>>4511253
If you buy like 10 or 12 different chemicals in bulk you can make a shitload of different developers for way cheaper than buying premixed. Most of them never go bad and the ones that do like phenidone can be mixed at convenient ratios in propylene glycol and will last a very long time.
I've been mixing my own film and paper developers for a while now.

i love mixing d-23 per the gallon. works great.

>>4511279
One of the simplest developers to mix yourself. Very good choice.
I used d23 when I was experimenting with making masks. The low contrast nature of d23 makes developing lith film pretty easy.

>>4511289
if d23 is low contrast, youre just underdeveloping. 10-15% more time than the d76 times gives me a normal contrast, 2-3 grade print in the darkroom. works for most films.

File: toiler4.jpg (1.3 MB)

>>4511251
i feel like such a freak when taking pictures of shitty bar bathrooms because youre entering a public restroom with a camera.. but theyre peak subjects

>>4511290
D23 is definitely considered a low to normal contrast or soft working developer.
I have only used it for developing lith film because I have my pyro developer for pictorial film.

I just had my offer accepted for a Plustek 7500i for $400AU. Worth it? or should I let the lab keep scanning my negs?

>>4511296
yes its considered that because most people are underdeveloping their negatives

>>4511299
worth, itll pay for itself after like 20 rolls or so
make sure to keep it VERY dust free

>>4511303
D23 is metol + sodium sulfite. Without any accelerator metol is a low energy, soft working developer. That is why it is considered a low-normal contrast developer.

>>4511304
>make sure to keep it VERY dust free
noted. are you speaking from experience?

File: PXL_20260508_132752508~2.jpg (2.2 MB)

Idk what it is about manual focus full program cameras
They just feel like the most feature rich cameras that still give all the little stims that make a film camera so satisfying

>>4511317
what lenses do you use?

>>4511319
I have a Pentax-A 50mm f1.4, a SMC 30mm f2.8 (got it for $20) and a Pentax-A 70-150mm F4 zoom
Those are the ones I carry with me at least. I have a few other lenses that I could put on it

File: xg7minolta.jpg (222.9 KB)

>>4511317
there is something special about those late 70s early 80s electro mechanical prosumer bodies. you get that nice metal body with all the knobs and levers but you are also able to throw dat bih into aperture prio and spam shots

>>4511322
i like to imagine you took this snapshot on a large format view camera

File: pixel_studio_20260526_23301528.jpg (563.3 KB)

>>4511317
>>4511322
They feel good. It's kind of funny, my XG-Ms were kinda shit in when they released for being so plastic but compared to my SRT they're nice to carry around since they're so light.
Though, one of my XG-Ms has capacitor failures.

>>4511317
What all cameras fit this description?
Seems like there was very little time between full program bodies and autofocus
The ones I can think of are:
Pentax Super Program
Minolta X700
Canon AE-1 Program
Nikon FA
Maybe the Nikon FE2?
Everything else I can think of is just aP or sP only

Heading off to japan soon, I know its gonna be a bad idea, but I want to take more than one camera and my rz for 120.

A part of me just wants to keep it simple and just shoot the m6 and 50 rolls.

how the fuck do i focus with a rangefinder patch? i've had good luck with the 80mm patch of the canon L3 and the double rangefinder+vf thingy of the old barnacks+niccas but my m4 im having trouble with focus. even with the 50mm patch of the L3 i had trouble.

>>4511315
experience of using scanners in general.

>>4511314
even kodak was trying to have the times be the same as d76, since it was kind of an alternative and supposed to be nearly the same. so the myth of the same times as d76 made a low contrast developer. you actually get a better negative with the added time, without blocking out the highlights while still keeping the fine grain (ofc with a slight hit in sharpness as opposed to d76). it works nearly identically with d76 other than slight edge sharpness like i said.

>>4511416
>without blocking highlights
Literally what a soft working developer does.

>>4511417
im just saying it doesnt deserve the wide spread "knowledge" that its a low contrast developer.
you get significantly better negatives by adding like 10-15% of the times that d76 gives you for stock+dilutions

>>4511418
Low contrast is not a bad thing in any way. It's just a different tool in the toolbox. It's the chemistry and resulting tonal curve that determines the amount of contrast a developer has.
Sometimes a high contrast developer can be a really bad thing if you pair it with the wrong scene/film.

Aside from my favorite developer being the best and yours being the worst there is no best developer.
As ansel adams used to say, "the best developer is the one you have on you, aside from the toxic ones. That could be bad."

File: toiler7.jpg (450.7 KB)

>>4511325
can confirm. i took that picture on a 8x11 monorail that they had to deliver with a crane
>>4511334
xgm/x700/x500 has insanely good ergo. i love my x700 to death however it ALSO has capacitor issues haha
>>4511415
is it dim? sometimes if its dim or not vertically aligned it could be hard to see whats up but ive personally had way more luck with M bodies than ltm ones
>>4511419
yep. low contrast negatives look pretty boring when scanned as-is but its a godsend when printing sometimes

>>4511420
i think the patch is bright, it can also just be me and my vision. again, the L3's 35 and 50mm modes have the same slightly out of focus issue that is fixed with the zoomed in 80mm vf (and also the other older single rangefinder and single viewfinder cameras such as the iiif and nicca 3-F). that or i just need to use not 60 shutter speed anymore lolol

>>4511422
>>4511420
note: i also use glasses for everyday use. is this an issue?

