>>4500379
$830 in 2026 dollars btw

>>4500381
>$830 for a camera with fixed slow prime and no autofocus
wew what are they smoking

>>4500379

My oldest 135 is probably my Contax IIa and it’s accompanying Sonnar. I guess my oldest medium format camera and lens is my Beyer Rifax with its Leitz Elmar. My oldest large format lens is a Cooke brass knuckle portrait lens.

File: 20240506_091719.jpg (870.3 KB)

870.3 KB JPG

>>4500340
>>4500362
Man, why not just get any cheap 35mm camera from a thrift store?
Reminds me that I have an old Rollei 35B sitting around, probably the worst of the Rollei 35 family. Maybe I'll put it to some use again if I can find a place that develops.

>>4500408
Never liked the Rollei family of 35mm cameras, yeah they’re compact but I don’t like giving up having some sort of input on focus. At least with a rangefinder you can be +-95% sure.

>paper developer and safelight arrived
Tonight is the night /fgt/s, im gonna enlarge for the first time

Guys I have some used film sitting around that never got developed, just sitting in the canister.
Is there going to be any issues if I send it to a developer? Is it going to be a lost cause or can I at least get to know what was on there?

>>4500417
Congrats. You will be based soon.

>>4500426
It depends, but most likely youll be okay.

>>4500427
I guess I have no choice but to try, it's been sitting in a cabinet for maybe a decade or longer.
I was looking around for a development service but I'm a bit bummed out how expensive everything has gotten.

>>4500428
Yeah, shit has gotten out of hand when it comes to prices. I remember dev + scan used to cost around 5$ where I live, and the quality was pretty great. Now it's like 20$ and the results are hit or miss.
I'm considering to start developing at home. From what I've read, if you properly store chemicals they can last for 4-6 months, which isn't that bad.

>>4500429
It's been a while, I was into this stuff way back when I was a 16 year old lad (now 17 years ago) playing with homemade pinhole cameras and developing colour film with a b/w process. It was simple enough.
You do have to be a bit more tactical about how much you shoot and develop but hey, it's a rewarding hobby to have.

Still, it seems like film has gotten more popular but also more expensive, makes me sad. I'll go visit a photography place and just take the gamble with them, see what happens.
Heck, maybe I'll score some b/w film and also do some developing again. I mean, I could do it as a kid so it shouldn't be a problem.

>>4500428
What film type? Only 10 years will almost certainly be ok. B&W push maybe 0.5 stop, add some BTA to developer to restrain fog. C-41 push +1. I never did E-6 after that long, but probably same.
If you think the photos on that roll are worth it, try these guys: https://www.filmrescue.com
You'll pay a lot, but you have a guarantee of no hit-or-miss (not on the part of the lab that is) and you'll get the best result there can be. Read through their site, it's very educational on its own

>>4500430
That sounds lovely anon, good to hear you're getting back at it.
I do agree with you. It sucks that film got too popular and not a lot of good came out of it.
I thought at the very least, films wouldn't get discontinued, surprised to find out that the opposite happened. I'm mad I didn't stock up on Natura 1600, those cost over 200$ now, at least.

I don't know where you live, but if you want somewhat cheaper films that are not half bad, you could look on eBay, there are some sellers from Hong Kong. I've had good results with them.

>>4500431
I don't reckon the film is that important, it's cheap colour film. Interesting website, I'll take a read.
>>4500432
Yeah, lets see this in a positive light at least, film is not disappearing for a while.
I'm in the Netherlands, I'll visit a analog photography shop this friday, see how the people are and if they are kind enough, maybe they can suggest some things too.
Also just found an unused roll of fujifilm superia 200, it can be up 25+ years old as I checked the date. Would be a waste to NOT use it....

>>4500410
It's not the most versatile camera but to be honest, this is the only functioning 35mm film I have currently.
Besides, it's good exercise to guess distances, right? haha.

>>4500433
Oh hell yeah, good to know that it'll be around for a long time.
God, I haven't used Superia in ages, fingers crossed you get some great results out of it!
I'm in Europe as well (if you can consider the Balkans a part of Europe), I highly recommend PandaCamera store on eBay, some decent prices, and you get your package in 2 weeks or so.

>>4500433
Film will never dissappear, although you may need to make your own at some point.

>>4500436
Not sure how feasible that is....

File: Untitled (57)_1 1.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

Egg and wire mesh.

As you can see I flubbed the lighting on the right side of the mesh and background. The egg lighting could be improved a bit as well.

>>4500441
If you stick to wetplate and dry plate you could totally make your own from basically scratch. Even the colloidion is not so bad to make from scratch if you really wanted to.
The only tough part would be figuring out how to get bromine and iodine salts to make the sensitizer..
Albumen and salt prints are also quite straightforward to make from raw materials if you wanted paper prints and pair very nicely with glass plate negatives.

>>4500442
Very nice

Reminder: if you don’t have a darkroom at home, you’re just a digital photographer who pays a film lab to edit his raws

File: 20260311_220939.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Allright boys, I just made a fucking mess in my bathroom and my back hurts from crouching for teo hours but holy shit this is magic. I made more prints but they are of my family...

This one is a 35mm shot printed on 5x7 inch paper. I also did a 9x12 print of a 645 neg and that just looks insane. Is there a way to enlarge 35mms to that size? Neither the 50mm lens or the 75mm one I have seem to manage it. Do I just need a taller enlarger?

Im also gonna order the multigrade filters and a timer. Doing missisippis was fine one time

>>4500441
absolutely feasible up to iso ~100. Higher with experience, automation and pBr sensor

>>4500455
Once I get my real darkroom built up in like 6 months I'm going to experiment with making orthochromatic dry plates. If you have the right lab equipment it doesn't seem all that bad to at least start and the chemicals aren't too dangerous.
>>4500452
Looking good. The tail feather area could use some burning in, maybe. Shadows and midtones look solid.
>larger prints
You just need a shorter lens if your enlarger doesn't have enough height.
>more gear
The filters and timers will be an excellent addition to your setup. Grain enlarger, easel, and a print washer are also good things to have.

>>4500452
Grain focuser*

>>4500459
Thx for the pointers. Another thing I noticed is my exposures were around 5 or 6 missisippis, whereas I think the ideal is closer to 13. I was already stopped down to f/11. Is it my mid century enlarger bulb just being too much of a high test lumen monster? I didnt look inside the enlarger but should I get a weaker bulb?

>>4500462
Yeah just a bright light or thin-ish negatives. No big deal. Adding the contrast filters will slow it down some. Your enlarger head was probably fairly close to the paper, which will make a big difference in printing times as well.

File: 12953.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4500451
Semi correct

I'm a film shooter that takes photos of their film with a digital camera to then edit the digitized version of it.

>>4500470
What film is this? I’m digging the halation on it.

File: IMG_8268.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

My old 35mm camera didn’t like having the Harmann 1 inside of her

File: DSC09216editSMBDR.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4500471
Kodak 5222. Ya, it's sweet

File: 20260311_182928.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

Here are my 2 prints. Enlarged foma100 35mm devved with pyrocat MC. The staining action of pyro based developers worked a treat and made these easy to print.
I did a split grade exposure on the headshot, but I could have gotten away with just printing with a 1.5 filter most likely. The splashing pic was at grade 2.
They can still use a bit of fine tuning, and a soak in selenium, but I couldn't spend anymore time printing and I used the last of my dektol. :(
I need to order some hydroquinone so I can just mix my own batch when needed.

File: printsmarch12.jpg (720.7 KB)

720.7 KB JPG

darkroom gang

>>4500501
Nice titty test strip lol

File: r2a.jpg (211 KB)

211 KB JPG

>>4500379
Oldest. Possibly my Kodak Retina IIa. (pic) Enjoyed the first roll I shot with it. Want to shoot another, but the case panels seem to be deteriorating, at least the ones on the lens cover. Whenever I pick it up there seems to be a fine black dust on my fingers.
I bought some replacement decals, thinking they'd be easy to replace; the one shown was already lifting up slightly. But after an evening of throwing lighter fluid and goo gone at it, this is all the progress I made. It's pretty tenacious. Thankfully hasn't torn ... I thought they were made of paper. Now I'm not so sure.
So now I'm thinking of just gluing it back in place. Is there something I could coat the surface with the keep the dust under control? Thoughts?

