almost forever shelf life (but not as good as Rodinal). It's great in its own right though so give it a try (just not for stand dev).

>>4499167
Thanks for the pointers. One thing I read is that I should keep the reel elevated from the bottom of the tank, so Ill try that next time

>>4499137
>the sprocket holes dont leave any marks on my 120 film
Ok buddy

>>4499168
I never do that, but probably can't hurt.

>>4499173
so tendency for bromide drag is the only qualifier that makes a developer good or bad huh?