>>4511420
>it ALSO has capacitor issues haha
iirc the cap that causes issues in the x700 is located right under the bottom plate. Should be a really easy repair if you have soldering experience

Is ecosystem a big concern for anyone else when choosing a camera?
Im in the market for a digital camera to scan my film at home and im not sure how much weight i should put on making sure my camera can take my vintage film lenses easily (either no adapter or still able to infinity focus with an adapter) in case I ever want to take it off the scan mount and shoot digital
I currently shoot pentax but have a good selection of minolta a lenses that ive gotten from family

>>4511490
Different uses. For scanning you are going to have your best macro on there and leave it as undisturbed as possible.

For going out and shooting if you have a mirrorless (doesn't matter much which) you can adapt any of your old lenses.

File: hp5-849.jpg (797.9 KB)

>>4511470
the problem is that turning it off and then back on fixes it for about 20 minutes. so its just barely not annoying enough for me to fix lol
>>4511490
you will be able to adapt almost any vintage lens mount to any modern mirrorless system unless youre doing something really freaky. i would recommend going something full frame if you wanna keep the fov the same for adapted lenses.
>>4511423
usually the issue with glasses people mainly run into is not being able to see the widest framelines. im thinking if its a focus issue, its probably your ltm adapter or your rangefinder needs adjusting. ive had bad luck with faulty ltm adapters. the telltale sign of a funky adapter is if your infinity is off. i had a crappy aliexpress ltm adapter that couldnt focus to infinity because it was ever so slightly too thick

>>4511557
i can see all the framelines relatively easily, and the 35mm is just the entire vf so i dont mind half seeing those lines anyways. it can be my adapter, it was 25 dollars at the shop and not the leica ones. i will get an m lens for my next paycheck, but i focsed to infinity to the clouds and some mountains way in the distance and they all seem relatively in focus. i can try to tweak it with the little screw but im sure its already fine and, again, just a skill issue.

>>4511317
I picked up an early 90s Nikon SLR recently and love it, all the features on it are just like on a DSLR. Having Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual etc on a film camera is just an amazing thing to me for some reason and the meter is really good. The display through the viewfinder is also similar to my late 10s Nikon which made it really easy to start using.

But the negative aspect is film prices are still really high, developing costs are getting worse and I still fuck up exposures from time to time.

>>4511617
I just don't get as artistically motivated when I shoot digital
When a picture is free and you can see it right after you take it, I just don't pay attention to framing as much as I would otherwise
Like when I know each photo costs me about $1, I keep my finger off the shutter longer waiting for that perfect shot
Doesn't always turn out that way but I do get some pretty good ones where all my digital photos might as well be taken on my phone
Also not to say I'm an *artist*, just that I care more when each shot costs me money to not only take, but to see

Is it worth it to fuck around with film cameras beyond a love for the aesthetic and physical use?

Does film last longer than digital storage media?

Is the theoretical maximum quality of film greater than digital cameras nowadays? I have a good digital mirrorless camera and I am considering getting a good old film SLR.

>>4511688
Some redditor with a gfx100s rig scanned his consumer grade 35mm that was shot with soviet glass. The resulting 275mp file still had discernible, pixel sized detail. It was all soft and glowy, but still more objects like paint scratches and moss fronds than would be visible at lower resolutions.

Anything you shoot on film has a 0% chance of being AI. Literally no digital technology can create realistic detail down to that scale and write it to film without severe artefacts.

File: 20260528_110204.jpg (3.3 MB)

I think this setup was kinda interesting so I will share it.
I had to use lots of swing to get the whole subject in focus.
32 inches of bellows extension on a 180mm lens for a 5:1 magnification ratio on 8x10.
Aside from the bounce card the only light was directly pointed at the black background. Subject was cool, but I wanted to give it a more interesting lighting setup than what I was getting from lighting it from the front/sides.

>>4511688
Yeah, but you need to have a bit of the 'tism. I've gotten well over 600MP of resolution from 8x10 on a flatbed scanner, and if you believe the anon that says 35mm is 275MP that means 8x10 is actually 16500MP because it is 60x the area of 35mm film lol.

File: Untitled (6)_1 1.jpg (2.2 MB)

>>4511692
And here is the resulting picture.

Egg + bone.

>>4511693
shoot an egg being smashed with a hammer to symbolize how /p/ feels about eggsnaps

>>4511694
Thanks for the suggestion, but that idea would not fit in with the series I'm working.
Photographing eggs is really quite fun. You should take that picture on film and share it here.

>>4511688
Not really. I personally don't think film can be compared to digital much beyond "it's a picture" but the differences really do come down to aesthetic and feel
Is there a reason to swap from digital to film? I don't think so. Its incredibly cheap to get into though, so I would find a camera, shoot a few rolls and see how you like it. Film gets expensive when you factor in scale. If you're shooting dozens of rolls a month, you're going to feel it
But 1 or 2 just to try? $100 will get you a decent camera with a kit lens.