File: 1.jpg (261.5 KB)

261.5 KB JPG

My first ever darkroom prints, Tx-400 shot at 1600, and printed to 8x10

File: 2.jpg (176.4 KB)

176.4 KB JPG

>>4500550

File: 3.jpg (271.9 KB)

271.9 KB JPG

>>4500552

>>4500452
I figured out today that the mid century enlarger I have doesnt really support 35mm negs. The lens doesnt clme close enough to the neg to really blow it up. I modelled and printed a recessed lens mount though and it seems to work. Even my shitty 3d printer managed to make the 0.5 pitch m23.5 thread for the lens. So now im good to go with both lenses and both formats

>>4500553
Nice I also just made my first prints. I feel like the analog world is really opening up now

File: IMG_8443.jpg (424.1 KB)

424.1 KB JPG

Is this a good price or better just sticking with cheaper films?

>>4500569
If you are new to film photography go with cheaper film, Portra 400 is good stuff but is very expensive. Not something you would want to learn on. I would recommend Kodak Gold or Colorplus if you are new and wanting color Kodak film.

File: 13467.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4500569
Portra 400 is a waste of money. You can get 5 rolls of Gold 200 for half the price.

File: Snapchat-738083954.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Pick something up for you guys?

>>4500594
How's the R2? I was looking at them but the price is outrageous, might as well get a Leica M3 at this point.

>>4500605
Ektachrome E100 or Provia 100F in 4x5, because you sure as shit can't buy either in the US right now
I'm not even being facetious, if you buy some and bring it back I'm interested

File: PXL_20260224_180157563~2.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4500605
If you'll end up anywhere near WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, ND or SD I'll gladly take a 10 pack of Provia and Velvia for a slight premium.

>>4500594
Ektachrome is where its at my man.

>>4500636
>>4500637
They had Fujichrome (not in 4x5), but it sure as shit was expensive. I bought a couple of rolls of Superia 400.

Which film labs do camera scans?

1: i’m not buying digital camera accessories to take photos of film
2: im not wasting glorious 300mp film on a dogshit 8 bit scanner from 2007

>>4500645
Blue Moon, Underdog

>>4500569
just stick with ultramax or gold

>>4500645
>>4500646
>camera scans
Just realized that I missed that part, sorry. I don't know then. But the two labs I mentioned scan manually on some better equipment, load the pics in PS and adjust them needed, rather than run the film through a clapped out Noritsu on defaults and call it a day. (Blue Moon is better between the two).
You'll pay handsomely for their scans though, so depending on your volume, option 1 may be a wiser one long term.

File: 0A0A8022.jpg (4.4 MB)

4.4 MB JPG

>>4500379
Beginner here. Do you think this is a shite snapshot or do you see any merit in it? Be honest.
1950s "Conjunto Nacional" building at Avenida Paulista, Sao Paulo

>>4500679
It's just a building snapshit, if you like it you like it. The halation is pretty neat.

>>4500681
Yeah the halation is what saves this picture I think. But it makes sense, dumb question from my part.

>>4500679
Does not stand on its own imo, but with better composition it may be an interesting part of a series. It's sort of unsettling how everything is blank and nameless like that billboard and the sign top left. I don't love how the antenna is placed in the frame. The lens distortion is also taking away from what the picture has.

>>4500684
Thanks anon, your post already gave me a lot to think about. As for lens distortion I had to resort to a Rokkor 35-105 zoomed out because I only have that and a 50mm right now. Though I swear I can't see the lens distortion (it's pretty severe zoomed in, even I could see that lol)

>>4500594
gold 200 is aids thobeit

>>4500605
Looks like the film shop in the Shanghai camera mall.

File: 0A0A8022~2.jpg (220.1 KB)

220.1 KB JPG

>>4500679
Snapshit. Nothing is happening there, not with any subjects, not with the composition either. It's just... dull buildings against dull sky. The street lamp that could be a possible hook is just there by accident, off-center in the gap between buildings. The cut off tree in bottom right and plain part of building on the left just clutter the frame and add to the snapshittyness. I cropped them out and it improved a tiny bit.
If you shot it with a filter, or even turned up contrast/sharpness/clarity in post then it would at least emphasize the building and sky textures. Doing it in post is a cheap crutch, but the photo is just dull, dull, dull.
Keep at it though anon, you were clearly trying to do something there and that's more than 75% of "photographers". And asking for honest critique puts you in the top percentile. The only way is through though, and you gotta shoot a lot, have a lot of snapshits, be your own harshest critic, and little by little find out what works for you and try to replicate it while improving further. And don't rely on others to tell you if you're good or not, do what you like and shoot what you like, but never stop trying to get better, for your own sake.
Good luck, have fun.

File: 3H9A9718 processed 4chan.jpg (661.5 KB)

661.5 KB JPG

>>4500379
Oldest I have is a zeiss 6x9 folder that is mid to late '30s. It works but I have better MF options.

The oldest I use regularly is a pacemaker speed graphic which is 40's-50's based on its layout with an aeroektar on the front.


Pic related, a sheet of retropan 320 I shot when we had snow in January

What's the best entry point to getting more self reliant with my film?
I currently pay a lot of money to get my film developed, scanned and printed at the lab and I'd like to slowly cut down on that by doing it myself. Have no idea where to start though, and getting everything all at once is probably outside of my budget.
From what I've seen developing your own film isn't trivial, but it's doable. What about scanning, do I need to shell out 500+ bucks to see good results or are the cheaper ones fine too?

File: 10 — 2025-08-29 1632 01.1 — Kodak Gold 200 @ 200, Zenza Bronica SQ-Ai, Zenza Bronica Seiko Zenzanon-S 80mm f_2.8 @ 80 mm f8.0 1_125s.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4500699
but it's not?
>thobeit
>>>/reddit/

File: Screenshot_20260314-105801~4.jpg (484.2 KB)

484.2 KB JPG

>>4500732
>Have no idea where to start though, and getting everything all at once is probably outside of my budget.
Red - minimum must haves.
Yellow - you can (and should) find cheaper alternatives not "dedicated" to photography, like a $2 1 litre graduated kitchen beaker, paper clips for hanging film, etc.
Green - optionals, some nice to have, some completely skippable.
Mind you those are US prices from a big greedy retailer so treat them as reference only. If you shop around you can find many things cheaper.
>What about scanning, do I need to shell out 500+ bucks to see good results or are the cheaper ones fine too?
You could go cheaper, but you'd be doing your film disservice. Something like V600 is absolute bottom tier minimum for passable scans, though for 35mm you should really look at V850.

>flatbed for anything other than LF
shigg

>>4500755
I just want to say that flatbeds are really quite terrible for 35mm film unless you get autistic about film flatness and proper focus. Film misalignment of less than half a mm can drop your resolution significantly. If you plan on only ever shooting 35mm than a different type of scanner will be a better option if you want good quality scans.

On an aside I was considering switching from kodak photoflo to adox adoflo II. Have you or anyone tried before? Apparently it has some anti static properties and it doesn't leave marks if you use too much.

File: 000013840017.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

First roll through my Canon Autoboy II. Fuji 200 Color Negative.

File: 000013840020.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4500760

File: 000013840008.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4500762

File: RODFS50-4_1024x1024.jpg (147.6 KB)

147.6 KB JPG

>>4500758
>>4500759
The other anon is on budget so I'm giving him budget solutions. For a price of 10-15 full roll scans from a lab he can get a used V600 which will give him much better results than the lab if he puts a little effort in it, and will pay back for itself in a few months.
>unless you get autistic about film flatness and proper focus
You can wet mount on V850 if that really bothers you, not sure about V600. Just get Vlad's focus test strips and adjust.
>If you plan on only ever shooting 35mm than a different type of scanner will be a better option if you want good quality scans.
Absolutely, and like I said flatbed is the minimum bottom of the barrel solution. But I wanted to warn him against plastic chinkshit like pic related which is under 10 feet of mud compared to a flatbed.

