'>>4298187
This could have been the last pic I'd take before death(I almost crashed 20min later)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Thanks to that one anon recommending this thing, my first film camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298257
How long would it take for someone to develop it if you have?';

'>>4298262
Assuming camera would survive, immediately after my parents would log into my pc ,see my film chat and inform my friends about my death';

'>>4298261
nice, the C35 is so comfy';

'>>4298261
ayyyy he got it
happy snapping dude!';

'Why is there a new thread when the old one is only at 276 replies?';

'>>4298383
have you refreshed the thread lately';

'>>4298383
It’s an fe2fucker thing unfortunately, he’s one of those speds that somehow gets pleasure out of making threads or something. He’s always making them early and forgetting the subject and etc. fucking weirdo Europeans, man, I tell ya.';

'>>4298383
jennies
>>4298392
>>4298394
it was well over 300 before the pruning';

'>>4298187
>So, gas station battery water,
can anybody translate this from american?';

'>>4298402
distilled, europoor
and no, I doubt whatever chemicals they put in to turn the frogs gay will affect my film
>>4298395
>pruning
it's barely on page 3';

'Hey, can you guys help me, and post some examples of great dog pictures you have taken? Genuinely curious about this.';

'>>4298402
De-ionized
>>4298405
No its not distilled';

'>>4298187
I want to get into scanning my 35mm film at home. What do you guys recommend?';

'>>4298480
Digital camera + macro lens.';

'>>4298483
Really? Seems a little MacGyver-ish';

'>>4298480
Epson V600 with old epsonscan for manual mask subtraction+ optically printing select works';

'>>4298485
Alternative is a blurry-ass flatbed (they dont do 35 very well) or a proper dedicated film scanner which are either really expensive or so old you need to adapt pci to pci-e and jump through software hoops to get it to work.';

'>>4298490
>they dont do 35 very well
Epsons do it the best because you can subtract the mask manually with no information loss';

'>>4298487
What about the Kodak Slide-n-Scan? :D';

'>>4298491
I was moreso thinking about film flatness (fixable i know but its a hassle) and even then you run into focusing issues a lot of the time.';

'>>4298495
Imagine every compromise there is in the name of being cheap.';

'>>4298496
You need highres only for good works, so it's absolutely possible to get them drumscanned. Lab scanners produce way worse colors than Epson';

'>>4298485
If you can find a Minolta Scan they are ok, mine has USB but needs Vuescan to work so eh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Camera scanning is easy, fast, scalable to 120, and produces good results. There is no home solution that costs a few hundred $ and beats it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298480
don't listen to these morons
flatbed scanner are fucking useless and camera scanning is finicky
get a Minolta Dimage, the nicest model you can afford (3200 for example) and a copy of vuescan';

'>>4298508
lmao';

'I don't really take that many photos these days and I've been thinking about selling my expensive digital gear and getting one SLR and lens. Am I just coping with a different kind of GAS? I know film is expensive but I think it would be offset by me taking less photos, feels like a shame to have expensive digital equipment not getting used.';

'This was a Beseler Topcon Super D I found at UsedPhotoPro for a whopping 75 bucks. It had a lazy 1-second and 1/2 second setting which I cured with a full CLA. It also got new seals and new mirror bumper seals.

The Meyer Optik Gorlitz Primotar 180/3.5 attached also got a mild service and has been calibrated to this camera. The test roll, shot on BW400CN, is in the wind now along with two others, a roll from the Retina Reflex 4 I serviced and a Praktica TL Super that got a repair done on its prism.';

'>>4298556
There's nothing wrong with trying something new. Try to figure out whats keeping you from engaging with your current gear and work from there.';

'>>4298501
Original Minolta dimage software works fine too, at least with the 5400. I just installed vuescan to get the drivers but no need to buy the license for that. I tried silverfast with the demo version but it had some issues with focusing and light leaks from the edges.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'ok what stock they repacked this time';

'>>4298480
dslr, 40mm macro and a Nikon es-2 film holder';

'>>4298556
I've got a lot of nice digital gear, medium format film, 35mm SLR and point and shoots. I still use the 35mm SLR and point and shoots more than anything and lately with smart phone cameras being so good I don't see myself using digital much anymore. 35mm with a good modern lens (not some old 70s zoom) can get very high quality shots as well that get near medium format film and full frame digital.';

'>>4298606
Shoot 4x5.';

'>>4298612
Too much effort.';

'>>4298568
it's so exhausting. What's the fucking point';

'>>4298622
That's the whole point.';

'>>4298475
No one???';

'>>4298703
we are not going to give you fap material for free';

'>>4298705
Projecting again? You're the one constantly sexualizing animals, idiot.

I just want to see what I'm doing wrong/can do better through example.';

'>>4298707
It aint me, I aint your zoophile stalker';

'Well if no one is willing to or actually has a great dog picture I will share one I believe is great. My scanner kinda sucks and my negatives are dirty. I know...

These are the elements that I believe make this a good photograph..
Super sharp and well exposed image, simplicity/not busy but still has beautiful elements, captures a story/very meaningful moment for me, a composition that both adds to the quality of the image by enhancing "pop" and makes the eye flow very naturally through each element of the image. The height/angle of camera makes it feel like you're sitting next to dog as well.

Most of what I am describing was intentional and pre-visualized to create a desired image. I was half standing in the water to capture this image.

I guess the one thing I wish I did better was get dog's face in a slightly better profile. It looks a little goofy, but I don't think it's so bad it doesn't work. I was more focused on timing the vulture to be in the right spot than his face profile.


>>4298709
I actively fought off a real and extreme abuser for months that constantly spammed /an/ with evil images. Please don't let my troll fool you so easily. Go to the previous fgt and read my posts. If you were just joking I guess it was kinda funny.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298711
Holy fucking drama whore. Afaik you falseflag for attention and are your own stalker. Shut up drama whore. And stop posting the same 3 dog photos over and over again. Its boring.';

'Kentmere 100 pushed to 2 stops-ish. Developed for 18~ minutes because I was watching puppet kino and lost track of the time. Critiques welcome..