>>4511557
ok so i didnt print but i did develop and use my enlarger and grain focuser to look at text - i think it is a skill issue bc both of the pictures i took yesterday was sharp

>>4511692
Cool photo.
Thanks, I ask because I bought a Sears TLS (actually a Ricoh Singlex TLS) on a lark, but I'm worried about it being toxic. I'm worried about the mercury battery it used to have (no corrosion though) and the paint on the body seems to have lead in it, so I was buying a Canon AE-1 or a medium format camera to replace it.

>>4511711
Eh, I wouldnt worry too much unless you ever have the temptation to eat your camera.

The egg + bone shot took me around 4 hours to set up and shoot. I think that spending active time refining and practicing your photography is extremely beneficial for anyone that wants to git gud. You can do that with any camera, BUT... If you think a slower camera may help you get better than medium format may be something to consider. The bigger the film the more technically demanding it is to get pictures to the standard of the format. The cameras are almost always bulky and a tripod is highly encouraged. The other reason to get medium format is if you want less grain/better tonality than 35mm, but you may be fine with 35mm quality.
On the other hand if you just want something for more casual use go for 35mm. 35mm is a lot more beginner friendly and cheaper to start off with. A fast camera can also take pictures that a slower one would struggle or be unable to reasonably photograph.
35mm can make great looking 8x10 and 11x14 prints.

>>4511674
>Like when I know each photo costs me about $1, I keep my finger off the shutter longer waiting for that perfect shot
Same. It's meant I end up with unfinished rolls sitting in my camera a lot since I really wait for good occasions to take it with me and still take caution on the photo.

>>4511717
Huge benefit of shooting sheet film is that you can easily develop one shot at a time.
There are some fairly compact 4x5 cameras if the size is your main concern, but tripod is basically a must for the format.

>>4511715
Thanks. Well, the shot looks cool. I don't know enough about photography or philosophy to say why, but I would use it as a wallpaper.

>>4511722
Thank you. I was very hopeful for how this one would turn out. Getting the bone positioned just right was tedious.
My favorite part is the edge glow on the bone/egg, how the bone gently illuminates the egg behind it, and the low contrast look of the subject. I also think the shadow cast forwards from the backlighting is really nice.
I think the image has lovely symbolism as well, but I'll spare you from that aside from saying that the bone I used is from a chicken.

Is there any downside to using a lens hood other than a slight bit of extra bulk?

>>4511737
if you use a rangefinder, it might block the view
if you don't, make sure to get the right lens hood for the right focal length as a smaller hood wont do anything but a bigger hood will vignette.

>>4511726
Oh yeah, that was apparent - chicken egg with skull. It's a small skull, and you're probably making a "birth and death" reference, so it has to be a chicken skull. The contrast is visually interesting. Show some more.

I'm going to get a lead test kit for my camera just in case. I won't be eating my camera, but there are kids in the house who may lick the camera for fun. I already have an OK digital camera to use for scanning if I want. I'm more interested in the craft of photography and the possibility of getting very detailed photos.

>>4511737
Yeah, the aesthetics are lacking.

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

>>4511753
It's a broken piece of the pelvic bone, but it definitely has that skull like look to it. I have some other bone + egg pics, but I'll share this one, which is quite different in style, but is also part of the series I've been working on for the past few months. Egg + farm found object + geometric shape. Very simple idea, but the focus an idea I'm excited about exploring has unlocked so much creativity within me. Even moreso than spending an entire year only doing egg based still lifes. It's crazy.

>>4511753
You may want to skip medium format altogether and just get a little 4x5 view camera. You can get monorail view cameras for very little money. You're stuck on a tripod, but it provides much finer results than most medium format, and you get to use camera movements.
You could watch some videos of either a field camera or a monorail 4x5 camera online to see if it's something you would be okay dealing with/operating.
Aside from the camera movements you also get the ability to develop single sheets, which lets you do push/pull processing on single images rather than whole rolls.
View cameras are great for portraiture/studio work, still life/product, landscape, and arguably macro photography as well.

>>4511688
if you store your film in a consistently cool, dark place in acid free sleeves then it will last well beyond your lifetime. my gf works at a museum and regularly rescans 120 and 135 negatives from the 30s-50s that are still good quality, and I have to imagine film production hasn't changed the formula so much that the longevity is reduced.

as for quality, its really a question of how autistic you want to get. a 60mp digital camera creates an image with 60 million pixels. one source I found lists the number of silver halide crystals on a 35mm frame at 84 billion. now, does that mean the 35mm frame is 8400mp? no, because the crystals are imperfect and reduce and combine with other silver halide molecules to become pure silver, and then with c-41 or e-6 you're taking that silver and combining it with dyes as well. many people will throw out something like 15-20mp as the upper limit of useful detail in 35mm film, but with good equipment (sharp, clear lens in camera and a very high quality scanner) I believe you can squeeze much more information out of your 35mm frame. the only question is how much of it is useful detail.

>>4511764
NTA but how is storage for exposed but undeveloped film? Would storing it in the same cool conditions help against deterioration for when I finally develop it?