File: 000013840009.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4500763

File: 000013840033.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4500765
Last one.

>>4500763
Cute dog

>>4500760
Cute goat

>>4500711
Anon, thanks for the reply. It's better feedback than everything else I've got so far. I will.

>>4500765
>>4500763
>>4500762
>>4500760
woah wtf did i just jump to a timeline where the dirty negatives and farm snapshits guy had latent talent instead of negative talent

mandela moment

>>4500796
Absolutely obsessed.

>>4500700
That is correct. Nice old man running that shop. There's so many used Leicas in that mall it's unbelievable. Got my lens fixed in 2 hours, which shops back home wouldn't even touch because it's "too old". Got a good deal on a Manfrotto tripod and a cable release for my Nikon, so I'm ready for what's to come.

the focus ring on my 50mm 1.8 AIS is so fucking loose i hate it. what's a good 50mm lens that has character for an f3? I want a good one to use with my ftz adapter

>>4500805
The 50/1.4 is a perfect balance between sharpness and vintage character. If you lurk auction sites, it can also be bought for less than $100.

>>4500733
That's a really good scan because the sky doesn't look all fucked up and pixelated

>>4500501
This guys taking pictures of plastic dolls

>>4500764
I have that scanner, it definitely captures 93% of the image fidelity and isn't too bad

File: PXL_20260314_211709399.jpg (475.3 KB)

475.3 KB JPG

I bought this Pentax Spotmatic earlier today. I got it really cheap because the mirror would get stuck with lower shutter speeds. I fixed it and found this on the focusing screen. Any clue what this is and what a safe way to clean it off would be?

File: PentaxWR90 (28)2.jpg (5 MB)

5 MB JPG

>>4500764
Picture taken with Pentax WR90, Lucky 400 film, shitty kodak scanner pictured, and the first time I ever tried developing myself today ...

>>4500813
Use a sensor cleaning swab with the solution it comes with. Use a bit more than solution if you were actually cleaning a sensor, and you can back-and-forth unlike a sensor.

NFI what the goo is, but if it's absolutely caked on give it a soak in the solution by dropping some on and leaving it there face-up.

Don't be afraid of multiple attempts.

>>4500810
On film, no less.
To each their own, no?

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

>>4500809
huh? why would it
>>4500810
>>4500823
there's at least two of us here

>>4500813
did you fuck coom in your camera? you did.

That's it. I ran out of Velvia. Farewell the world where instant s***tphone mediocrity destroys everything.

>>4500858
It's only been mine for a few hours
Previous owner did though

how do I into developing my own film

>>4500882
https://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Film-in-a-Darkroom

File: file.png (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB PNG

I got this beauty today. I had an older Durst enlarger before where you had to use gelatine filters - pain in the ass, and you can't do split grade.
Also I've played with some macro - you can use an inverse adapter for a wide angle lense and get fuckhuge magnification, will post some examples

>>4500796
Thanks. Just felt like I was snapshitting with my fingers crossed and I was pretty impressed with the camera's ability to just make it work out once I saw the results.

File: _DSC5308-positive.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

here's a drop of water on a pine needle
with this magnification you have to always use f16 or f22 to get ANYTHING in focus

File: _DSC5298-positive.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

a snowdrop

>>4500887
Looks like a solid unit. Any plans for ra4?
I've started the process of getting the walls, plumbing, hvac, and electrical designs and permits for my darkroom. Probably like 4 or 5 months out and I'll finally be able to use my 45vxl.

Here's a snowdrop leaf, I think you can spot individual cells in the middle which is insane
>>4500898
eventually, I have many color negative photos I want to print

File: _DSC5300-positive.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4500899
fuck, forgot the pic

>>4500891
>>4500900
Printing really sets you free from all the sharpness autism. At 4x6 basically anything vaguely in focus looks sharp. If you print larger, think about how you will display the image. If it's hanging on a wall, no one will stick their nose in it and check for sharpness, so again pretty much anything is good enough.

Stop zooming in 100% on your scans. Get a cheap old enlarger and enjoy life.

>>4500813
Thats fungus. Its fucked. Return it immediately. Dont try to clean it.

>>4500902
I completely agree, but also muh tonality bro.

>>4500931
lol

>>4500802
Nice, I fixed one of my Canons there too. And that's my regular film shop. Developing I do elsewhere though.

File: 2026_0014_013.jpg (502.2 KB)

502.2 KB JPG

Shooting random orto shitstocks is FUN

File: P_20260314_132827_0.jpg (412.3 KB)

412.3 KB JPG

>>4500953
(digishit for context)

>>4500954
digital looks better. film is over : (

>>4500955
I went into it blind but after looking a spec sheet up, the sensitivity completely craters before it hits 500nm. Gonna exploit it more with the second roll. Poppies should be in bloom for a few more weeks.

File: 2026_0013_020.jpg (447.3 KB)

447.3 KB JPG

On a more classic(?) note, Rollei Superpan 200. This one goes to 750!

File: 2026_0013_029.jpg (359.6 KB)

359.6 KB JPG

>>4500959

File: MOD01339-Edit_e2d43ea2-d52e-4481-a07e-9a0b557764bb_1024x1024 copy.jpg (39.8 KB)

39.8 KB JPG

>>4500470
>>4500476
hmm
maybe I should pick some up

>>4500931
Was a fb Marketplace deal. Either I deep clean the camera or I'm out $30 and sell the lenses it came with
Ive just never had to mess with the focusing screen on any camera and know they're fragile

Since this thread seems printing focussed, I just got a durst m670 in the 35mm b&w configuration. Came with a 50mm lens and the whole ilford contraag filter set so pretty nice. Is it worth paying out the nose for the 6x7 condenser? I shoot both so ideally id want it but I saw they cost more than I paid for the whole enlarger

>>4500987
you still need lens for enlarging 6x7, usually 105mm but there are also 90mm.
Then you could just check if the condenser you have will work. If there is strong light falloff on the edges then you will need a different one.

>>4500732
>>4500755
>>4500764
Honest question as a beginner who has done some research: why would you put that much in a scanner when you can put together a dslr scanning setup for under 400$?

The way I understand it scanners are slow and have shit image quality at consumer price, so I'm not sure why an amateur would consider it. Is it just because it's more convenient to use?

>>4500992
What camera + lens are you thinking?

File: IMG_5873.jpg (21.6 KB)

21.6 KB JPG

Saw a Voigtländer Vito B in a tgrift store.
It was 50 euros so it felt like a little much but it looked rather good and has a leather casing.
I am looking for a compact manual camera so I thought this could be a good option for some practice snapshit street photography. Any thoughts or experiences with this particular camera?

File: Image 39.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4501010
They're fun and feel solid, but definitely not worth 50 euros. Zone focus only, which is definitely a vibe. Use higher speed film and you'll be golden.

Pretty sure this pic is with XX and the vito B.

File: Image 36 (1) (2).jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4501010
Here's another one

>>4500982
You should. Double-X is awesome. I've shot both it and some well-preserved Plus-X, and Double-X looks almost the same in D-76. A little extra grain from the higher speed, but it's my go-to for cheap B&W.

>>4501010
I remember seeing an Agfa Silette at a thrift store and was intrigued by it. For 50 euros its a bit much desu, but they're cool cameras.

>>4501011
>>4501012
Thanks for chipping in and nice photos, honestly now I am a little more tempted. The full manual operation is what I'm after. I want to get better at setting up the camera without meters.
The one I saw did look rather good, maybe I will ask if I can take a closer look, if it's in particularly good condition I may still end up getting it.

File: film.jpg (794.9 KB)

794.9 KB JPG

how is ortho 80 120?
Im thinking about getting some for my backpacking trip in the rockies in a few months

also 12 rolls of film to get deved (kill me)

>>4501022
Don't you get some bulk discount, lmao.

File: 000281320003.jpg (699.2 KB)

699.2 KB JPG

My first few rolls came out absolute garbage, I need to git gud before I go to Nippon

File: 1121112_1121112-R1-021-9.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

Ubernewfag here & first time with a dedicated camera, first roll dicking around on an unwanted AE1 discovered during moving duty... how to change approach towards a serviceable photo?

