>>4504208
Real Thread Question: To Crop Or Not To Crop?
(copied the old version of the template while 4chan was being stupid about creating a new thread, sorry.)

File: 1775480259710.jpg (446.6 KB)

446.6 KB JPG

>>4504208
>What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?
Pic related, my latest acquisition. It's from the 30's. And yes I plan to use it on a daily basis.
I'm getting some developer and fixer tomorrow to develop the film I recently shot, I'm doing some experiments to see what ISO is the most practical. Now I just shot Kentmere Pan 100 but maybe if I go a little higher I could also be more versatile and creative with filters. Though I did enjoy doing some timed exposures in daytime shade.

I need results first but I'm having a blast with this simple camera so far.

So I shot some 35mm color film and handed it to a shop to get it developed. Had to pay 20 euros for developing, scanning and to have my negatives back. I think this is only going to be a one time thing and switch to b/w and develop on my own. This is simply too much.

I am a little upset that the cheap 1-hour developing services are long gone and never returning. Man, we didn't know how good we had it.

File: 23939.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4504208
To answer thread question, the oldest camera / lense I've used is the Zenit E with Helios 44-2, it took great quality images but I found it a bit strange to use, this was a long time ago now, im sure if I unboxed it and put a roll through it I would understand it better now.
I did use the helios lense on a DSLR which was a fun experiment.

I got some film developed recently, the Olympus Mju ii is such a nice little camera, used Gold200

File: IMG_9150.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4504211

I usually don’t crop. Instead I take multiple shots with different framing to see which one I like more later.

File: IMG_9149.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4504219

This little shrine/chapel is a perfect example.

>>4504218
>>4504212

Real thread question was underneath the OP.

File: DSC09272editSMBDR.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4504211
I don't crop unless it makes the photo better. I'll leave the film border in if I don't crop as a reminder to myself.

>>4504220
I liked the old question and I don't really have enough of an opinion on cropping.
Do it if it helps your picture, I guess. But shouldn't you always try to frame the pic correctly from the get go?
Anyway, I like your pic, the portrait orientation works really well.

File: IMG_7151.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Does my fomapan 100 have covid? What are all these white dots. I seen it on several 120 rolls. Am I developing wrong?

>>4504278
Yes.

>>4504278
You got cum in the bath water.

>>4504280
Yes. Should I cum in the fixer too to balance it out? Not sure I can go twice back to back, Im no spring chicken anymore

>>4504278
Precipitation in the fixer? Try filtering it out just mix a fresh batch.

>>4504284
The white dots are from foma's thin emulsion.

Are jpgs alright for simple edits? I don't do my own developing and most labs send back jpgs. TIFF is also an option but it costs quite a bit more and is very excessive for my admittedly mediocre photos. The only edits I'd really be doing is a little bit of exposure adjustment.

Which also leads me to ask, why do so many labs only offer JPG and TIFF? Why can't DNG be a middle option or something?

>>4504315
Tiff and dng are the same candy with a different wrapper. Just get the tiffs once and see if you need them.

>>4504316
Aren't TIFFs usually massive though? Like 150-500mb in size for each photo? Even my digital camera RAW files never go beyond 50mb.

>>4504317
Depends on a variety of things. My grayscale 2400dpi 35mm scans are like 12-15MB tiff files.

>>4504317
Around 50 MB B&W and 150 MB color for 16 bit 4000 dpi scans (roughly 6000x4000 pixels).

>>4504286
Does this mean it will always look like this? Or can I develop it differently to minimize the effect? Ive been doing 9 min ilford agitation in rodinal

>>4504328
I've gotten mixed results from foma. Sometimes it shows up and sometimes it doesnt.

>>4504329
Apparently this was a manufacturing error around 2020 and they have been replacing rolls from those batches

File: Untitled (5).jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4504331
Not sure if the defect is the same one as on this shot, but I've noticed the white dot thing appearing on some but not all sheets of foma purchased in 2024.