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298735

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298736

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298737
>>4298736
>>4298735
Can you explain your intent behind these images, and if you feel like you were successful in achieving them?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'A blessing happened, a new independent lab opened in my city
They are cheap and, so far, reliable
And they do E6, which is a chore to get in my country
Death to the big hipster labs, hurray';

'>>4298557
Sick piece, always thought topcons were weird and cool. Post results when you can anon
>t. canon and olympusfag

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298794

Test roll should come back in the next couple of days I'm looking forward to it';

'>>4298557
It's weird that Americans fetishize this brand just because they were lowest bid defense contractors.
>bomb Exacta into the fucking history books
>steal their IP and install it in a slave labour factory in your defeated client state
????
>PROFIT
So telling that once the war profiteers got their payday they didn't even leverage their tech headstart to develop competitive products, they just let the brand wither and die, stamping out the same old shit.
>muh 58/1.4
yeah bud, every single brand made one, (and a cheaper 1.8 and a more expensive 1.2) it's not special';

'>>4298807

But unlike those other 5x/1.4's the Topcon one is still made today and you can buy one brand new in M42 and F mounts because it was *that* good.

https://www.cameraquest.com/voigtFlexTM.htm

I didn't even know of the Navy connection until after I bought it. I liked the cloth shutter and just the overall fit and finish of the camera. The only Americans than fetishize them are Boomers who served in the Navy and shot one.

You can enjoy shit without it being political';

'topcon more like topcuck';

'My first dry plate photo of a random passerby. Why all of the white haze around the edges? Is it lack of development or lack of fix?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298863

Wear gloves next time, the white cotton ones.';

'>>4298873
What difference would that make? Now that you mention it I did hold the plate on the edges while rinsing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298875
There wouldn’t be a big fuckin thumbprint in the middle of the frame for starters.

Looks fogged, idk.';

'it's been a minute but i'm back... ended up buying a digitakt instead of a new camera and i've finally recovered finacially lmao

infrared flash "self portrait"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298875
>>4298863
do you seriously not see the massive fingerprint on your scan there? did you think that was just some "character" artifact or some shit? bruh.';

'>>4298863
nigga put down the fried chicken before you handle your plates lmaoooo';

'>>4298735
All three are bottom tier snapshits.';

'>>4298735
nice composition, reminds me of very formalist subdued doc stuff, think of the type of photography used in zone of interest. very cold and clinical.
>>4298736
>>4298737
not sure, but i like these anyways, different from the first pic you posted, these come off more like "vernacular photography" not in a bad way, but the first photo is more successful

>>4298738
but like he pointed out i'm not sure what your intentions were

either way def gonna have to shoot some ketmere now!';

'>>4298908
My intent was simply to start a conversation about some pictures taken on film. Maybe understand why he chose to take/share those pictures or something like that. Idk... Crazy, right?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298814
> But unlike those other 5x/1.4's the Topcon one is still made today and you can buy one brand new in M42 and F mounts because it was *that* good.
> url
> The 58/1.4 is discontinued and sold out after one production run after earning in Japan a sterling and near legendary reputation.
You didn’t even read lol';

'>>4298882
That is a cool picture anon
>infrared flash
How does that work ? Have you converted a flash for IR or was it native like that ? Do you have to use a IR filter still to isolate the rest of the light ?';

'Portra 800 my beloved

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298943
thanks man! i'm using an infrared flash filter used for nature night photography i bought here.
https://store.camtraptions.com/products/infrared-flash-filters?variant=32285347086419

*photo is random snapshit / test (:';

'>>4298913

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/sl/58-mm-11-4-nokton-slii-s/?lang=en

This is the lens I was talking about I fat-fingered the copy and paste my bad

That is the exact lens design I saw when I pulled out the optical assembly and did the CLA on my Topcor 5.8cm 1.4. It's even on their website. I'm going to bet the newer Nokton has better coatings and some other minor improvements, but otherwise, same lens.

I'm actually curious now I might pick up a Nokton and compare it, I have a digital adapter for my A7S';

'>>4298495
It does a decent enough job
My grandpa left behind 5,000 slides so I've been using one to scan them and the image quality is solid for it being 50 year old film

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298988
Man, maybe I didn't get something, but 7 elements in 6 groups where 3 elements on front + 4 on back - this is the typical CZ's Planar formula for their fifties. And they discontinued these Planars because they are not good anymore, it is impossible to fix distortion and the vignette even on f5.6 on it (and compare it with almost perfect straight graphs for Milvus for example).

As for me all these _still_made_today_ nothing but easy way to milk idiots using absolutely free optical formula. I mean, it's a good way to make money, but bruh... it wasn't *THAT* good, it was just good enough for 70s/80s, but not now.';

'Goats';

'>>4299053

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Sheeps

Both of these were taken on a voigtlander vito bl. Fun little camera, but it jammed on my third roll because of the ridiculous shutter cocking mechanism.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298475
my (overexposed) dawg

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299115
I kneel...

Please have this picture of turkeys on a hill as a thank you for showing me the way.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I did it! I realllllly wanted to get images from this aerial camera, but it only accepts 70mm film.

I used some junk 70mm film as a leader on both spools, and taped a full strip of 120 foma100 and carefully wound it all up. Just finished developing, and I see good images! I'll post some when I am done scanning.

Super fun camera to shoot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I loaded some film into my medium format camera a while back and fucked up by not taking note of what film I put in. Now I can't remember what's inside.
It's either Portra 400 or 800 but I really don't know which.
What do?';

'>>4299158
Rewind it in a darkbag then reshoot blanks until you're passed all your pics.