>>4501041
I've been lurking these threads and finally decided to pull out my dad's old XG-M. I shot a roll and a half. I'm afraid to see the results. I've never shot film before so we'll see.
Cute doggo. I had a tri-color just like that.

>>4500992
>why would you put that much in a scanner
To me the goal is to create the ultimate "archival" digital versions. The kind I can go back to in 50 years and not feel like I need to rescan them. The kind that, if negatives ever get lost, I won't feel like I have lost anything because I can use the scans to create prints just as good, if not better than from negatives.
Being able to send around low-resolution edited versions to family (or post here fwiw) is a desirable, but not main purpose of scanning in highest possible quality. (To be precise: highest possible quality at reasonable cost and level of effort - for example drum scanning or even wet mounting are past my arbitrary point of diminishing returns.)
>when you can put together a dslr scanning setup for under 400$?
But can you? Not including the DSLR and good macro lens in the price is cheating.
>Is it just because it's more convenient to use?
Not just, but that too. To memearrow a bunch of reasons:
>setting up and calibrating the scanning rig each time is a pain in the ass;
>if you dedicate the DSLR to just scanning, then a) the whole rig takes way more space than a scanner, and b) at that price you might have as well bought a real film scanner;
>for color, you lose out on ICE (infrared scratch removal etc.);
>dust on sensor, dust in the lens, dust on backlight;
>unnecessary processing in the chain - DSLRs color profiles are calibrated for taking photos, not scanning negatives;
>lens issues - vignetting, focus, resolution drop-off in the corners, all avoided with a scanner;
Could keep going but running out of character limit.
>I'm not sure why an amateur would consider it
Don't undersell and underestimate yourself. If your photos are throw-away and not worthy of best possible treatment, why even bother shooting film then?
If $400 is your reasonable budget for DSLR rig, then for 2-3x that you can get a prosumer scanner (like LS-4000 or 5000) that will beat the shit out of DSLR with very few downsides.

File: DSC09272editSMBDR.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4500635
It's great. Comparing to a m3 with no meter, slower max ss, less framelines, wimpy cloth shutter, and a dumb loading system is weird. I paid $400 for mine though.

>>4500637
*Provia

>>4501072
>LS-4000
Im a happy dlsr scanner but I looked this one up due to the "beat the shit out of" promise.

Honestly seems like a downgrade in all regards. More expensive, slower, takes up more space and the scan quality is fine but its on par with my 18mp apsc scans, definitely not any noticable difference in the LS-4000s favor at least. Plus the software for that beast is 20 years old and it connects via firewire. Im tempted to call boomer bullshit on these machines, but full disclosure, never tried one myself

>>4501079
>More expensive
Hardly, if you don't exclude camera and lens (and NLP and LR licenses if you want to be honest about it).
>slower
Overall, yes, but not by that much when you factor in having to manually advance and position frames for DSLR scanning (risking scratching film in the process), having you babysit the focus, alignment, dust, and so on. End to end scanning takes longer (and frankly, only if you do like 8x multisampling, below that it's on par), but most of that time you're free to to other stuff, like edit.
I feed a 6-frame strip into the scanner, do a pre-scan (about 10 seconds), select between 1 and 6 frames I want to scan, select preset if needed, and click Scan. Then I have been 5 and 20 minutes to do whatever.
>takes up more space
Absolutely not, where did that meme come from?
>the scan quality is fine but its on par with my 18mp apsc scans, definitely not any noticable difference in the LS-4000s favor at least.
That's the crux of it, with a lot of dicking about I can get on par results with my DSRL rig. But it's 10x the effort that just feeding film into a dedicated machine, and where step off the way I'm working against the system that was not designed to do what I'm doing. It's not with the time and effort. I only fall back to it for the most esoteric stocks (Phoenix being the least weird of them) that for various reasons the scanner or the software just can't handle.
>Plus the software for that beast is 20 years old
Works fine on Windows 10, and that's only if we're talking about official Nikon Scan. If you go with Silverfast or even Vuescan, you're as good as new.
>and it connects via firewire
I forgot about that desu (I use LS-5000 which is all USB). But a $5 adapter dongle or a $15 controller card solves that.

>>4501108
Yeah I mean you make good points too. Im totally happy with my dslr setup but not trying to bash the scanner approach either. The resulting images look great from it, I guess thats the most important thing. I have to say though I dont have to fiddle too much with the camera. Of course you gotta align your stuff but its pretty much a one time thing. And I already had a camera youre absolutely right, im only out a macro lens and a light source (less than 200€ total) but thats of course gonna be different if you start from scratch. 3d printed the film holder too which is the kinda stuff thats fun for me but might be annoying to someone else

File: IMG_5883.jpg (279.7 KB)

279.7 KB JPG

Lads, you think this bad boy can still be of any use?
How bad could it be anyway? It still seems to work fine, appears to have been open as all screw holes are exposed and a strip of leather is missing from the side.
Packing a yashimar f/3.5 80mm lens, maybe I should just take it out for once, let it get some fresh air.

By the way, how easy is it to cut replacement leather for the camera body anyway?

I just modified my Beseler 23C enlarger to take normal E26 bulbs instead of the retarded bayonet mount bulbs.

I want to put in a smart LED bulb and control the colors for contrast. Does anyone have any experience doing this?

>>4501108
Goodness I should have proofread that.
>having you babysit
having to babysit
>been 5
between 5
>and where step
and every step
>It's not with
It's not worth
>>4501116
That's fair, if it works for you then that's what matters. I just like to evangelize because I want people to get the most out of their film and not have regrets or have to redo the work years down the line.
Maybe I can dedicate a day to doing side by side tests with all my scanners (plus DSLR) so I can post them for reference for other folks.
Most of my DSLR rig came as a side effect, too - camera I already had, light and film holders are parts of the enlarger, copy stand I bought for the enlarger. Only the lens (Signs 150mm Macro) I bought with general use in mind, but decided that it's too nice to bang it about in the field, so it's essentially dedicated to scanning too (and occasional macro work at home).
3D printing has been tempting me for a while now, but that's another hobby that I'm sure would very quickly lean towards five figures so I gotta keep it in check for now.

>>4501120
I bet youll get sharp, grat photos out of it, tlrs dont seem to ever break. Just keep an eye on the film advance, sometimes the mechanism is wonky and allows you to advance too far or you get weird spacing. Maybe try it with a roll of backing paper to see. Also nice sketches fellow painter

>>4501154
Yeah I'll give it a go, I did some toying with it, cleaned it up and tried shooting a photo, seems to go alright.
The film advance is just a knob that advances the film for as long as you keep turning, there's a little inspection window that shows the number, can't really go wrong. Still got a roll in it with 9-10 frames left, it's Fomapan 100 so not sure what I can get away with, I'll just try to overexpose every shot by a fair margin.

I think if the film is up I might do a more thorough cleaning and maybe a replace the skin. The top lens and mirrors need some cleaning cause the top window is looking very dusty from the inside.

>>4501120
Can't ID it exactly without seeing a few more details that are not visible in the picture (especially the shutter type), but it's almost certainly one of early A-series models. Possibly pre-1957. No auto-stop on advance knob and Yashimar lens means it's one of the budget types.
You could send it to Mark Hama and he'll rebuild it for you like it's new, but given the low specs and mid condition it's probably not worth the money.

>>4501010
>>4501021
Ok so I decided to check it out again, on closer inspection it's an earlier Voigtländer Vito B, it did look like a good condition one but it's the one with merely a 4 speed shutter and I decided against it in the end, the price was just too much for what it was.