>>4511764
It’s been long since confirmed to be over 200mp, assuming no skill issues. And film is prone to skill issues. No IBIS, no autofocus, limited shutter speed ranges, and most people shoot to the 8mp lab scan not the 200mp GFX pixel shift scan which would require a minimum shutter speed over 1/500 to eliminate hand shake at max pixel peep.

>>4511767
yes, generally film should be kept cool, dry, and in the dark whether developed or undeveloped to maximize its longevity and quality.

>>4511769
sure, you can make a scan so detailed you get down individual grains if you really wanted to but imo that's not the same as actually extracting more useful information from the frame. in terms of discernable quality I can definitely see an improvement from my ~35mp home scans compared with the 8 mp lab scans, but I don't scan my negatives at my scanner's max of 10,000 dpi because 1. it takes for fucking ever, but 2. to my eyes there's no discernable improvement between that and a 5,000 dpi scan which takes less than half as long and spits out a much smaller file. I'm sure with a more professional scanner or a medium format digital on a stand or something I could get more detail than I do now, but until image fidelity in my scans starts holding me back somehow I just don't see the point.

File: gfxfgt.jpg (128.6 KB)

>>4511688
>Is it worth it
no. if you value any semblance of convenience. however, its unfortunately really fun and lets you engage with the medium in a way thats more physical and tactile. think of it like driving a manual car.
>>4511707
skill issue is the best issue since its free to fix lol
>>4511691
as someone who scans their film with a gfx100s, id say it really depends on a lot of factors. i tend not to get more than 16mp of real usable detail in 35mm film. 4x5 however, blows gfx to pieces in terms of detail. picrel gfx hitting the upper limit of 35mm grain detail

>>4511775
>however, its unfortunately really fun and lets you engage with the medium in a way thats more physical and tactile. think of it like driving a manual car.
I like it since you get the look you want straight out of the box. I never edit any of my film photos after and strive to make the composition and framing absolutely perfect, which is somewhat of a change from using digital and cropping if I'm lazy.

>>4511770
Scanners have always promised higher dpi figures than they actually deliver res on film from the lowliest shatbed to the greatest hassleblyat flextight. It’s a large part of why boomers thought film was lower resolution. The other part is considering any grain and softness useless detail.

It is also hard to shoot 35mm well enough to actually get the promised 200+mp, let alone find a lens that will do that well.

The average boomer shot 4x5 sheet film to enlarge it no more than 8x10. 16x20 was pushing it. They just wanted the grain gone and the sharpness maxed out. Hence, digital.

>>4511778
>Scanners have always promised higher dpi figures than they actually deliver res on film from the lowliest shatbed to the greatest hassleblyat flextight.
tfw coolscan master race

>>4511775
Whatever your camera is doing to the grain here it looks fucking awful.

File: diver.jpg (1.0 MB)

>>4511688
>Is it worth it to fuck around with film cameras beyond a love for the aesthetic and physical use?
Yes and no. 35mm vs APS-C for dicking around casually? God no. However, if you want to go bigger on a budget then film is absolutely the way to do it.

Think of it like this: for <$300 you can get a clean Mamiyaflex and some basic development supplies. If you shoot cheap stock and develop and scan it yourself, you're looking at $10 per roll or $0.66/exposure. For $1000 you could get a professional-tier MF film camera in excellent condition plus at least two lenses and accessories. If you shoot expensive film stock that you can't DIY it's ~$40/roll or $2.66/exposure.

The "entry-level" option for digital MF is probably a Pentax 645D for $2200 with one lens. "Professional" digital MF cameras are anywhere between $5000 and $8000 plus lenses that are $1500+ each.

>Does film last longer than digital storage media?
That question can't really be answered but I would say that with archival-tier care digital will probably last longer because developed film tops out at ~70 years under archival conditions before degrading noticeably while digital storage is theoretically indefinite. However, "permanent" digital storage is insanely expensive. Either way, both will outlive you with even moderate care.

>Is the theoretical maximum quality of film greater than digital cameras nowadays?
Always has been - but it's getting to that level of quality that's the tricky part. If you fuck up an exposure with a $15,000 digital camera then just snap another one lmao but if you fuck up an exposure with an 8x10 sheet of portra then you just wasted $35.

>I have a good digital mirrorless camera and I am considering getting a good old film SLR.
A 35mm SLR isn't going to produce higher-quality images than a modern digital camera, from a technical perspective. Especially not without really gud glass.

Get a 35mm SLR though. They're great fun.

Just a heads up for everyone... B&H has glycin in stock. I've been waiting for weeks for photographers formulary to restock it, and apparently b&h has it.

Glycin is used to make some really cool developers for both film and paper. Ansco 130 is one of the most highly regarded paper developers.

File: AF38F0E9-D002-4E79-A4E5-034E1AFB3447.jpg (1.2 MB)

reminder to self: mirror down before changing lenses

File: WETPLATE (2) (5) 1.jpg (2.3 MB)

Here is the scan of the azo + amidol proof print of egg + bone I made today. Scan came out pretty close to what the print looks like. The print is more of a subtle cold tone.
Pretty happy with how it came out.