Or just say screw it and shoot at 600 iso.';

'>>4299156
Bruh thats so fucking cool, ya gotta post scans';

'>>4299160
Film should be dry in an hour or so. :D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'should I get a nikon F5 or do you guys prefer fully mechanical film cameras';

'>>4299173
Why did you consider the F5? I have an F4s, FE and F eye level and I find myself using the F4s the least because it doesn't fit in my usual camera bag.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299180
mostly because it works with newer F mount lenses, auto focus, color metering, etc';

'Well, here is the sharpest image I was able to get with the aerial camera. Cropped the bottom half... It shoots 6x6. If I am bored I may try using some tmax or other finer grained film to see how much sharper the lens is.

I think I had some film flatness issues, and minor camera shake because I was shooting at 1/125. The shutter release button is kinda heavy.

All in all a very fun test.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299182
If you wanna use AF-S lenses go for the F5 or F100, If you want a mechanical body then go for F, F2 or FM/FE series. Imo the F2 is the most tactile feeling camera out of all the F series and I regret selling mine a long time ago.';

'Easter. Long weekend with 4 days off in a row and the weather's nice.
I've got a bunch of 120 and 35mm film to use up.
I have a camera I haven't used in a while that I missed and a new camera I'm excited to use.
But I haven't got the motivation to go anywhere and also no ideas on where to go.
Anyone here in Victoria, Australia have recommendations for somewhere to go within 3hrs of the CBD?
I want to take some nice landscape/slice of life photos.';

'>>4298261
comfy cam. mine had a booboo in battery compartment few weeks ago :(';

'>>4299237
woah what happened?';

'Personally I just buy cameras because they look cool';

'>>4299261
forgot to take batteries out.';

'>>4299266
Based
>>4299269
Oh ouch. Ya could sand or sandblast the bottom plate and repaint it';

'>>4299184

Definitely film flatness issue. Keep at it. Nice setup';

'Is anyone still buying ColorPlus! 200?
I bought a ten-pack of 36-exps for it in 2014 for £24.
Now it's £9 for a single spool. No cheaper than the nicer Gold 200 or Ultramax 400, and not so far off Ektar and Porta.';

'>>4299293
>nicer Gold 200
it's shit. It's the only good film that consistently hurts my when I see it';

'>>4299307
> consistently hurts my when I see it
I’m sure you won’t even guess the gold photo in 1 of 3. What the hell you are talking about?';

'>should I get a pentax 645n and toss my other medium format cameras?

My other cameras are 100% analog and the time it takes to frame a shot is tedious to say the least. Its impossible to snap a "candid" pic in my experience. I do dislike the thought of not having a full 6x6 frame so I had thought about selling my 2 medium formats and buying a 645n and a large format camera. What think?

>zero interest in 35mm';

'>>4299318
if you want 35mm speed i think your only choice is the fuji gfx series';

'>>4299319
the pentax 645n has autofocus, exposure and all of that bullshit. I also think the gfx is 6x4.5 also which is weird nobody made an autofocus 6x6';

'>>4299318
400 speed film, less than 80mm focal length, ideally in the 50mm range, midday sun, and zone focus.

You could use a 4x5 camera set up similarly for quick candid photos.

6x7 is the thinking mans 645. I'd just go for that and a wide angle lense.

What kind of mf camera do you have?';

'>>4299318
I was using one of those big - how do you call them - Pentakon Sixes, but the exposure meter, I liked it not, it fucked it up a big long on some expensive Velvia. I got a Pentax 645n and it does good metering and a joy to use.';

'>>4299322
500CM and a SWC, kinds would like to keep the SWC but at the same time if I bought a nice 8x10 large format I do not see the reason in keeping it. With a 8x10 I can buy inserts and shoot 4x5 or 5x7?';

'>>4299330
Look into the synar monorail cameras. They are relatively inexpensive, and highly modular. You would have to change out the rear standard and bellows, but that only takes a minute or two.

You could probably find a good synar 8x10 for like 1500-2k on ebay. 8x10 lenses will work on smaller firmats, but only some 4x5 lenses will work with 8x10. The more modern 4x5 apo rodenstock lenses have huge projections, but they are pricey. You'll probably want to get some 8x10 lenses if you plan to do large standard movements.';

'Had a bit of a struggle using stainless reels for the first time. Didn't realize my film was so kinky in reel. Only half the images got away without spots of zero development. Delta 100 shot @ 400, devd in xtol for 13 minutes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299311
Come on,try me. But dont post shit scans';

'>>4299382
I had a very similar struggle a couple days ago. This is a 70mm reel that holds 13 feet of film. Loading 4ish feet was a major difficulty.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299226
Lol it's Victoria, there's nothing good here. I would just recommend visiting all sorts of suburbs, particularly ones that have a lot of older houses. Think North Melbourne, Richmond, Yarravile etc. You can do a day trip for your slice of life there then head further out more towards the coast or to the mountains. Williamstown beach is alright (for photos)';

'>>4298568
Any pair of relabeled red-focused and blue-focused film is ORWO NC400 and NC500';

'>>4298187
What other names do people resell bulkrolled Ektachrome 100 movie film on?
The ones I know of right now are Euphoric 100, Flicfilllm Chrome 100, and Reflx Lab 100R. All go for -$15 a roll which is better than Alaris-sold Ektachrome ($20+ a roll) but still pretty steep. Are any other small shops doing it cheaper?';

'>>4299472
How much will you pay me to load an entire 400 foot roll for you?';

'>>4299472
is this the film that turns green trees to red?';

'>>4299485
The canister mentions color reversal so probably, yeah';

'Just got a Noblex 150 U, what am I in for? Why can't I find filters? Can I DIY?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299485
no';

'Post some photos "please." (not including gear)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299536
my negatives don't have enough dog hair on them so I can't share';

'>>4299536
I use a digital camera to meter my photos and then shoot with the film camera. So I would have two copies of the same image, one on film and one on the DSLR. Light meter on my film camera broke so I have to rely on the digital camera for challenging conditions.
>inb4 use your smartphone
I carry a dumbphone with me so I do not worry too much on the off-chance I get mugged. Yes I am a turd worlder. I got my cameras for cheap so it's not much of a loss in case they take them from me.
>>4299537
>find a dog on the streets
>smear the negatives on it
>post on /pee/
>???
>profit
now is that hard to do?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299538

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299540

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Mfw I see doghair mentioned in fgt.