File: opa's-yashicaflex.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4501161
Hey man I appreciate it, if you got anything interesting to say about it I'm all ears. here's a clearer photo from the front.
I'm in the Netherlands so sending it overseas is out of the question, but honestly, I'm tempted to take a look inside it myself. At the very least I want to fix the skin, as the current skin is peeling, missing, or filled in with black paint (as is visible on the front). But only after I have gone through the current roll.

personally I use a film scanner from the 90s because it's all part of the larp

File: 1773858881493.jpg (354.3 KB)

354.3 KB JPG

>>4501173
Nice, so it's gotta be model A-I, dated between 1954 and 1956 - rather later than earlier. You can see the shutter has almost fully transitioned from cable release to button press, but still has the tell-tale cover at 8 o'clock where the cable mount used to be.
Seeing how the screws have been access previously (and in a not very professional way) there is a small chance it's a hybrid with some donor parts from other models, but most of the details seem to check out.
There weren't really that many critical differences between models of that time, for example only difference in A-II was that it has a frame counter rather than the red window. Which is nicer I suppose, but where it really mattered (lens and shutter) they were the same.
I don't know if there are any repair specialists in Europe, but if it's really your opa's, or just has a lot of sentimental value due any reason then shipping it overseas is not impossible - just costly.
Whatever you decide, don't ever think of using super glue for anything, leatherette included. Ask /diy/ maybe for advice on working with leather and attaching it safely.

File: DSC_5418.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

Taking HP5 on a trip soon. Has anyone ever pulled it to 100iso?

>>4501218
Funny you should say that. There's an interesting video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVhozjE-NIA

>>4501218
Yes. You can go down to 25 iso with it and up to like 1600 if you develop correctly.

File: IMG_5889.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4501203
Ah neat, yeah I reckon that is the model. A little confused about the shutter because the brochure you posted says "d) connection for flexible shutter" but I don't see it.
Or is it a different design that screws on to off the button? Because it does look like there's a bit of thread around the base of the shutter button.
Like you said, it has a little plate covering the old wire shutter, fun to learn about this.

By the way, I think the camera still works fine, I have no intentions to get it serviced or overhauled, yes there is a little sentimentality but not enough to justify any big investment, the camera itself also isn't luxurious enough to justify it either. I will just use it and not expect too much.

File: DSC_5751.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>4501219
Ha that's cool

>>4501220
Shot a roll @1600 once. Think it turned out alright

>>4501179
based

File: m3q9i14j3yr61.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4501222
Sorry, a bit of confusing wording. Earlier revisions did not have a shutter release button at all, but you had to screw in a standard plunger type release cable directly into the shutter/lens assembly. Not my pic, but it should make it obvious where the traces of that are on your camera.
Now to use a release cable with YOUR camera you will need an adapter that will screw into the collar around the shutter button. Then you can screw the plunger release cable into that adapter.

File: 7129787043_a88b3ed428_m.jpg (22.8 KB)

22.8 KB JPG

>>4501222
>>4501230
It's called the "Leica nipple", apparently. Also used for Nikon F. Some cable releases (like Nikon AR-2) have this integrated, I believe.

ive been using kentmere 400 a lot, then my friend gave me a roll of tri x and holy fucking shit im amazed on what tri x gave me. too bad i just got a roll of k400 literally that day i got the roll to shoot

>>4501244
I was gonna ask if the quality difference is worth the price difference, but I see that K400 is only $1 cheaper than Tri-X now. The fuck.

>>4501247
bulk loading its 30 dollars more which is crazy to me

>>4501072
Thanks for the thorough answer.
My intuition came from the fact that the scans I saw from cheap scanners (under 500€) are worse than a lab scan and IMO not worth taking photos in the first place. It seems that building the cheapest dslr scanning setup possible (link below did it for less than 400£ lens and crop sensor camera included) will yield far better results. But now I understand a bit more the argument that someone would not want to deal with a wonky setup, even though I personally think paying several hundred €/$ to get worse scans than the lab is a waste of money. I also still think if you own any dslr and have a sub 1000 budget dslr scanning is a no brainer.

>>4501003
If I didn't own a dslr something like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBh8nO3dRw&pp=ygUZY2hlYXAgZmlsbSBzY2FubmluZyBzZXR1cNIHCQmaAaO1ajebQw%3D%3D
But I already own a D600. Going to get a Nikkor micro AI 60mm f2.8 (130$). But there is cheaper options with an extension tube.

>>4501129
Would love to see the side by side. This kind of ressources is lacking on the internet.


Then there's my personal case, I live in an arctic shithole so used scanners are hard to come by and shipping of heavy stuff is expensive. I don't have much money and I already own a full frame nikon d600. So I probably did the right choice with dslr scanning. I should have all the pieces to build it in 2-3 weeks. Might post updates here. Will keep the film scratching issue in mind when I use it.

>>4501232
>>4501230
Ah so my gut was right, it screws on top of the shutter button, makes sense.
Thanks for taking the time with this, I really enjoy learning more and more about this low end camera, hopefully I can put it to some use soon.
Say you happen to have a recommendation for a simple light meter? Preferably under 100 euros. Been looking to get one, also to assist with my Rollei 35B which has a working selenium meter but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

>>4501244
Kent 400 is your reliable bog standard B&W.
For when you just want a nice baseline for unknown shots.
Trix is creme-da-la-creme.

Paterson tank just flew open as I was emptying the stop. Luckily it was that step and not earlier and photos are fine. But how can I trust it now next time. This never happened before

I'm probably worrying too much but it's fine to leave fresh slide film out of the fridge for a few weeks, right?

File: Pentax mini sport manual (20).jpg (4.4 MB)

4.4 MB JPG

I bought some Lucky 400 B&W, it was nice but not sure I'll keep shooting black and white. I thought it would be cheaper than color. I did buy the Patterson kit but it seems like buying the chemicals and $6 rolls of B&W ... is it even a savings over dropping off film at a lab?
>>4501179
based
>>4501348
nice

>>4501334
Did you twist the lid until it clicks?

>>4501355
I mean yeah its not my first rodeo. It held fine when pouring out the developer. I guess I fucked it up one way or another and managed to unclick it

File: 000055980022.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

Expired velvia / Leica M5 / Voigtlander Nokton 1.5

File: 5450 (1).jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

Leica M5 / Voigtlander Nokton 1.5on expired velvia

>>4501370
Nice

>>4501247
i buy it in person at my local store. 13 dollars a roll :( vs 8 for kentmere

>>4501311
i definately didnt need to work hard in the darkroom to get a good print out of tri-x. it was kind of just good blacks and whites vs kentmere i have to subtle change the timing and filters, i dont mind at all but it was mindblowing

>>4501247
Tri-x is suspiciously cheap these days

>>4501375
sucks that the roll price doesnt have any correlation to the bulk loading price
$164.99 for 100' tri x
$101.99 for 100' kentmere 400

prices from bh

>>4501375
Check on ebay for slightly expired stuff or frozen old stuff. It's a complete crap shoot, but I've gotten a good amount of cheap 8x10 film that way with mostly good results and if it is fogged just use it for experimental stuff or whatever. I mean you can usually print through fog if your end game is darkroom prints.
Got 25 sheets of expired txp for like 120 the other day. Even if it is fogged I won't be too sad because it can just be my snapshitting film. Fresh kodak 8x10 is too expensive for snapshitting. 18 dollars per sheet. :(

i hate this "new" take on that "the civil rights movement were in black and white bc ppl are racist!!!!! color was available!!! its just black and white so people can say it was so long ago when it was in one generation's lifetimes!!!!"

it was the golden standard for photo journalists to use black and white film. the ease of processing and printing in a bright darkroom means you can shoot a roll, run 12 blocks to develop in boiling developer, print something, run another 12 blocks back to the newsprint and give them to the front page of the newspaper that same day. color film requires delicate temperature control and a completely pitch black darkroom along with the fact that most newspapers still used black and white paper until the 1990s. black and white film were the standard until digital came around for photo journalists, even when color boomed in popularity for the common people. back and white is still the most archival negatives you can get. color can degrade faster than bw.

sorry for that little rant ik you guys probably know this already

File: pool's_closed.jpg (144.6 KB)

144.6 KB JPG

>>4501382
>the civil rights movement were in black and white bc ppl are racist!!!!! color was available!!!
First time ever I hear about this and it sounds like the usual flavor of the week manufactured outrage to be offended about because people grew tired of hearing about all the other flavors of bullshit. I wish you hadn't posted about it and I wish I hadn't replied to it.

>>4501383
i just watched a youtube video about the history of racism in photography or whatever its called, and i remember when my ethnic studies teacher said it, along with seeing it several times on instagram reels.