Dry mounting and framing later today.
>>4512190
Only a mistake you make about 20 times before getting a camera with a lockout that stops you from accidentally wasting film lol

File: 20260531_160259.jpg (2.1 MB)

>>4512200
Aaaand the last pic of this. Promise. Mounted and framed. I think it's interesting to showcase the difference between the edited scan of the negative, the scanned print, and then finally the framed print. Totally different vibes from each presentation.

For the final versions of these I will be using 8-ply off white museum grade matt boards and cutting the matts myself. The pure white ones that come with these frames look like absolute shit.

File: DSZ_1730 (2048).jpg (607.5 KB)

The Kodak 35 RF has a polished chrome pressure plate, which means really strong halations.

>>4512222
Mugshot for crimes against humanity.

>>4511688
I went full retard and bought an AE-1 because it has a battery that doesn't contain mercury. Gonna take it on some trips and compare it to our FujiFilm X-T30.

I'm getting the urge to build my own 11x14 camera. This is not good.

>still have an unfinished roll in my camera from 2 months ago
I wish there was more interesting shit around me

>>4512321
There are cathedrals everywhere for those with eyes to see anon.

>>4512323
Done that already and it's also a little cliche anyway.

>>4512324
Damn my bad I thought you were saying you were feeling uninspired but I see now you were just announcing that you don't enjoy photography anymore. Sorry to hear man.

>>4512328
>I see now you were just announcing that you don't enjoy photography anymore
Not lately, I don't know why.

>>4512329
Eh, it happens. Just let the camera sit, the film won't go bad unless it's getting cooked in the sun or something. Maybe spend some time on other hobbies.

Also, what made you want to get into photography anyway?

>>4512331
>Maybe spend some time on other hobbies.
I'm trying, costs for everything I enjoy have been going up in extremes though. Lately I've just been playing old video games or reading books.

>Also, what made you want to get into photography anyway?
I really like cars and had a classic Mercedes I restored myself, and my friend bought a camera to take photos of cars and start YouTubing. I hadn't thought about a camera before so I bought one for photos of my own car, but then realized how much fun taking photos of things like architecture, portraits, textures etc was and I ended up enjoying all that more than cars, which got me a job eventually too.
And then these last few months, I'm just struggling to find anything interesting to photograph. Like everything I try is just too standard/uncreative or just snapshit, like I've lost being able to view things in a more creative way.

>>4512333
>had a classic Mercedes I restored myself
based

>>4512333
Take your car to sweet spots at sweet times and photograph it. You could do a little mini series and make a calender or something.

>>4512222
Do you ever get passerby's showing interest in what you are doing?

File: 2026-05-23-0004.jpg (1.3 MB)

>>4511253
I just started developing, bought the CineStill 2 bath kit, seemed simple enough. I did mess up a couple of steps, but overall the final results came out ok.
I'm still unclear what has happened here, has the image been overdeveloped on the right side?

>>4512604
Weird. Do all your images look like that?

File: 2026-05-23-0002.jpg (1.4 MB)

>>4512609
Nah, just these two. The rest were shot in low light/night time and are fucked, but I think that's the camera's fault. The only thing that comes to mind is that I didn't pre-rinse with some distilled water first, I just poured the developer directly.

>>4512333
Damn that's so based anon. Can I ask what model did you restore and how much it cost approximately? I have an old C Class '99 that I'd like to restore, but I know fuck all about cars, and the mechanics where I live are all lying fucks.

File: 20260603_133604.jpg (2.6 MB)

I'm actually doing it. I think. Hopefully I can get all the parts for less than four-five thousand dollars, which is how much comparable 11x14 cameras sell for.
Aiming for an ultralight design using as much carbon fiber as possible.

I'll do most of the simpler machining myself and hire out one of those small batch cnc places online for the trickier pieces and metal bending jobs if it isn't too expensive.

I highly doubt anyone would be interested in making one of these for themselves, but I will see if I can share the files once they're done and verified working.

File: 0032.07.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M50mm F5.6 @ 50 mm f s.jpg (2.7 MB)

>>4512190
>>4512200
>before getting a camera with a lockout
I have one, and upgraded to this lol
over all worth
it's kind of fun seeing what information I can extract from hopelessly over-/under-exposed photos

File: 0032.11.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M50mm F5.6 @ 50 mm f19 1_250s.jpg (1.6 MB)

>>4512640
the GX M50 has a tiny bit of field curvature, like the 65

>>4512220
>polished chrome pressure plate
that's fucking hilarious
maybe you're only supposed to shoot cine film, with remjet

File: 0032.10.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M50mm F5.6 @ 50 mm f22 1_250s.jpg (1.3 MB)

>>4512641

>>4512612
what film stock?
I don't think Kodak recommends pre-rinse for any of their C-41 films

File: 0032.09.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M50mm F5.6 @ 50 mm f5.6 1_400s.jpg (1.6 MB)

>>4512642
this was incidence metered, and I didn't think to compensate for all the white paint

File: 0032.05.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX M50mm F5.6 @ 50 mm f11 2s.jpg (1.4 MB)

>>4512645

>>4512633
God speed anon

File: 0032.13.1 — Ilford Delta 400 @ 400, Fuji GX680Ⅲ, Fuji EBC Fujinon GX MD115mm F3.2 @ 115 mm f22 1_250s.jpg (1.1 MB)

>>4512647
I took most of the shots on this roll with the 50, and unfortunately most of the ones not with the 50 were ruined
used a 6x4.5 mask btw

>>4512617
>Can I ask what model did you restore and how much it cost approximately?
1989 E Class, which I at least consider classic since they're now almost 40 years old.