>>4299541
Gray cats looks nice on gray film.

>>4299536
I like that the window on the right is open.
Nice.

It would be fun to take that picture with a 4x5 camera and using rear standard movements to play with the perspective of the two buildings.

>>4299509
I had a thought of getting one of those, but they are massive, and I don't take panoramas, although I do love the challenge of a wide angle lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299509
Oh yeah.. I forgot to mention that I hope to see some scans soon!';

'>>4299552
Apparently they are trying to make a new Widelux. Could be interesting.';

'>>4299557
Huh, I would probably only soend like 300 bucks on a panoramic camera. NOT 6000 dollars on an xpan or 9k on a tx-2.

I have been tempted to try putting 35mm film into a 4x5 back and tape it down or something. You'd get a little over a 5:1 panorama, which is kinda cool.';

'>>4299581
The xpan is a meme at this point. Wouldn't recommend anyone getting it. Widelux are all mechanical. Could probably find one in ok shape for ~300$ outside of ebay.';

'>>4299552
Why do you take the exact same photo over and over again';

'>>4299603
If you ever get a pet you'll understand why.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299606
This. Nice cat btw. :D

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299611
Ty, ur doggies are very cute too';

'>>4299606
why isn't there cat hair on your photo?';

'>past 5+ threads overran by faggots arguing over unrelated bullshit

post more photos

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'I'm doing a 4-year long series of self portraits shot every 6 months or so (it's been a bit over a year for now)
Just developed picrel and it's the one I liked the most thus far

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>Tfw hauled all of this away for 150 bucks

Mix of ORWO Wolfen 100, Kodak Vision 200T and 500T, Foma 100 and 400, Svema 100 and a roll of Cinestill 50D';

'how do you meter with flash? my cam has an auto meter so i usually just set it to auto mode when using flash, but how would you do it manually? just shoot at 2000/s or what';

'>>4299630
>how do you meter with flash?
you don't
there should be a table on the back of your flash or something similar to it where you can see what aperture should be used at different distances for different ISOs
>but how would you do it manually? just shoot at 2000/s or what
If your camera has a leaf shutter you can sync the speed with any speed. But for the majority of SLRs, rangefinders and etc. you'll have a predetermined sync speed
Read your camera's manual, this info will certainly be there
Usually it's 1/60"';

'>>4299330
>Owning 2 hasselblads
>Selling both

Are you saying they're over hyped?';

'>>4299630
>>4299633
You can get a meter like the sekonic l-608 that can trigger/meter flash. Not the solution for all situations, but it works great when it makes sense to use.';

'>>4299638
True, but for someone asking something as basic as "can I just shoot at 1/2000''?" I don't think these technicalities are that important

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299641
I guess the logical next step would be to learn how to use/meter flash on a digital camera before attempting on film. Sometimes a digital camera is the best lightmeter... It is definitely a crutch, so it should not be relied upon.

What is that, btw?';

'>>4299643
It's ice!';

'>>4299645
Now that's COOL! haha.';

'>>4299646
say the line, icejak!';

'>>4299382
Trick with stainless reels is to ensure as you're loading that the film always has in-out play in the spiral. If it ever goes tight it means it's kinked, unreel til you get some slack back and retry.';

'The 70mm back for my linhof kept tearing the sprockets in my film and being a bastard. I found the problem and fixed it! One of the rollers had extremely sticky grease that was creating a ton of resistance.

This thing should be good as new after I reassemble it!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Memeing it up with that minimalism

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'First shots with the Pentax ME
had so many problems unloading the film that I really thought the roll would be blank

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'This is how it came out after scanning. How would you have edited it, show your results

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299754
Hit auto in light room for digital, and add some sharpening.

For enlarger I would aim for a true black, and probably have to dodge some of the highlights, and maybe burn the guy on the rights face a bit.';

'>>4299754
I mean dodge his face actually.';

'>>4299625
so you did two you stupid faggot? lol';

'First time ever developed a roll myself.
Mistakes have been made.';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'undefined';

'undefined';

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Why was 35mm the go to format after the 50s instead of 120? You could have made fairly small cameras using 220 film and had much better quality pic with roughly the same amount of pics per roll.';

'>>4299808
>Why was APS-C the go to sensor size after the 20s instead of Full Frame? You could have made fairly small cameras having FF sensor and had much better quality pic with unlimit amount of pics per memory card.
Get it?';

'>>4299817
No I don’t get it.';

'>>4299775
It's a bit more complex than that but I didn't want to explain it in details in that post
It's actually a self portrait at the beginning and at the end of each semester (and sometimes I'd take two photos so that at least one would be viable)
At the beginning of 2023 I made the first self portrait, then at the end of the semester in june or july
And then again at the beginning of the second semester in august, and at the end in december
That one was recently, in the beginning of the current semester, around the end of february
So I took around 5 in total (a bit more than that, but for now I have 5 for the project)
But in short, even by your logic I should have at least 3, because "every six months" would mean I took one at the beginning of the year instead of "starting the project and then waiting 6 months for the first photo", you stupid faggot lol';

'>>4299819
Nobody needs 6x6(x9) negative to make 10x13 photo to their family album. 35mm was cheap, compact, easy to load/unload, easy to make prints at home, easy to travel with, easy to develop, easy to do anything. And film emulsions became better and better.
Get it now?';

'>>4298875
>>4298863
>Has negative sitting on kitchen table for a week
>2 small kids in the house
>Safe
>Wife decides to move it today and drops it and breaks it

Why are they like this?';

'>>4299831
Not to mention old negatives were large because enlargements werent widespread until the 50's so most prints were 6x6(9)contact copies.';