>>4501334
>>4501355
>>4501356
just get a jobo 1500-series tank and never look back
it's just so much easier to manage than a patterson

File: 1773982325384.jpg (93.6 KB)

93.6 KB JPG

>>4501384
>my ethnic studies teacher
Anon please.

>>4501396
What film stock, camera, and format do you think jesus would have used?

>>4500192
>>4500196
Mystery solved I think.
Got a new roll back and on there all the shots I metered with my DSLR are perfectly as I would expect. The only difference between the two is that this time I was shooting on 400 instead of 100 ISO. But I suppose on the other attempt I just butterfingered some settings wrong or read them wrong off the DSLR or something.

File: CNV00027.jpg (739.8 KB)

739.8 KB JPG

given a Halina 35-600 by a friend, put a roll of ilford 400 thought it. It has no battery (they were mercury and as such, banned. you can get adapters apparently), adjustable aperture but only zone focusing (designated by pictograms of a person, two people, some trees and a mountain) and because of the aforementioned no battery it was locked to 1/40.

Does anyone know of a decent "small" LED light box for inspecting film?
I saw Kodak has some, but the smallest one they have is out of stock everywhere I looked. And the others from Kodak are too expensive.
Amazon also has a bunch of unbranded A4 sized LED panels but I prefer something a little more compact.

>>4501479
I use a cinestill cs-lite to scan my film, maybe it could work for your inspection needs too?

>>4501479
Why not specify a size?

>>4501510
Ah sorry, I should have. Looking in the range of A5 size.
>>4501506
Hey that one looks pretty good, maybe just what I need. I think the biggest issue I had is that I didn't know what exact search terms to use. I kept running into light fixtures and advertising boxes, or the typical slide viewers that only view slides and not irregularly shaped negatives.

File: DSC_4817.jpg (812.4 KB)

812.4 KB JPG

first time home develop and scanned. i think i had ambient light coming in while scanning so it looks like a light leak but i was happy anything actually came out looking ok

>>4501515
congrats on being based
>>4501634
I love the high contrat in this one

File: DSC07362editSMBDR.jpg (168.3 KB)

168.3 KB JPG

>>4501376
Bulk tri-x and Tmax have been stupid priced for years. For a long time a bulk roll was more expensive than buying 18 individual rolls. Even now it's basically the same.

>>4501382
>>4501384
This isn't a take. Get off the Internet, anon.

>>4501382
>>4501383
I've never heard this pitched as a conspiracy theory like photojournalists were purposefully doing this, but I have heard people say that seeing things in b&w makes them think whatever is depicted is much older than it really is. In the same way normies see a film photo and think "whoa what a vibe it's like we're in the 90's!" They see a b&w photo and think "damn they looked weird in 1892" even if it is an event in living memory for people. But it's absurd to say that it was done intentionally to deceive... Future generations? Idk.

File: IMG_7039 (1).jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

My canon AT-1 has developed some kind of light leak. It was present in about half the pictures on my last roll, no issues earlier. Any idea what it could be? I checked the curtains with a strong led and they seemed fine. Roll sat in the camera for 6 months maybe that has something to do with it? Its in the same place everytime thats why I suspected the curtains

>>4501713
Check the sprockets on the negative, if the leak is covering the sprockets it's likely due to the film door seals. A replacement kit is $10 on amazon, it's really easy to do it yourself.

Shutter issues usually show up like sharp edged lines, half a frame missing, etc.

>>4501618
Nice. Is it just me or does B&W often look sharper (maybe better contrast?) than color film ?

File: DSC_4809.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4501756
in images with a lot of texture and contrast i think so. this one doesn't have much

>>4500982
>>4501014
for some good contrast, 200 or 400 for XX? What does it like better?

File: 000081260033_corrected.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

damn fuji 400 did some leg work

File: 000081290036_corrected.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

porta 400 pulled to 100 has some really nice colors

>>4501383
> I wish I hadn't replied to it
why did you reply then?

File: 03_22_26_19_28.png (993.1 KB)

993.1 KB PNG

I knew I had an enlarger in the basement. It's ancient, the base is completely rusted out. Everything else is fine. The plates aren't broken, the lens isn't scratched or cloudy. The bellows might need to be replaced. Other than that she fired right up. Granted it's just a lamp so it doesn't need much.
Thanks grandpa.

>>4501763
200 is close enough to box speed that it handles it like a champ. Slightly denser, but that just gives you more to work with in the shadows. It can also handle 400 with normal development (depending on developer). It also handles pushing a stop or so pretty well if you want to be safe. Honestly, it's hard to go wrong. Given the cheap price, it's become my favorite B&W for everyday use. I'll break out the Tri-X if I want to push beyond 1600, and Pan F if I want some slower stuff, but Double-X is just incredible in most developers at 100-1600.

>>4501763
800 + yellow filter

>>4501772
Weird pupils ... flash?

How do I imitate film photography in NX Studios?

Do I need to see as many film photos as possible to understand their key points? They seem to be different depending on the film type

File: IMG_5900.jpg (125.7 KB)

125.7 KB JPG

>>4501836
Go to mspaint (or gimp if you're a chad) and slap a 35mm film border around your pic.

Joking aside, what about film do you like? What is it that you want to see in your pictures? And why not just shoot film?

File: 7zzt1hjbo02yyuss_1024.jpg (254.6 KB)

254.6 KB JPG

>>4501838
>why not just shoot film?
I'm poor.

>>4501838
>what about film do you like?
colors and shadows seem to be more artistic. Film photography is not just a 1:1 copy of reality

Are 1.4v hearing aid batteries really a good replacement for old 1.35v quicksilver ones? Do the 1.4v drop to a stable 1.35v or why are they used so often? How long do they even last?
I have a Konica autoreflex TC and want to avoid the meter being inaccurate due to wrong voltage.

>>4501839
>>4501836
I'll try an analogy. If you were painting, how would you do to imitate photography? Although it's required, it's not enough to just know how reality look like. It's also not enough to have a reale life model. You need to know precisely the image you want to obtain down to the details. Obviously moving around the sliders is not as hard as making a photorealist painting. My point is, it's not enough to want to make your photo "more artistic". You need to have a precise result in mind.

> Film photography is not just a 1:1 copy of reality
it's closer than digital though

>>4501840
Yes, even 1.5V LR44 batteries work good instead of the 1.35V ones. You'll have to set the iso/compensation to like half a stop of underexposure (for 1.4V), I'd check with a light meter (app or external meter, even a dslr worked for me) just to be sure. I'd change them every month or so just for it to be precise but you can just adjust the compensation before shooting just to be sure.

File: 20180628_121634_01.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

>>4501848
here I tried to do something like this >>4501770

How does it look?

>>4501881
It just looks like digishit

File: IMG_20260323_143303530_HDR.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

So I did a thing... lol
they're real cheap on eBay, seem robust and well built, all work fine except one the zoom only goes to 85 instead of 90.

How long would i need to expose my film for if i am using a IR filter with adox hr-50?
I really cannot find any good estimates to plug into calculators. The filter is supposed to have a filter value of 16 according to wikipedia so 50/16=1.3
but then you also need to account for reciprocity failure which above 30 seconds is another stop on top.
But is this really all there is to it? I would be shooting in broad daylight obviously but IR and visible spectrum don't share the same EV do they? From sun spectrum pics i read around 20% less so the EV would be 13. But that is just intensity and IR is much thinner than visible light so eight time less on top?I dunno this is really messing with my head. A tiny difference in numbers changes the result by so much.
Does anyone else understand this retarded challenge?

>>4501887
It's more than just a simple compensation because of factors like weather, season, clouds, scene variance, etc.
My advice is to shoot a stop or two over what you think the correct exposure is and take good notes. B&w film handles density really well, so unless you really screw up it will give you useable pictures and a good starting point.

File: boomstammetjes.jpg (879.2 KB)

879.2 KB JPG

Posting crappy film pictures, crappily developed 15 years after shooting and scanned with a crappy setup.

>>4502012
Crappy!

>>4502015
Thanks!
Just need to get a better lens for my digital camera so I can get closer up for exponential crappiness.