> I have an old C Class '99 that I'd like to restore, but I know fuck all about cars, and the mechanics where I live are all lying fucks.
You can really get a lot done through YouTube tutorials, that's how I learned a whole lot doing my cars (as I've had a few old cars over the last 10 years). Costs are hard to estimate, I got some really good used parts from wreckers I went to myself and then also I bought some parts online from wreckers in other states that came with warranties. I also picked up new parts at reasonable enough costs when it was items I didn't trust buying used, so that included things like the cabin blower fan or things like resistors and various electrical bits. The main issue becomes parts that are no longer made where you're at the mercy of used or aftermarket, with both being a mixed bag depending on the piece. Probably the most expensive part I dealt with was the AC compressor, I found a good used unit but it still cost a shitload and I had a shop do the regas since that requires equipment I'd realistically only use once and have no further use for.

Car restoration and mechanic work is easily doable since pretty much every car has a YouTube guide out there, you just have to be willing to do it and to take your time. Rushing something can strip a bolt or some shit and then you're going to be really annoyed. Do you know what work is needed on the car? Having the car looked at and getting a job list is a good way to find out, even if you take it to a shitty mechanic you can just use that list as a rough guide for your repairs and can take it with a grain of salt since some parts probably won't even need replacing.

>buy "refurbished" x-700
>get it home, put batteries in, A & P don't work and the meter is clearly fucked
>get back to store, they're chill about it
>have another refurb x-700 I can test and exchange for if I want
>test it in store with batteries, meter seems accurate to my phone app at least and the A & P modes fire the shutter, B holds it open as it should.
>get home, blast a roll through it in a couple of days, get roll developed
>mostly blank and a few frames that look like half frames
>shot another roll on my patio that afternoon, won't be able to dev and check on it until the weekend but I wanted to test what settings actually worked and what didn't, at least so I can describe the issue accurately when I return it
this is a cautionary tale against impulse buys in hipster shops I guess

>>4512642
A very old roll of Ultramax 400. Could that be it? I have a bunch of expired rolls, Konica & Kodak mostly, and I've had weird funny results when shooting.

>>4512650
Ah I love that model, my dad used to have one as well. Thanks for the thorough explanation anon.

>Do you know what work is needed on the car?
I'm pretty it needs a new chassis, tires & maybe some work on the hydraulics. A new coat of paint and full restoration on the inside. At least the engine is in great condition so I got that going for me.

File: 2026_0024_008.jpg (438.4 KB)

Haven't posted in a hot minute

File: 2026_0019_004.jpg (314.7 KB)

And a 120 one. Guess the film stock!

File: ResizedImage_2026-06-04_09-36-17_9459.jpg (2.7 MB)

Great news! I found a sous vide cooker in the trash with the power cord cut off

File: IMG_3147.jpg (521.5 KB)

Snagged a couple rolls of RVP50 at $36.45 each. Provia in 135 disappeared fast.

>>4512715
Nice flex bro.
I burned through all my remaining slide stock last year and unironically think I may never shoot any again unless it comes down to no more than $15/roll. Shit is ridiculous, upsetting and unsustainable.

File: 20260605_002106067_iOS-1.jpg (207.8 KB)

Picked this up today along with some plasticky telephotos for $50. What do you think?

>>4512697
A lot of that is outside my wheelhouse unfortunately, I had some bad experiences getting under cars on lifts so I don't tend to do any underbody work these days. Chassis stuff isn't very DIY friendly so you'll probably need a pro shop for that, and hydraulics can be a fiddly depending on what sort of setup it has. Interior restoration is very doable with DIY and painting can also be DIY, but you really need a lot of good gear and a very isolated space for it (one speck of dust on the wet paint and you'll never unsee it, so you want some place airtight and very clean, something like plastic sheets covering every wall and the ceiling sealed airtight with tape).

I personally had a lot of fun with the interior restoration. I was still able to source some brand new trim pieces from the dealer at really reasonable prices, while for stuff like the seats I just did repairs and deep cleaning which made them look brand new, same with the steering wheel and dashboard. I also sanded and repainted some plastic parts that had scratches in them or had faded in the sun. Also if you want a modern head unit that has bluetooth streaming and USB input, you can get extremely good OEM looking units from Blaupunkt.

Restoration is long and can be expensive, but you end up with a really nice car at the end.

File: DSZ_1816 (2048).jpg (505.4 KB)

>>4512479
Yeah, maybe about one in ten people will comment if they pass by in close proximity. One of four things typically. They ask if they can pass by without ruining a shot, ask about the dolls, ask about the camera, ask if I have a twitter/insta/etc.
Most people just walk by and might look, but keep on going by.

>>4512776
Love this one. The blurred flying pelly makes it something special.