'contrastmaxxing with HC-110 (developed Tri-X 400 for 3:30 at 90F, constant agitation)

liking the results desu

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299839
This hurts my eyes.';

'>>4299831
>>4299838
This is cope';

'>>4299617
she doesnt like wet film';

'>>4299851
which part of what i said was cope? and over what exactly? as far as i know I just shared an interesting historical fact';

'>>4299835
You left a negative on the kitchen table for a fucking week and now you wanna blame your wife because she finally got tired of seeing it there because your lazy ass wouldn't put it in an adequate place?
It's just a portrait of a random fat guy, there are literally millions just like him in the US
I'm sorry you lost your first dry plate, but come on
Look after your stuff instead of leaving shit around the house for days
It's your fault, don't get mad at your wife';

'>>4299851
You asking a question and not liking the answer is cope';

'Can I develop c41 film in ecn2 chemistry? I have only 1 Ultramax roll and don't want to buy a c41 kit just for that.';

'>>4299877
You can develop ecn2 film in C-41 (if you remove the remjet which C-41 does not) so my theoretical guess not based on experience is yes. Expect minor shift in colours and exposure.';

'What kind of film camera will get me femboy bussy';

'>>4299952
fuji x100vi or some late 90's point n shoot
true story';

'GET EM JANNY

posting a pic to appease our overlord, blessed be the janny

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4299924
I'll try I guess, thanks

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>4299952
minolta srt 101! that's what i shoot all the femboys i know with
and if you shoot cinema film a bolex h16 rex 1-5
trust me

alternatively any sort of field camera will do but we're getting pricey here';

'>>4299978
Sorry i cant help but feel you are the janny and you have a side in this argument because you left this one up >>4299859

Stop abusing your powers to win off topic arguments';

'>>4299982
if this was just palm tree tops, I think it would be really cool';

'>>4299999
Checked';

'Got my first real camera as a present from a relative, along with a flash and some lenses. Minolta X-700 that said relative bought new in 1983. What am I in for and what other shit do I need? What are some good resources for learning how to shoot film? I want to take pictures of birds but I realize I probably need a much bigger telephoto lens for that.';

'what happened to the retard with the hasselblad that shot whores';

'>>4300018
got a vd';

'where my lemonheads at

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4298187
So what are the options for developing film these days? I learned to /photo/ on 35mm B&W in high school 15 years ago but haven't touched it since, all digital baby.

I miss film but have no access to a dark room. Should I convert one of the bedrooms in my house into a dark room, or are there any good services that'd develop my film for a reasonable price?';

'>>4300013
Welcome bro. It's a really good kit.
>What are some good resources for learning how to shoot film?
Start with a couple of vids on YT lol. It is stupid, yeah, but it is not a hard science. Find something like" how to shoot 35mm film" and "minolta x700 review".
All you need to do for now is to clean lenses, and camera, put the batteries inside put the roll of a cheap film, burn it and develop in lab. The result will tell you is everything okay with camera (does it have light leaks, does it scratch the film or... I actually can't remember rn any other issue what can go wrong)
>I want to take pictures of birds but I realize I probably need a much bigger telephoto lens for that.
you have 300mm on the long range of Tamron zoom already. It's a good range to start. And also tripod will be a good addition.
But before clowning with a tripod and a telephoto lens, have some fun around with 50mm lens, to get used to your new camera. Because you will never take good photos if you will dive into serious business with your device, before even understanding how photography works.';

'>>4300050
You don't need a darkroom to develop your films. All you need is a chemistry and a developing tank. (And a scanning setup)';

'>>4300052
>Because you will never take good photos if you will dive into serious business with your device, before even understanding how photography works.

NTA but this might be bad advice. Photography is art so if they've got innate ability there's not much to learn beyond the technical aspects of the camera itself. People who dwell on stuff like composition/depth of field/contrast/etc. aren't artistically inclined individuals and will honestly never shoot as well as someone who just knows what to do and what to shoot without even thinking about it.
One of the most limiting things you can do to an aspiring artist is tell them they need to spend copious amounts of time studying art before they can ever hope to be good at it. Book learning is for faggots, in other words.

>>4300013
Get out and fuck around with the camera. Don't think, just see stuff and shoot it. You'll take 10 crap photos for every good one, that's usually how it goes. But you'll still like all of them and just slowly build up a catalog of your favorites.
Beyond knowing the functions of your camera there's really only specialization after that. If you want to do night photography with film that's a whole world in and of itself. Getting light meters, film types, remote shutter releases, etc. is all more specific than if you want to do portrait or action.

TL;DR Learn the basics of your camera, and once you decide what kind of photography you like start experimenting.';

'>>4300054
Can you expand on this? I learned to use an enlarger/timer/tray process with a dark room. We used developing tanks to develop our film but I want to make my own prints too, not just scan a negative into a computer.';

'>>4300056
The question was
>So what are the options for developing film these days?
You are right, darkroom needed for printing, nothing changed.';

'>>4300055
>NTA but this might be bad advice. Photography is art so if they've got innate ability there's not much to learn beyond the technical aspects of the camera itself. People who dwell on stuff like composition/depth of field/contrast/etc. aren't artistically inclined individuals and will honestly never shoot as well as someone who just knows what to do and what to shoot without even thinking about it.
>One of the most limiting things you can do to an aspiring artist is tell them they need to spend copious amounts of time studying art before they can ever hope to be good at it. Book learning is for faggots, in other words.
But my statement was just to go and have some fun and try to learn on practice and not jumping into the "bird photos" hole. Because the tripod, and telephoto, and wildlife are slowing you down really hard. And it is not good for learning because you should not extend to much moment of reviewing result of the mistake you have made. It works for me at least.';

'Sideway lightleak yaaaay';

'Got some 800T that I bought 4+ years ago. Should I rate it at 400? or do I just keep it at 800 and push?';