>>4504338
Looks similar. Mine is 645 so the dots are larger. I sent them a mail asking about it

File: img20260313_15485716.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4504208
>What is the oldest camera or lens that you shot with? Would you use it on a daily basis?

The oldest camera/lens I use is my Graflex 4x5 Crown Graphic with Graflex Optar 135mm f/4.7 lens from around the early 1950s. I believe the lens was originally manufactured by the Wollensak company. It's surprisingly usable handheld, but sheet film is way too expensive to shoot on the daily.

Went to an analog photography shop to get developer and fixer but they didn't have fixer in stock.
They didn't have any Fomapan 100 either, so annoying, I am trying to support local businesses but man it's hard.

>>4504380
Yeah, I don't have a photo shop in my city so I order online. I'm up visiting family in another state. Theres a shop in the nearby city that's about 15% more expensive for film. Even after shipping it's still a net loss.
Then again, these days, you go to brick and mortar to talk shop, swap advice, or network. If you frequent enough, maybe they'll cut you a discount. How much you value that kind of thing is subjective.
I'm not that extroverted so that kind of interaction isn't worth much to me, personally.

>>4504381
In my local analog camera store the boomer owner is pissed off and upset that you are disturbing him. Hes also angry that he has no customers

>>4504383
That's part of the problem, too. More often than not it's some old asshole running the store treating customers like shit.
Not always, but most of the time.

>>4504381
I don't feel like the kid running the cashier there knows anything, he wants to help but all he does is google for answers on the shop computer. And I am just a bit bummed out they didn't have a complete development kit available nor some of the cheaper 120 films.
And yeah, they are expensive, which is becoming more and more big of a deal if the shop provides very little extra in terms of service or knowledge.

The sooner I get into a routine of developing and scanning myself, the better.

>>4504380
1 gallon of stock TF4 is cheap and you make 4 gallons with it. I know it's not the point, but you can just be done with fixer worries for a long time. TF4 is kinda stinky, but you get used to it.

>>4504380
>>4504383
Reading this makes me thankful for the old asian lady who runs my local lab. 8 bucks dev or 12 bucks dev + scan, always has a decent selection of film at about the same as online prices, consistent quality and they work damn fast. Literally walked down the street to panda express and they've finished my two rolls and are calling me to say they're ready before I've even finished my damn orange chicken. If you live in LA even remotely near mid-city/Hollywood you gotta go to D&J

>>4504386
Is that available in Europe, Netherlands specifically?
As of right now I just bought a small amount of rodinal and ordered a bag of powder for 1 liter of fixer. This is just to see if I enjoy the process and if I want to stick to shooting black and white medium format film. But I will be looking for larger quantities if all goes well.
I currently have three rolls that need to be developed. I kinda enjoy shooting the 120 film so far, fewer frames makes me a little more careful and I am less likely to do retakes, especially with the 6x9 camera.

I may want to try contact printing too, how much of the chemicals can be interchangeable with multigrade photo paper anyway?

>>4504390
>I may want to try contact printing too, how much of the chemicals can be interchangeable with multigrade photo paper anyway?
You can get away with it if you don't care about the results (I did in the past with HC-110), but it's using the wrong tool for a wrong purpose. Paper developers are different from film developers, fixers are more similar but typically use different dilution (1+4 vs 1+9).

File: 20260410_143927.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

Here is one of my piggy prints I am working on. The power of staining developers like pyrocat MC is on full display here. I did a split contrast exposure, but at c0 25s and c4 30s I could have just used a c2 or c2.5 filter and been just as well off.
Full midday sun highlights on near white subject + deep shadows on dark objects and printed with no silly business.

Oh yeah if you mix dektol from fresh chemicals it is actually a clear solution and not dehydrated piss colored.

>>4504390
Sounds like a good plan.
Unless you want to become autistic about contact printing you can use all the same stuff. Amidol based paper developers + chloride paper is the ideal, but amidol is toxic, stains everything, and is expensive, but you get the most amazing looking prints from it.