>>4512772
That's what I was thinking, most of the heavy work I'll leave to a decent mechanic if I can find him, and the rest I'll try to do myself. Mostly I just wanna have a hobby on the side. I feel like fiddling with a car could be a very fun way to spend the time, and like you said, you end up with a really nice car at the end.
Have a good one anon.

bought 7 rolls of 135 film for €110
2x ektar, 3x gold, 2x tri-x
oh well

>>4511253
does anyone else find the reviews and articles on 35mmc just mediocre, ignorant, and incompetent?

One of my occasional pastimes is reading old issues of photography magazines at the library. Even the most basic articles there were less vague and more knowledgable than nearly anything I see online these days from the film "community". Maybe it's just that s o ys are the ones who write articles online?

I'm considering contributing to sites like these just because some of the shit people put there is so dumb that I feel I need to dilute the crap somehow.

>>4512877
What will you be photographing with your film?

>>4512908
Film is less about technical and more about vibes these days, maybe. Sad!

>>4511688
I've seen slides from over 60 years ago that still look good. They have to be stored correctly. A hard drive doesn't have the same storage requirements, but I also have a feeling it's less likely you'll find it working just fine in 60 years.

Depends on your film too. Some specialty films especially in larger sizes can give you pretty high resolution scans.

>>4511764
>I have to imagine film production hasn't changed the formula so much that the longevity is reduced.
new film from Kodak has better longevity than it did before. E100 is claimed by Kodak to have an 80+ year life in the datasheet.

>>4511769
I don't think most film in 35mm is going to get anywhere close to a 200MP scan equivalent. Maybe 50, and definitely not from a cheap consumer film. I could always be wrong but I don't think so.

>>4511776
> I never edit any of my film photos after
do you only shoot slides?

>>4512910
Yeah, seems like it. Which is fine but most of the nerds writing shit up take the most awful underexposed photos and know absolutely nothing about film and will compare films scanned with wildly different scanner settings, it's retarded. I really think I am going to run a couple rolls of this or that soonish and write my own review when I'm less busy with work. Which might be never, idk.

>>4512912
Film testing is boring and is almost useless without photographing step wedges and creating spreadsheets using a densitometer.
It's exceptionally annoying when looking at developer and film testing because no one really photographs a scene that can demonstrate the entire gamut of what may make a developer/film good.

>>4512912
Also scanning film. Scanning film removes like 80% of the technical demand of shooting film, and you can basically make any film look like any other within reason. It's actually better to shoot b&w film low contrast/thin if you intend to only scan it. Exact opposite for making prints. Ree.

>>4512913
I think you can still do somewhat useful testing with photographing scenes in real life but when I see it done most of the time it's in different lighting, from different angles, with different cameras, with different settings, and maybe not even developed at the same lab which makes it almost completely useless

>>4512912
>>4512913
yeah, average film "photographer" pushes shitty foma films or anything other 2-3 stops and gets garbage underexposed mess with transparent shadows on negatives and says he gets "great results".
These days "great results" means that anything appeared on negative. These people watch infl*encers who has no idea about film and just copycat them and they just set garbage standards for themselves.

>>4512915
Yeah. With the right scene and settings. It gets tricky because some developers are good at certain things and not as good at other things, so you may not understand why a developer is good aside from the obvious stuff like speed and accutance if your images don't contain those things. Other developers like staining devs don't even show off a big part of why they're so good until you actually make prints with them.

>>4512916
Some people will be in for a very rude awakening if they ever decide to give the darkroom a shot.

>>4511253
The cover and title of this book made it sound really dangerous and ominous to me for some reason

File: Untitled (54)_1.jpg (4.5 MB)

>>4512925
I brought one of my framed egg prints(pic) to the farmers market and the people that took the time to actually look at it were really impressed and wanted to see more of my prints even though no one had any clue what 8x10 film was or anything related to my incredibly autistic print process. It wasn't even developed with amidol!
Next week I will bring a different one to share. Probably my bone + egg shot.

Make prints and share your work IRL guys. It's pretty fun.
Ty for reading the eggblog.

>>4512657
this has now become a learning project. the issue is that the x-700 sometimes, for reasons known only to long dead minolta engineers, loses its shutter alignment. the problem is easy enough to fix, just unscrew the baseplate, spin some gears, et voila.

in fact, the people who sold me this camera must have known about the issue and fixed or attempted to fix it in the past, because two of the screws in the baseplate are stripped and jammed in there fucking good. I used my tiniest screwdriver but alas I can't get any movement. they probably used a philips head when these screws (i'm pretty sure) actually need one of the japanese screwdriver heads (jjt or jt or something? idk)

anyway, anyone have any thoughts on how to get these two tiny stripped screws out?

>>4512967
No, but the problem sounds like mechanical slop from wear.

>>4512910
>What will you be photographing with your film?
might go to iceland for the solar eclipse in august
gassing for a medium format camera though

>>4512958
>Eggboy, the last remaining (in spirit) /P/ namefag is left single-handedly adding actual content to the board
>This angers the gearfag

>>4512995
Please dont reply to yourself for attention. You’ve reposted that photo four times since february also.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/U6S_ur85pwMhcWCrzguiLw/

File: 100S9186.jpg (3.4 MB)

kodacolor 100 is now my main for color

>>4513003
What a creepy and wrong photo to take

File: 100S9052.jpg (1.4 MB)

>>4513004
what makes yhou say that?