'>>4300102
Depends on how it was stored. Most likely can shoot it at 800. Btw cine still 800 is actually 500T
>>4300055
>You'll take 10 crap photos for every good one, that's usually how it goes
Imagine taking advice on how to do art from a person who thinks they take 1 good photo for every 10 photos. What an absolute joke. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your blurry shit-composed photos are not art because you think that's how all art is made and you haven't actually learnt principles';

'>>4300056
Man I miss fucking around in the darkroom so much. Most people here (myself included) just scan and have digital prints made if wanted, since it's so much easier and space saving.';

'>>4300103
>Imagine taking advice on how to do art from a person who thinks they take 1 good photo for every 10 photos. What an absolute joke. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your blurry shit-composed photos are not art because you think that's how all art is made and you haven't actually learnt principles

What is wrong with his advice? Yes, it's pointless to walk around, take pictures and hope to get a good one. But I recently burned 2 rolls on a project to get the 3 photos I needed, and even more, I spent 5 or 6 rolls trying to decide which film stock, developer and process I should use for that project. What's ratio is this? 1 photo I was happy with for every 96 shots I taken lol? Is it bad?

What I'm trying to say is that if you work at something, it doesn't matter how many rolls you waste or how long it takes to get a result you're happy with.

How many shots of the same scene did Bresson take to get the final "Cyclist" photo? (it is not a rhetorical question, I'm asking because I don't want to google but answer is "a lot")';

'>>4300122
>What is wrong with his advice? Yes, it's pointless to walk around, take pictures and hope to get a good one. But I recently burned 2 rolls on a project to get the 3 photos I needed, and even more, I spent 5 or 6 rolls trying to decide which film stock, developer and process I should use for that project. What's ratio is this? 1 photo I was happy with for every 96 shots I taken lol? Is it bad?
This is completely normal. Most painters will put out tons of stuff they're not happy with but it isn't necessarily a waste of paint or canvas, you always take something away from it.
What I don't like is when /p/ gets pretentious and starts telling people they need to learn 8 trillion hours of theory and become photo scholars, that's nerd shit for people with no actual talent. These are the same people who micro-analyze your photos and tell you they're shit because a fraction of a shadow fell 3mm to the left of centre and somehow that's horrible in their narrow world view.
Art is good if it looks good, simple as. People who are talented don't spend a million hours pining over whether their photo has enough contrast before they even take it, they just see something and snap it.';

'>>4300103
>Imagine taking advice on how to do art from a person who thinks they take 1 good photo for every 10 photos. What an absolute joke.

>ART HAS RULES
>THESE RULES MUST BE FOLLOWED
>ON THIS SUBJECT THERE CAN BE NO DISCUSSION
>I AM THE SOLE ARBITER OF WHAT IS GOOD AND WHAT IS BAD
>THIS PERSON PROBABLY DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A BFA HOW CAN THEY BE AN ARTIST?!

shiggy diggy';

'>>4300127
Pixel peepers included.';

'>>4300144
>>4300127
night photography with film requires you to do something called bracketing. no matter how adept you are with your film, camera, light meter, positioning, etc. you will still inevitably take 10-15 shots before you get one that meets your standards. this is just normal, when i used to shoot nighttime stuff on film it was basically 1 roll = 1 photo';

'>>4300144
Real artists pixel peep

I hold myself higher standards to that ken rockwell 5mp billboard shit
>boomertographers: lmfao why does the stitching on clothing matter no one is ever going to look at your jacket that closely';

'>>4300145
Last time I did a complicated night shoot I used a light meter to carefully set up the flash/exposure and I got the shot in 1 try. I wasn't going to waste 10 sheets of 4x5 film.

>>4300150
Maybe, but it depends on what you peep. I think a lot of people ruin themselves by becoming pixel peeping addicts. It can be a destructive force that ruins all artistry in exchange for chasing some false idea of technical perfection you have.';

'>>4300150
nta but there's a difference between being critical of your own work and being a tryhard faggot shitting on other peoples' work.

i would never attempt to tell someone they should just accept their own stuff if it's not up to their standards, but to tell other people they've gotta meet your standards would be hella gay.';

'>>4300153
>Last time I did a complicated night shoot I used a light meter to carefully set up the flash/exposure and I got the shot in 1 try. I wasn't going to waste 10 sheets of 4x5 film.

Sometimes you do get lucky, but shooting film is tricky if you can't immediately see the shot like you can with digital. Shooting large format stuff is different again, and in essence you're still missing out on potential shots that might've looked better than the one you ended up with (you'll never ever know now because you didn't take them).

I only shoot 35mm and digital so I usually bracket about 7 to 10 photos for a shot because I want it to be worth my while. Nothing worse than being talmudic with your film and only taking 3 or 4, developing, and it turns out none of them are any good. I did this once when I was younger and made myself reeee pretty hard for basically wasting a night and a roll of film.';

'>>4300155
Maybe a little luck, but being a good photographer means that you can take a vision you have and turn it into a negative then a print with some consistency. You know all the steps and process to go from a scene in front of you to a print on paper.

I have gotten less stingy with my film as I've gotten older, but I also have a sense of when I've done enough. Usually with 4x5 it is 1 or 2 because it can take me like 10 minutes to take one picture, and occasionally hours/days of thinking about a picture I want to take.

>>4300154
I'll never forget when someone on here told me the great picture I took on XX was too grainy. Lmfao.';

'>>4300155
>but shooting film is tricky if you can't immediately see the shot like you can with digital.
Photographers of all kinds even GWCs were able to do this just fine for most of a century, and after a decade of digital suddenly it’s a luck based impossible challenge lmao.';

'>>4300166
I think you're missing the point or trying to be a shitlord on purpose. The comment related to bracketing and the risks associated with not bracketing and rolling the dice on a single exposure.
This is inherently risky and always has been, regardless of skill level. There's many things that could happen, not the least of which is a failure of the medium itself. It is, without any question, a limiting practice as you're relegating yourself to a single shot rather than multiple shots and having the ability to choose from them.