>>4504390
Oh yeah, misread your question. Get a paper developer. Dektol or Ansco 130.

>>4504380
I'm struggling to support my local store. It has good shit but they charge a lot for everything, especially for developing/scanning if you want them to do it, but then a place in the next city is an hour drive and has everything a lot cheaper.

>>4504408

Really nice shot there. Very reminiscent of Ravilious's work. What films do you tend to use?

File: 20260410_190940.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

This one needed some dodging to lighten up the goat higher in the tree.

>>4504419
Thank you. That guy takes some really amazing rural pics. Thanks for putting me onto him.
XX @ 400, 50mm summarit.

>>4504400
>>4504408
>>4504410
Thanks for the clarification. Once I get a grip on developing I will delve into photopaper.

>>4504438
I like the pic but I didn't notice the goat in the tree at first, would be very curious to see how it ends up if you tweaked it a bit.

>>4504556
Going to be quite challenging to make the upper goat pop more. Maybe we can cope and say that it's a good thing it is somewhat hidden because it rewards careful observation of the photograph. Lol.
Do you have any suggestions? I'm playing around with the image in C1 with little to no luck. It's tough because the goat blends in with the foliage so well.

>>4504564
Not sure, maybe it's not so bad if you show us the picture laying flat and properly scanned.

>>4504565
I can do that later. Print is still drying.

i just got a canon L3, shot 4 rolls thru it, was great. then i got a canon v film magazine (basically a canon v version of a ixmoo/filca of lecia) and it worked out well enough indoors with a slight rebate lightleak.

got a great price on the cassette (7 dollars on ebay, the next available is 30 dollars), and thankfully my bulk loader can close them properly.

File: Goatprint.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4504565
Here is the print. The scan came out pretty close to what the print looks like.

>>4504571
Looks like a fun camera.

>>4504572
it is a fun camera methinks. need to figure out the parallax error, and i think the 1.8/50mm canon lens seems to be good as well.

cute goat.

File: Goatprint.jpg (421.4 KB)

421.4 KB JPG

>>4504572
I feel the frame is to cluttered to make it work while keeping realistic tones desu. I think I'd try to go full Ansel on it, burning the fuck out of the background, and printing the goats and the foreground trunk at highest contrast factor while underexposing them to make them glow.
Something like pic related. Kind of silly, but at least you can tell there are goats in the picture.

>>4504577
i think you just need a higher grade of contrast, this still looks pretty flat, yet the dodged parts are extremely jarring

>>4504578
>>4504577
I think that more contrast is the best that can be done to get the highlights and shadows a bit more seperated. Some dodging to keep leaves balanced like I've already done.
I don't think that lower contrast images are necessarily bad, and the style works fairly well for these kind of images, but I also think it's just too flat how it is now. If you push the contrast too far, so you have near white/black it gets a little too gharsh looking for the subject matter.
I may work on it tommorow. It's an interesting/fun problem to try and fix.

File: IMG_0061.png (23.4 KB)

23.4 KB PNG

I just started developing my own film and I dump the Ifosol 3 down the drain

>>4504637
I dump my rodinal (suspected to cause genetic defects). Its just a little

>>4504571
> canon v film magazine
this shit is scratching the fuck out of my negatives. havent printed so idk if it shows up on the print but i spent money so it wouldn't scratch my negs and now it does a lot. wtf.

File: 54642342134.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

luv Rodinal
Kentmere 100 at 80 iso, will see how it prints, negatives look good

File: pl.png (495.1 KB)

495.1 KB PNG

Pentax K1000 with TriX. Choochoo

>>4504637
How else should it be disposed of? You can take engine oil to any auto store and they'll dispose of it but idk how it would work for film. I haven't tried developing yet since I don't want to dump shit down the drain.

>>4504753
Most developers are fine to dump down the drain. Same with stop bath. You should absolutely not dump fixer down the drain.
You can either add steel wool to your spent fixer and reclaim the silver, or take any spent photo chemistry to your local dump that accepts household hazardous waste.