File: ResizedImage_2026-06-07_15-13-32_1637.jpg (4.3 MB)

>>4513022
underexposed foma, a classic

File: 2026_0028_008.jpg (323.0 KB)

Shot Foma for the first time in a long time to remind myself why I don't. Why is this irredeemable garbage still being manufactured and sold in 2026 even.

>>4513098
>Why is this irredeemable garbage still being manufactured
Fear of missing analog

File: IMG_4391.png (81.8 KB)

I dropped my Paterson thermometer 1 cm on to the countertop and it shattered
>>4513024
Spain?
>>4513098
Looks ok

File: Image 7 (4).jpg (342.2 KB)

>>4512995
I'm here to inspire the youth with pictures of eggs! I just wish more people came here for technical questions, critiques, and more art type discussions.
Maybe one day eggs will heal the world. We can always remain hopeful of such things.

>>4513001
I've seen you say people are talking to themselves about 10 times in various threads this past week lol. Change up the cope maybe?
>Reposted image
With a little contextualizing you would understand why I reposted it. I suppose I could have shared the actual print I brought to market instead of the scan. I was a little tipsy last night and wanted to make a motivational post.

I may be working on a new shot soon that uses sheep's wool and an egg in a way that attempts to avoid landing on cliche themes. A little doubtful of the idea, but I am going to give it a shot. Stay tuned. :D

>>4513098
looks good
have you considered the fact you're retarded?

>>4513107
I use a sous vide to preheat my water. It's incredibly convenient. I put it in a 4L pitcher with around 2L of water and it heats it up in like 3 minutes.

>>4513108
>le dog avatar
it really is tiresome ngl

i miss old 4chan when these people used tripcodes instead of quirks

>>4513120
Wrong again. That's just a cute picture of my dog I took with very grainy film.
All you do is whine and post essays in the gear thread. Why are you even here?

>>4512911
>do you only shoot slides?
Regular negatives. I get them scanned and leave them as they are.

>>4513123
its not more authentic to not edit your scans. the noritsu or frontier at the lab (or worse, the guy with a dslr and macro lens) generally comes out flat and some labs don't bother to correct the green/yellow casts that come from the machines. negative film was meant for printing, which means it was meant for editing.

>>4513125
They're usually Noritsu scans. I always go for the JPG though since TIFF files are always massive and really not worth it for my snapshit quality photos, and editing JPG doesn't seem all that possible considering the limitations of the format.

File: trichrome-finished (4096).jpg (2.3 MB)

>>4513098
Only foma film I've liked was their ortho 400. Everything else has been pretty lackluster.

>>4513131
Youre like the anime version of gorsky. One day I would like to try gum over platinum prints using a trichrome seperation. The prints look insanely nice.

File: ResizedImage_2026-06-08_09-17-41_9045.jpg (4.3 MB)

>>4513107
Sevilla yes

Anyone know good forums or sub-reddits for film photography? This place is clearly dead. TIA

>>4513144
You can post in the general photography subs and I think there's one just for film. At the very least there's a sub to discuss film cameras, so there's probably a dedicated sub that I don't know the name of. Good luck anon, I'll probably join you once I start getting some rolls back.

>>4513098
I despise 400 but actually like 200. Haven’t tried 100 yet.

File: sad_hampter.jpg (69.5 KB)

>>4513144
>Anyone know good forums or sub-reddits for film photography?
u don't wike us?

>>4513123
To be honest, I knew this is what you meant and I was just being a bit of a dick. But anyway, what you're really telling us is that is that you let the automatic settings of a minilab machine edit your scan for you, which doesn't actually make you some sort of raw unedited analog photographer. It just means you're letting someone else decide how your photo looks. Before scanning, this would be equivalent to having no input on the color filtration used when printing.

Which is totally fine, if you're getting the results you want. But printing negatives requires the printer to make decisions about what looks right and ideally you as the photographer would adjust in order to match what you wanted the scene to look like when you took the photo.

So you should edit them as you see fit.

>>4513126
you can edit jpegs, I do all the time. Even for my cheap scans for photos taken on my focus-free point-and-shoot I color correct jpegs. Takes like a minute or two per photo at most.

>>4513144
>sub-reddits
none, the moderation is TERRIBLE and the people are retards. They're redditors after all.

/p/ is actually better than plebbit's "analog" forums once you get past some of the shitposters. At least they're just trolling, even the non-trolls on reddit are mostly retarded.

If you actually want a somewhat active forum with people who actually know what they're talking about, then join photrio.com. I know everything I know about film from guys on that site and it's also not a dead forum. I can't recommend it enough but be warned you shouldn't go there and talk like a retard as you would on other sites, it's a forum with good moderation and shitposts usually get deleted and the posters are warned.

>>4513098
Gotta side with the others here and say it looks ok. I'll come back tomorrow with a test roll of 100.
Since B/W development is a couple of bucks more expensive than C41, it's nice to have some cheap options for the film itself.