No one said it's suddenly luck based, you're just being an obtuse little weenie.';

'>>4300145

No the fuck it don't you need to git gud scrub, 1 shot 1 motive if you can't do that you're not a photographer, get the fuck out of here.

Shit like this you don't get to bracket you have to get it right the first time, if you can't get it right in camera then read up on Group f/64 and study their work.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300180
NTA but light blur nighttime shots are like babby's first photo, instathots take equivalent shots with their iPhones. Having a shot that's completely washed out and has tons of light really isn't pushing your skill level anywhere.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300184
I would look more closely at that image...';

'>>4300169
>shitlord
what is this, tumblr 2010?
fuck off retard, just learn to use an light meter';

'>>4300180
>bracketing a moving object

r u rarted?';

'>>4300188
Why it's mediocre at best, looks like something you'd see in an ad for a Timex watch.';

'>>4300184

That was shot with fully manual settings, manual focus and I froze the train in the crossing with a nig-rigged flash setup comprising of three 550EZ flashes daisy chained to an Elan A2e also set to manual output probably 1/8 power

That is absolutely not babby's first photo and you aren't doing that with an iToddler. That was the second one of the night I blew out the first one because a car pulled up with its headlights on and blew out the highlights. If you can recreate that with a douche-device I will sell all of my shit right now.';

'>>4300169
>bo one said luck
Anon, please. Just admit it’s a skill issue and we can all move on.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300193
iPhone slow shutter app would accomplish the same thing. All that gearfagging and you still only managed to produce a photo that's both boring and autistically busy at the same time.
Typical tripfaggotry.';

'>>4300193
>he has to use flashes for his night shoots

If you aren't using 100% ambient light you have absolutely no business telling other people to git gud.';

'>>4300196

>tripfaggotry

you already lost the argument, good day sir';

'>>4300201

alright then tell me how else I was supposed to freeze the 60mph train at 3 in the morning

good day sir';

'>>4300202
>immediately starts an argument with No True Scotsman fallacy
>then resorts to ad hominem whinging when he gets his shit pushed in

ok';

'>>4300184
>>4300196
>>4300201
You're baiting, right? Arrogant and ignorant is a bad combo';

'>>4300209
yeah that must be it, couldn't possibly be that someone doesn't appreciate your shit advice and lackluster photos combined with dickheaded arrogance

pot.kettle.black.';

'>>4300212
You're dismissing flash like a mouthbreathing imbecile because you don't know how to light a scene';

'>>4300215
You're using flash because you don't know how to use aperture and bulb mode.';

'>>4300218
No, I'm using flash because I'm making art.';

'>>4300215
telling someone they need to get good while you're holding onto a pile of equipment as a crutch just to get a basic shot of a train crossing is pretty ridiculous, even you have to admit that.

it's not that gearfagging or pretentious tripfags surprise me anymore, they absolutely don't and they're on every board. it's the accompanying hubris after posting what is, by all measures, a very underwhelming photo that demonstrates virtually no skill and if anything a bit of luck. i'd wager he sat in photoshop pruning it for a good day or two too.';

'>>4300223
I didn't take the train picture (notice it was Sugar) but anyone who isn't either ignorant or trolling knows it can only be done with flash.';

'>>4300218
>YOU SUCK BECAUSE YOU DIDNT TAKE A DIFFERENT PICTURE ENTIRELY
NPCtographers fear the flashchad';

'>>4300224
honestly that photo could be done with Adobe and even two separate photos overlaid. purely a skill issue, no amount of flash is going to eliminate the wash from the train's headlights and they would've provided ample lighting without a flash.';

'>>4300204
>what is releasing shutter as it passes

Literally a skill issue if your reflexes are so slow you can't just let your finger off the button.';

'>>4300227
That's collage, not photography';

'>>4300224
>it can only be done with flash.
So the flash magically freezes the train with the shutter being open lol

Stop trying to gaslight people with this kind of shit, sure this board has newfags but this is weak trolling at best.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300229
I miss the days when filmshooters actually had to have skill beyond just point and click. Learning to dodge and burn was just part of the process, now everyone just scans and spends over9000 hours editing to make something that doesn't even resemble the shot they took.';

'>>4300234
if you are doing anything to your scans beyond adjusting contrast you are an idiot tbqh senpai';

'>>4300230
>So the flash magically freezes the train with the shutter being open lol
Not magically but yes it freezes it by creating a very short intense exposure of the illuminated areas. The long shutter was used to expose the environment and have the barriers do some light painting.';

'>>4300230
>So the flash magically freezes the train with the shutter being open lol
Yes this is how flash works. Flash durations can be shorter than 1/10,000, shutter speeds you'd struggle to hit consistently with an FF f1.2 lens wide open in daylight unless you had a digital camera with magical infinite ISO. If the subject is too underexposed to register, you only see the flash exposure. First or last curtain sync determines if residual subject exposure trails or leads.

Are you one of those beanie wearing porta overexposers with a match needle meter rangefinder? How do you not know shit about flash? Is it scary without the digital TTL and chimping crutch?

>>4300236
Youtube filmbrah tier take. The line between a good photographer and a building corner/street snapshitting non-artist is drawn in editing. You're not the AP, and the AP aint makin art, edit your shit. Have vision. Read Ansel Adam's books.';

'>>4300239
>Read Ansel Adam's books.
I don't respect faggots that takes photos of plants';

'Such intense dunning krueger on display today, lmao.';

'Here's one for all you flash fearing folks.

Low light
Flash
Optimal lens aperture usually f8-f16
Well focused

Is how you get the absolute sharpest images possible. Try it out sometime.';

'>>4300242
flash is basically training wheels for night photography';

'>>4300243
No, it's just another tool in your toolbox. You know how people say, "right tool for the job?"