>>4504756
How much fixer is usually use for developing one or two rolls? Maybe I can just keep a jug that I eventually take to the dump or something.

>>4504760
Depending on fixer you can fix like 20 rolls or more with a single liter. You can get this stuff that lets you check if your fix is spent. You put a couple drops in and if precipitate forms the fixer is spent. You can sort of tell when your fix is running out because your negatives will be more pink/purple color after the standard fix time as well, but using the drops is better.

File: IMG_0606.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

My first foray into film, I've bought a Nikon F-501 and used my 28mm AF-D (should've used the 50mm desu). I shot kodak gold 200.

File: IMG_0607.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4504792

>>4504208
Don't want to make another thread for this, I have two functioning film cameras

>Nikon FE with a knock-off 28mm lens from a hardware shop that no longer exists (Dixons)
>Minolta 404si with whatever basic zoomy lens those came with

I want to shoot more film photos again and can't decide between just getting better lenses for the nikon FE, or something like a nikon F90X (N90S) or some other better "Last of the film SLR" plastic blob, but would that be much of an upgrade from the minolta? I do actually like having auto focus and stuff sometimes too even if using the fully manual nikon FE is fun in it's own way. What do?

File: 260331000014400024.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

While I wait for my slides, the gf took this with her mju on color plus 200. It looks like dogshit on cinestill 50d.

File: 000014410038.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4504828
For reference.

>>4504828
Kino. The grain is perfect.

>>4504829
Agreed, it doesn't look good. I hate to say it looks like a phone pic but it kinda does, it just doesn't look like there's much detail somehow.

>>4504828
>>4504829
looks like she exposed correctly and you underexposed

>>4504875
SLR bros... How do we recover from this?
>>4504867
Results from that 50d roll that morning with sunlight was wildly inconsistent. Everything was crushed. That was luckily one of the last on that roll. The 50d fared better in overcast conditions, but then the low ISO forced me to shoot wide open.

Got a quote for 3.7k for my darkroom sink. Nice.

>>4504875
>>4504875
>b-but the highlights are all blown and y-you can't see the detail in the... fuck... the sky! >Yeah! Mine is better because you see more sky!
>It's not like the mountain range is supposed to be the subject, no sir-ee

>>4504939
Both of those films can handle the DR in that scene.

>>4504828
Awesome photo!

File: 61AD8111-AC0C-4E2A-8C85-03DD62139668.jpg (713.7 KB)

713.7 KB JPG

>>4504942
Here's my scientific comparison of the densities.
>>4504939
lmao, thanks for the laugh

File: 20260414_162026.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

15 months of waiting to finally score the film adapter for this camera and it is finally here. 645 for now, but maybe one day I will score the 6x6 back. We got AF, 1 fps exposures, leaf shutter, rodenstock/zeiss lenses and a bunch of other "useful" functions on one of the most advanced medium format cameras ever made.

Foma100 pics soon.

File: Image _1 2.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4504950
Pics. This was a really old roll of foma. Idk wtf was going on. Sorry about the dirty negs. I will be getting some fp4 and delta 400 soon.

Very very nice to use this camera with film. The autowinding film back is quite satisfying. These were all taken with an 80mm xenotar.

File: Image 6_1 2.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4504958

File: Image 4_1 2.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4504959
Last one. This is big mamma. she's my favorite pig. She acts like a 400lb+ dog. My gear post has now been balanced with some farm snapshits. Thanks.

File: IMG_7236.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4504950
Love leaf shutters, simple as. The same white dots I had with my fomapan 100. Here is some fomapan 200 with scratches instead. I dont think ill buy anything from foma again

Going to be developing today, finally.
I have rodinal, adofix and loaded up some a 120 film of kentmere pan 100. I initially wanted to do my Fomapan roll first but I misread the label and only when it was spooled I saw the backing paper reading kentmere.

Oh well, to be honest, I am quite overwhelmed with the amount of information I have been reading about times, temperatures, dilutions, agitations, I have a feeling I'm going to mess it up somehow. But we'll see.