>>4502019
Set your camera resolution to 640x480 before scanning film lol

File: leftright combined for upload.jpg (1015.9 KB)

1015.9 KB JPG

>>4501887
On a sunny day, I'd go for a bracket of 4s, 1s, 1/4, 1/15 at f8. This give 2 stops between each exposure so you should get something useful. Examine your shots then write down what works, comparing it to any reading your camera meter gave through the filter. IR is a little or a lot different for each film so you have to test each type of film.

File: bankje.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4502021
Heh, maybe I'll try it.
I just need it to focus and fill the entire screen but I can't figure it out. But maybe I'll buy one of those cheap macro filters and set it up on my tripod.

Here's another crappy shot.

>>4502024
The next logical step is to print these on transparency paper as a negative and make contact prints with them. They definitely have a vibe that makes up for/compliments the kinda mundane subject matter.

Found some old slide film of my mom as a kid. Hit me really hard in the second hand nostalgia.
Need to look up how that shit works, how do you get a positive on film?

>>4502025
Yeah maybe.
The colours are just so messed up and I'm trying to invert them in GIMP but the negatives are probably cooked from being developed too late and the development probably could've saved it a little bit.

Anyway, I got some fresh film in my camera again, not planning to wait this long again, and hopefully I figure out a way to capture sharper images or pay the hefty scanning fee.

>>4501881
I think your camera sucks too much to like like film

your colors are ok but the textures are soft and there's a lot of awful digital noise

maybe add fake grain to mask it

>>4501926
Yes I see. No two ways about it. I need to figure out things experimentally. Will do two runs as the other anon described. One in the morning and another in the evening. High noon is not as IR intensive in europe I understand?
>>4502022
>so you have to test each type of film.
Will share my results here. Considering that I am also using rodinal with this film the results should be sorta unique.

But before that my camera needs its light seals replaced. Any advice or is it pretty straight forward? I am sort of scared of the mirror dampener. Getting the old stuff off while in such close proximity sounds a little risky.

File: R1-02566-0025.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4500760
I lied - technically this roll of Kodak 400 B&W that I accidentally shot at 1000 ISO was the first roll through it. There were a couple shots that I ended up liking.

File: R1-02566-0034.jpg (417.4 KB)

417.4 KB JPG

>>4502055

File: R1-02566-0009.jpg (295 KB)

295 KB JPG

>>4502056

File: IMG_8395.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

Has anyone tried out these new Harman switch azure? Kinda made me cringe but I guess it can be funny in a specific setting

File: 63B49180-BCC7-4A85-B4C5-4634EA1AB27C.jpg (263.1 KB)

263.1 KB JPG

Fuji can't possibly be saving (or profiting) by having Kodak make their own film. I can only surmise there's some shady background agreement... like Fuji can stick to Instax domination and Kodak can keep 35mm domination. Sad!

>>4502069
I bought a couple rolls, have one I need to develop but haven't gotten around to yet but I had pretty shitty light for when I had time to shoot it.

I think it could be fun for specific stuff - same as you.

>>4502069
Bought 4 rolls (2x 135, 2x 120), only shot one 135 so far but like other anon I haven't developed it yet. Next month maybe if I accumulate enough C-41 rolls to run a batch.
Very curious to see the results, had it with me on a hike on a bright sunny day with a lot of spring colors around so it should be interesting. But I will probably be cursing my life when scanning it, just like with Red.
>pic
>Ferrania P33
I'm still seething I missed buying it when it was available at normal retailers here (for about 5 minutes). I hope Ferrania gets its shit together because I kind of fell in love with the P30 and would like to have a steady supply of it for life.

Been considering getting a 6x9 box camera, only gives you 8 frames but the negatives will be nice and big. Anyone here does this?
I also saw a half frame box camera shooting 6x4.5, could also be fun...

>>4502098
Not with a box camera but I have a Fuji 6x9 "Texas Leica" that I quite like and the negs are hilariously big.

File: 1.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4502069
>>4502074
>>4502090
Ok, developed a roll, working the scans now and it's a mildly hilarious headfuck when you convert with NLP but haven't left Lr yet so you make a small RGB curve tweak but of course a) it's negative and b) it's got the colour swaps and it fucks your head for a moment lol. I'll work through more later, I don't think there's anything particularly good on this roll cos I just banged it out quickly to get a feel for it but I might post a couple more if there's anything half decent or that shows something interesting about how it captures.

Certainly isn't gonna be something I reach for every day but I think there'll be good reasons to fuck with it, I think it might do night time cityscape long exposures rather well if you can expose it right.

>>4502100
Yeah I read they often used the negatives for contact printing, sounds like a fun way to duplicate your photo's. My first thought is that it's simpler but I have no idea how it works (yet).

Also, is it me or is the 35mmc website a bloated mess? My computer always stresses out when I open it.

>>4502107
>Also, is it me or is the 35mmc website a bloated mess? My computer always stresses out when I open it.
I didn't used to find that but I went there recently and found the same thing.

File: kiev-4a-review-7-2873362282.jpg (797.7 KB)

797.7 KB JPG

A quick rant about these older camera designs like the Kiev-4 series, where the shutter speed dial doubles as the film advance.
At least on my model it's always a bit of a gamble which speed you've actually end up setting it to. Especially with the ones that are so close to each other like 1000 and 500

File: 3.jpg (519.4 KB)

519.4 KB JPG

>>4502106
>>4502069
>>4502090

>>4502109
What is the best soviet camera? Were they actually decent compared to Canon or Nikon?

File: 5.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4502113

File: 4.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4502115

File: Kiev-Front-Sq-3584874029.jpg (219.1 KB)

219.1 KB JPG

>>4502114
Hard to say. I bought a Kiev, because I wanted to see, if shooting rangefinders is something I enjoy and I could get it for 50-60 bucks. Plus I think its history is quite interesting.
So I can't say how it compares to other brands. For such a low price I'd say it's a very solid camera, if you can get a good one. My dad, who grew up in the USSR used to own a FED and said that from what he recalls the Kievs were considered to be the higher end of consumer cameras at the time.
I would say my main gripe with it, aside from the one I mentioned above is the position of the second rangefinder window. I'm still getting used to how I'm supposed to hold it, so I don't cover it with my finger half the time.

Also word of warning, these are unfortunately known for having an overengineered shutter mechanism that's prone to breaking due to wear and there seems to be next to nothing you can do about it. The first one I got had a broken shutter (despite the seller saying he tested it) and luckily I could send it back and this second one has been working fine for 3 rolls so far.
I'd say the main advantage they have is their low price point, while still being fun to shoot in my experience.

File: 2 (1).jpg (951.3 KB)

951.3 KB JPG

>>4502116
So I don't think it's something I'm going to shoot very often, and the latitude is pretty narrow, but it's a bit of fun and I think it could be quite cool for night or long exposure night stuff.

>>4502114
No, they're all pieces of shit stuck at late 50s technology. They were selling FED rangefinders with selenium external meters in the 90s lol.

File: Zeiss-Ikon-Box-Tengor-2.jpg (203.4 KB)

203.4 KB JPG

Decided to buy an Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54, saw one online with a supposedly broken shutter but it was cheap and this exact model is not as common as the later ones, it's a 6x4.5 camera as opposed to the more common 6x9 variant. It also has a mount for a cable release and tripod, which is perfect to accommodate the single 1/30 shutter speed.
Thinking it'd be a little bit safer to experiment having 16 frames as opposed to 8 and I found a spanish webpage about disassembling pretty much every model of the Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor, pretty confident I could fix it.
Pic related. I may pick up it's bigger brother too, a Box Tengor 56/2 as they're all cheap and plentiful. Will experiment with the smaller one until I get more comfortable with shooting a box camera.

Still waiting for it to arrive tho.

>>4502119
>>4502116
>>4502115
>>4502113
>>4502106
Thanks anon, the nightshots especially and the last one with the tower block are fucking dope! If my photos with it (mostly outdoorsy nature stuff) turn out this satisfying I can see myself reaching for it more often than just for novelty.
I don't think Ilford/Harman ever made cine stock, but now I want to see some dream/psychedelic sequence shot at it for a movie. Anyone got Nolan's number on hand?