Is turning a light on in your house to take a picture at night training wheels also?';

'"Youtube got me in to photography people
>1970s metal box, "minolta maxxum? it'll probably break, unlike my OM-... WHY DID THE METER STOP WORKING FUCKING SHIT HELP"
>Portra overexposed, B&W pushed 2+ stops, cinestill 400d/800t
>"Street photography is art"
>"Get it right in camera, just bring your camera and film, you dont need more, muh henri muh garry muh-"
>Random skewed snapshits taken with disposables
>Lab scans, never edits, does not home dev
>"Digital has no soul, good photographers making real art shoot film" (is not a good photographer, does not make art)
>"Take. PHOTOS. OF. PEOPLE. COWARD!" - avoids being seen by said people

Level 2 (reached after 1 year and $6000 in pointless expenses, mostly switching cameras and lenses around and buying an expensive "hybrid" to film themselves shooting film, but secretly because they're getting tired of shooting film, otherwise it would be a dedicated camcorder)
>Natural light womens portraits
>Went to japan/france, took photos of street signs, building corners, and crowded sidewalks
>STILL using lab scans
>Developed B&W at home a few times, rodinal only
>Dreams of shooting MF/LF CMS 20 to prove digital is worse
>Using their film lenses on digital, talking "microcontrast"

Level 3 (reached after 3 years and another $6000 in pointless gearfaggotry)
>MF and LF film, does panoramas
>landscapes and womens portraits only
>shooting with 3+ strobes
>has gone through 5+ film systems and at least one digital system
>starting to shoot 50% or more digital, using film more conservatively as a look of its own rather than a badge of tribe membership
>Uses native digital lenses, stopped saying microcontrast and soul
>No longer views film and digital as opposing forces
>does their own scans
>has done single subject panoramic portraits with flash
>videography introduced them to color grading, began applying it to film and digital stills
>Will begin making their own darkroom prints within a few months
Yes, they are all like this.';

'>>4300237
Same can be achieved with a good prime lens and proper timing. I find it ironic that tripfags telling people to get good rely so heavily on artificial lighting aids for their shots.

This is basically like benchrest shooting vs. drills, and the guy sitting on the bench with a $18,000 precision rifle trying to dab on the guy running a course with a 16" AR.';

'>>4300248
>Dunning kruger used to justify gearfaggotry
>salt rifle analogy
>all because he doesnt know how to use a flash without TTL and chimping
PS: If your "AR" isn't illegally converted to select fire and you "run courses" instead of training with a real fireteam you're a pathetic larping manbaby desu. Save the solo larp games for pistol use. 'Salt rifles are to be used in groups. So much for that well regulated militia.';

'>>4300248
Fast primes are the last refuge of the artistically bankrupt street poseur';

'>>4300250
you're arguing with different people Mr. Dildo, I don't condone gearfaggotry at all

also using reddit shit like Dunning Kruger is a surefire way to remind everyone what a mental midget you really are';

'>>4300247
Level 1000: Using your LF linhof rangefinder to take 4x5 snapshits of your photogenic and cute dog with foma100.';

'>>4300253
That’s level “do knot even go there”';

'>>4300251
>everybody wanna be a gearfag until it's actually time to do gearfag shit';

'How much gear can I buy with this';

'>>4300263
What is this next level 4chan pass bullshittery';

'>>4300265
only for the most exclusive posters';

'I finally developed my batch of 6 4x5 color negs. Here are two macro shots. This first one took me a long time to set up correctly. This mushroom was low to the ground in a tricky spot to set a giant gitzo tripod up in, but I managed.

I am quite happy with the results, and think that the focal plane I chose creates a nice looking image even if it isn't all in focus.

Portra 160 I think.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'Here is the other one. It's algae in a water trough shot at 1 am using a powerful flashlight to illuminate the scene. Very very fun, and another tricky setup. Maybe portra 160 also.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4300265
Its like buying Kodak but fun';

'>>4300074
is that a light leak or bad agitation technique??';

'foma looks alright but why do they have to make it so goddamn curly? bitch and a half to get in the spool, and again to get in the scanner';

'>>4299630
Buy a 90s vivitar flash meter. Don't get caught up in expensive gear, yeah, good gear is important and if you have the money by all means, but buying any kind of sekonic meter for $300+ just sounds crazy to me if you aren't already shooting professionally.
You can get the vivitar flash meter for $20-$30 and it will do the job.';

'>>4300286
The curliness is why I do not use it aside from test rolls. Makes everything so damn annoying. Thankfully the 4x5 sheets are not curly.

>>4300293
Spot meters are a great way to learn the fundamentals of exposure. Cheap and good gear is always nice tho.

Used sekonic l-608 were like 300 about 6 years ago, but now they all seem to be a lot more than that. It's a superb light meter.';

'>>4300301
I started out using a Gossen Sixtino from 1960 and it still works as well as the one built into my camera. I am still convinced they are powered by magic.';

'>>4300305
Selenium? A junky bessamatic I got still has a working lightmeter. It may be a bit off, but it was matching up nicely with my externally metered settings in most cases.';

'>>4299630
you get a thyristor flash that'll meter for you.';

'>>4300310
yeah I don't know what the lifespan of selenium is but it still works and it's in great condition, my gramps took really good care of his stuff';

'>>4299509
>>4299553';

'>>4300331
Damn that's wide af. Cool shots.';

'>>4300331
How is it using that camera? Seems pretty fun.';

'>>4300335
High fun factor, very quirky, extremely wide angle and prone to failure. Usually easy to fix if it's the "wax" on the drive gears, can DIY with silicon gasket/o-ring.

Mine had some trouble clicking into place after completing an exposure. Turned out to be "bumps" in the wax on the drive gear. Used an old DS stylus and smoothed it out. Works better now, but will still not click into place on slower speeds below 1/15.

Got mine for around $600, so consider it a really good deal. Service/CLA is around $400';

'>>4300132
So you don't know you need to learn the rules to break them? You got stuck on the first step?';