File: 225758f669220d7674ae6d0299bf77d9.jpg (52.1 KB)

52.1 KB JPG

>tfw new lens day
>tfw still overweight and without any social connections
>tfw browsing the lomography galler of my new lens and hating myself, why did I buy it, I will never shoot happy late night moments on the way home from the bar, or qts in their underwear
>maybe I can snap some building corners at f1.4 tomorrow

>>4504971
You can go out at night and do long exposures on street lanterns too.

File: IMG_6034-scaled.jpg (517.3 KB)

517.3 KB JPG

>>4504969
alright so apparently things didn't go as bad as I expected. I took out the reel after fixing and was a little scared cause it looked very dark and nothing was visible until I unreeled the film.
Here's a little preview, the film is still drying but I couldn't resist checking to see if things look alright after inversion.

File: IMG_6036.jpg (472.1 KB)

472.1 KB JPG

>>4504975
Okay so I decided to go at it and develop the old fomapan roll too. I rinsed the film before developing and out came this beautiful green liquid... what is up with that? Is that a fomapan thing? Cause this didn't happen with the roll of kentmere.
Either way, the development went fine, the fomapan roll was shot on an old cardboard Kodak target Hawk-Eye six-20 so it crunched up the negatives a bit but fortunately, besides being a little out of focus, it looked alright.

File: IMG_6037.jpg (666.4 KB)

666.4 KB JPG

>>4504976
Also, another preview, the film is still wet, you can see the edge being messed up, I'm never forcing 120 film in 620 camera's again.
Still, I'm happy, there's at least 2 or 3 photo's worth saving on the roll.

>>4504976
Thats a foma 120 thing they use shrek coloree anti-halation layer

File: DSC00432.jpg (765.8 KB)

765.8 KB JPG

Still playing a bit with my snapshit camera to find a good way to scan these, it's a bit of work but I'm getting close. At least I'm at a point where I can show them to people, still these aren't perfect.
This one in particular was quite fun to take, it's a 3 second exposure in a hallway where musicians were playing.
And I realize now that the viewfinder is even more skewed than I assumed. All my shots are a little off. But I guess that's part of the fun of photography, right?

File: DSC00436.jpg (611.9 KB)

611.9 KB JPG

>>4504971
>>maybe I can snap some building corners at f1.4 tomorrow
Heh, I did just that. Though my camera only had f11 and f22.

Anyway, I need to figure out scanning because the way I do it now only gives me an idea of the pic works or not but it's missing a lot of detail because my camera can't get close enough.

>>4504993
I can see the grain anon, I dont think there is any hidden detail there

File: DSCF0064-positive.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4504993
>>4504993
The dust and grain seems to be pretty focused, so are you sure it wasn't just missed focus during the shot itself?
Also definitely need to work on finding a good way to flatten them out during scanning. Should help with the distortion and probably even the light masking issue as well, since I assume that's contributing to it.
Maybe throwing an anti-Newton glass piece over top or something? I don't know. What's your current setup look like?

>>4504977
I just bought some 120 film from filmphotographystore because it was cheapest and I noticed they have respooled 620 for sale. Kinda pricey, but if you're just screwing around it could be worth it.
Also edit your film scans. They could use some contrast adjustments.

File: IMG_6050.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4504996
>>4504995
Ah good observation, I had not realized that yet. Yeah there isn't much to do about the focus, the camera I'm using is this: >>4504212

My current stack is just a plate of white plexiglass, the negative and a plate of normal glass on top. Taking with my smartphone camera now because it's doing pretty much as good as a job as my camera did.
I will retake some of the pictures, I don't expect the best results as I simply don't have a proper camera that can take the close up shots at a high resolution, this is the setup.

>>4504997
I'm retaking some of the shots now. That one pic was just a quick snapshot as the negative was drying.