Are there some good modern film cameras around that aren't too expensive and are readily available? I'm looking for two kinds and I just want the picture quality to be pretty good.

One would be a regular P&S for my parents to use as they miss using that instead of phones. The second would be something like a Nikon F100 where it's like a regular DSLR/mirrorless in every way except it uses film, I think that's pretty neat, but I don't know of anything new or that's from the last 6 years that would be like that.

Any help and reccs?

Can old light meters on something like a K1000 still be trusted? Or do I need to whip out my phone and use an app?

>>4502197
Canon elan

File: 1771717593297684.jpg (43.1 KB)

43.1 KB JPG

So I'm just starting off with film photography and I have 2 cameras
One is an old pantax and the other is a Minolta with auto focus and exposure
Which one should I start with? The pantax to get more experience with exposure and focusing or the Minolta so I don't have to worry about it?

>>4502106
>>4502116
>>4502119
seems potentially more useful/versatile than lomo turquoise at least. gonna have to shoot it I guess...

>found a Pentax K1000 for about $70
>supposedly works but dunno how to fully test it
What do? Seems like a fair place but it's a retro store and they don't specialize, they just vaguely test shit. Are they pretty reliable? It would be my first manual film camera.

File: 1000004589.jpg (1013.2 KB)

1013.2 KB JPG

Ricoh 35 ZF, Fuji 400

File: 1000004597.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4502222

>>4502224
Nice
>>4502206
Does it take batteries? Just put those in and try the advance and shutter. Maybe lookup the manual online.

>>4502197
Get your parents a Pentax Zoom 90WR -they're pretty sturdy. >>4501885

>>4502225
>Does it take batteries? Just put those in and try the advance and shutter. Maybe lookup the manual online.
Fully manual from what I understand, the only electric part is the light meter (which I don't know if they become inaccurate over time or not).

File: file.png (292.1 KB)

292.1 KB PNG

How do you guys deal with film and traveling? I know that you should take it as carry-on, but I'm afraid of any scans hitting it and that kind of thing. I've heard about these x-ray cases but is there even a point? It would just block the scan and need manual inspection anyway.

>>4502228
When you get to the x ray line you pull out a small clear zip lock bag with your film rolls and tell the person you don't want it x rayed. They just look it over and hand it to back to you on the other side.

>>4502229
>When you get to the x ray line you pull out a small clear zip lock bag with your film rolls
Cool, I've seen a lot of clear travel bags around so I'll get one. My fear has otherwise been some kid or thirdie working there doesn't know what film is and just pulls the lead like it's a ripcord as they don't know what exposure is.

>>4502230
Maybe tape the lead to the canister, just to prevent that.

File: Capture00059.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

I just started shooting film, man it has a look. I scanned this myself, first time too.

Is home development hard or risky? I'm afraid of being a total noob and irrevocably ruining rolls.

>>4502233
cool pic, there's some magenta hue though

>>4502228
> x-ray cases
does that work? why isn't there morz data about this in 2026? it would make it so much more convenient to fly with film.

>>4502238
They do work, I just question whether having that bag go through the machine would annoy the workers and cause more issues than just showing them the film and saying "please dont scan this".

>>4502228
I bought such a pouch. Most of the time they hand check my rolls of film if I ask them not to pass them through the x-ray, sometimes they call some airport cops to check them, once they made a small incision into my lead pouch to check for drugs, sometimes they pass the films through the X-ray but not the pouch, somethings the other way around. There is no clear mode d’emploi

>>4502245
I feel like it might also be worth considering to check for a photography store in your place of destination.

>>4502239
I would guess it's more convenient for everyone involved. When you ask for a hand check, 50% of the time there's gonna be an argument both because the agents are told bullshit about how the scanners do not damage film but also because when you interrupt the agent's work and slow down the security checks for all the line, to hand check what is seen as hipster nonsense in the public's eye, everyone's gonna start with the assumption you're a jerk. Using the xray pouch if the agents are bothered they already have a streamlined process to put you on the side line and hand check your bag. That said I never tried and I'm not a TSA agent so I don't know.

>>4502236
For BW it's incredibly easy, if you can follow a basic cooking recipe you can develop BW at home.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/develop-film-at-home-a-step-by-step-guide

File: IMG_8462.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4502248
My two last trips where to South America, you should’ve seen their faces when I asked for film photography shops.

Durst M600 or Meopta Axomat for 35mm?
Both are priced the same. I sort of like how the Durst is easily stowed away but the Meopta looks like it has a nicer carrier. Can't decide:/

>>4502233
Nice sharp photo

>>4502228
It can go a few different ways. Some things from personal experience (at major US airports unless noted):
- Yes, never put film into checked baggage. Checked baggage scanners are powerful and will fry it.
- Have your rolls in a clear ziplock bag and ask for manual check at security, right when you get to the tray conveyor belt, not last second.
- Plastic canisters are fine, they might open some (or all) to check. They will open the paper retail boxes, so just unbox them at home to save time (and space).
- About 7 out of 10 times they will swab the film then run the swab through the analyzer machine for explosives.
- If the analyzer flags it, the film goes into the scanner, period. Don't bother arguing. You may also be getting lots of suspicious stink eyes from now on.
- I don't know why but it's usually my bulk loaded film that gets flagged, maybe traces of darkroom chems on the reused cartriges trigger it.
- The swab test is not always consistent, more then once I had it fail on outbound trip, but pass at the other airport on the way back.
- Either way you might need to wait up to about 5 extra minutes (over 10 in few extreme cases) if there's no one available immediately to do manual check or run the swab analyzer (I guess not everyone is trained or permitted to), so if you're in a rush then just don't bother.
- French are either absolute cunts about it, or just useless and clueless (this mostly goes for the second language "French" iykwim). Last time I was connecting at CDG (including terminal transfer from non-Shengen to Shengen area) it got to the point that they were calling le gendarmerie because they really got under my skin with the cunt factor and I wouldn't let go. Luckily some old grumpy (but White) French supervisor (who was probably the only other person there who ever saw a camera film) stumbled upon, took a two second glance at the bag of film and waved me through. Fuck the French.
tbc.

File: Capture00059_1.jpg (5 MB)

5 MB JPG

>>4502237
I'm red green colorbind. I sorta have issues fixing the hues because i can't see them. Does anybody have any tools for colorblind plebians like me?

is this better or is now another color hue?

>>4502259
Thank you.

>>4502228
>>4502278
contd.:
- Germans are ok with manual checks, they're just stiff about it, but as long as everything is in Ordnung it will be fine.
- Frankly, after having one batch of film ran through scanners three times during one trip (once it failed the swab test, twice I had no time because of delays and tight connections), I noticed no issues even on the couple of rolls of HP5+ pushed to 1600. But color film is supposedly more susceptible.
- This is not from experience, but supposedly the x-ray bags a) do work, but b) because they do work, the security can't see what's inside so they increase the scanner power thus damaging the film, or just open it and spill it into the tray and run it through scanner whether you like it or not.
- I haven't traveled in the US since the current TSA boogaloo started so I don't know how it goes, but I imagine no one appreciates any extra delays at security right now.
- Did I say fuck the French already?
HTH.

>be me
i have a pentax mx. i want to buy a flash. i am looking at the Keks KF-01. that should work on the hot shoe right? and if i connect it to the x port with a pc sync cable for off-camera shooting, that will work too correct? the mx has two ports for flash cables, and in the manual it doesn't say pc sync so i'm guessing its some new fangled invention. but will it connect to the x port? never used flashes before. please respond.

>>4502230
When I went through TSA last year they literally swabbed the outside of the boxes and the plastic film tubes and moved on. They didn’t even try to look inside. You should be fine.

>>4502228
my gf got me one of these x-ray cases and I used it to bring some film with me to court through the scanner there before dropping it off at the lab on my lunch break and the film didn't get fucked, make of that what you will

File: 1757301794531776.jpg (108.9 KB)

108.9 KB JPG

>buy a lot of 4 2nd hand lenses
>Mfw 3 of them have a little bit of mold in them

>>4502309
Those are your muh character lenses now.