File: Sears Pics (37)2.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4504975
good work bro

File: trompenburg-final.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4504997
Alright so with some effort I managed to get a better shot.
Shot on a Kodak Target Hawk-Eye six-20 with Fomapan 100 (only 14 years expired) and developed with rodinal like normal.
Not planning to get respooled film as I have settled on a box camera that actually takes 120 without issues.
>>4505001
Cheers anon.

>>4504977
>>4504997
Respooling 120 to 620 is piss easy, takes a minute per roll. FPP sells empty plastic spools. I had to sand the sides paper thin so they wouldn't jam in my Tourist, but after that they work a charm.
Just remember to spool the film back onto 120 if you're sending off to a lab.

>>4505003
It looks like absolute shit, but it's a good start. Are they 645? You can compare to my cow/pig pictures that are also 645, scanned on an epson v850 shatbed. They're also shit, but closer to a good scan than yours.
Hard to tell exactly, but it looks like a combo of out of focus negative, motion blur, and a very low MP scan. The borders don't look too bad focus wise, but you do get some of that mushy look on the rebate. All the more reason to invest in a little enlarger so you can start making some prints. Your phone will take significantly better scans of 8x10 prints. :)

These are with your brownie, correct? Do you remember your camera settings?

>>4505005
Yeah, the Target Hawk-Eye is closely related to the brownie family but it shoots 6x9, twice as big as a 645 frame.
The settings, 100 ISO film, I used the large aperture, held a yellow filter in front and pulled the shutter lever which fired the shutter at 1/30, I admit even with a tripod, the lever is bound to cause some vibration because it has very little grip and requires some force.

I reckon even doing contact prints and scanning those on a flatbed would give better results.

>>4505008
That camera looks like such a pain in the ass to use. Maybe a flash and closer up subjects would be a better match for it. Even 1/50th shutter speed is pretty slow for a wobbly tripod. Is there a specific reason you're going with a brownie style camera?

File: 10.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

My first ever film reel came back a lot better than I thought it would

File: IMG_6060.jpg (770.6 KB)

770.6 KB JPG

One last experiment before I head to bed, I inspected the negatives with a lupe, it does appear to be a little more sharper than what I had posted before.
I tried taking a picture through the lupe just to test it out, naturally it doesn't look very good especially on the edges but it does bring out a little of the sharpness. Anyway, still some way to go.

File: DSC_5366.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4505016

>>4505017
>>4505016
>>4505013
Neat, what film?
It's super noisy though.

>>4505016
>>4505017
Crisp setup.

File: soy051.jpg (39.7 KB)

39.7 KB JPG

>>4505018
>noise

erm...film doesn't have noise

>>4505018
I'm >>4505013
Different from this anon >>4505015
I was using Ilford HP5 plus in a Pentax Spotmatic

>>4505020
It's a digital image that I'm looking at tho

File: DSC_5360-2.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

>>4505022
is this better??

anyway it's hp5+ on f3 with voigtlander 55mm 1.2

>>4505012
I found it cheap and had to try, but I am not using it anymore after I tried this roll because it is a huge pain in the ass.
I upgraded to the Zeiss Ikon Box Tengor 54, it shoots 645, handles 120 film properly, has a tripod mount, cable release compatible, and a optional built in close-up lens.
I want to do at least a couple of test rolls with that camera, also play a bit with colour filters, see if I can actually get some nice photos out of it.

The cardboard kodak has already found his place in my mum's cupboard, I'm never touching it again.

File: Imag2 1_1.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

More piggie pics. Tmax 100 this time and a different lens. Can you tell I used a zoom lens for these? AFD-Variogon 60-140mm f4.5. Absolute beast of a lens.

>>4505024
Cable release with those cameras seems crucial.

File: Imag2 12_1.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Cow

File: Imag2 2_1.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

Horse. All done.

>>4505023
I like this image, but the foreground tree kinda throws the vibe off for me. It feels like you're being a sneak instead of just capturing a really nice scene, but maybe that's just me. Could also use a bit more contrast imo.

I can get some expired film REALLY cheap but is it really worth it? It's all only expired by about 1 or 2 months but I have no way of knowing what sort of temps it's all been in. Some of it is still wrapped in the pallets so I assume it's just a lot of film they couldn't sell in time.

File: IMG25351 — Pentax K-1, HD PENTAX-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW @ 50.0mm f5.6 1_25s, ISO 5000.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

picked up a very wide boi
I'll see if I can take some pics with it this weekend, but I've also got a few rolls to dev & scan which take priority

>>4505039
I wouldn't bother without testing first

File: ol.png (569 KB)

569 KB PNG

Olympus Mju II zoom with Tri X.

>>4505039
If it is black and white it shouldn't matter too much. A few months is nothing for non stupidly stored film.

>>4505039
Oh, I didn't read (1 or 2 months)
Thinking 20 yr expired color

>>4505051
Color only from what I've seen. Mostly Kodak Ultramax and Ektar.

>>4505052
Yeah only 1 or 2 months, so not too bad I'd have to think.

File: p-1.jpg (356.2 KB)

356.2 KB JPG

Some macro shots on Tri-x400, hope you like them.
1/5

File: p-2.jpg (382.9 KB)

382.9 KB JPG

>>4505068
2/5

File: p-3.jpg (439 KB)

439 KB JPG

>>4505069
3/5

File: p-4.jpg (362.1 KB)

362.1 KB JPG

>>4505071
4/5

File: p-5.jpg (373.9 KB)

373.9 KB JPG

>>4505072
5/5

>>4504278
the white dots in the sky are called stars.

I just replaced the ribbons on a kiev 4a shutter. Most involved repair I did so far. Very satisfying to succeed

File: Bolt.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

I don't usually like my photos, they never seem to have the "pop" I see in other peoples. I've tried editting them and I feel that it's better but I'm not sure if that's just editting blindness. So, thoughts?

File: 1776372969024448.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4505115
Just a quick, somewhat heavy handed, phone edit so you can see something different.
Having grayish-black areas of zero information/detail just makes the picture look bland/flat. If I was to make a print of this image I would aim for having rich blacks in the shadow areas, so when you edit you may want to push those areas even further than you have. Use your levels slider to push both the whites and blacks to near clipping, adjust midtone, and then if the vibe is off you can dial the shadows/highlights back or forth to your liking. I think your picture wants fully black shadows and strong highlights. It adds to the harshness of the cold steel kinda vibe.
Higher contrast also makes pictures look sharper because it emphasizes edge detail. If you arent pushing the shadows all the way to true black you lose out on that sharpness.

Lighting/exposure is also very important for getting good "pop" in pictures. I think the fully black right side is a detriment to the overall image and having some detail in that section would improve the look. The lower bar of steel being blurry also takes away from the image I think.

File: DREAMERICA-1.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4504208

File: 9D7275F0-8687-492B-A4DE-57F7330B80C6.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

oof

>>4505187
Unfixed? Wait until dry, spool it up again and fix for another 5 minutes. Can do in normal light.
But it also looks like film was stuck together in the spool, in that case it probably also has not developed in the spots, so it might indeed be an oof. But you'll find out.
>faceberg filename
anon plz

>>4505192
no need to find out, I know what happened
first roll on a jobo reel, thought it felt on all the way but guess not
overlapped with second roll and didn’t develop in those spots
ironically of the 4 rolls I had to do, this was the only one with shots I wouldn’t have been okay loosing (rest are a mix of snapshits and strobe failures)
>faceberg
ancient iphone

>>4505185
There's a lot going on here

>>4505115
I think you could improve this a lot before you ever open the shutter. A white background to increase the contrast or a truly black background to emphasize the darkness and turn every area of light into something eye-catching. Changing the lighting as well so you don't just have the closest part of the round surface to us lit (depending on how you light it) can also make things seem more separated. A pure black background with rim lighting could keep the dark mood while giving your subject a clear separation is my initial thought. Editing can't fix everything, shot setup is very important.