File: 000071810013_corrected.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>lab fucked up my cinestill 400D
>said it got caught in the machine and it over deved it

inshallah ill burn down the lab
shoulda just done it myself but I was feeling lazy
at least the usable photos had some halation to them

>>4489678
Bulk load some remjet backed film into normal canisters and send it to them anonymously.

Got a 4x5 camera for a project I had in mind and I haven't shot a single image of what I wanted cuz I'm so scared they will all be looking at me with my fucking tripod in front of their establishments taking pictures. What to do /fgt/

File: July-Tmax400-test-038.jpg (669.6 KB)

669.6 KB JPG

> airplanes

File: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.jpg (123.4 KB)

123.4 KB JPG

Go look at my thread fellow filmnerds
>>4487074

File: DSC_6441.jpg (620 KB)

620 KB JPG

> Automobiles

File: circus puppy mall.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4489677
>tq
yeah for c41 at least I trust the old asian lady down the block that has been running her lab since at least the days when people thought aps might take off over myself with a sous vide machine. I do scan my negs at home and keep them well stored however because I would love to get into darkroom work at some point.

>>4489695
if you have some solid prints or a photobooklet or something bring them with you to show/give to any wary store owners when you explain you're working on a new project. when I go night shooting now I tend to bring a copy or two of my mannequin zine I made so if someone asks me wtf i'm doing I can show them that I'm at only a weirdo out late with a camera and nothing more.

also, i'd be more concerned with passersby interrupting the setup/shot than the owners, if you're on a public street/sidewalk giving you some side eye is probably the worst they can do.

>>4489695
Grow a pair.

>carry my camera all weekend
>only snapped one photo (Its probably shit) because the light seemed nice
how do I recover my love for photography

>>4489762
We're you walking around to shoot photos specially or going about your day and just happened to have your camera with you?

Big difference

>>4489762
Being selective is not a bad thing. It is a good thing.
I usually only take one or two photographs per day as well.

>>4489762
do drugs

>>4489762
Find something healthy and beneficial that will give you inspiration.

>>4489762
I've seen people say to run an alarm that goes off every 30 minutes or so. When it goes off immediately stop and compose and take a picture. Maybe a bit much but if you need forced motivation it can work.
>>4489766
This also. You may find that if you rapid fire shoot you aren't thinking and all your pictures suck ass.

File: 000038910003.jpg (784 KB)

784 KB JPG

>>4489677
>Tq
Shot my first couple rolls of film ever, and had them all developed at a lab. I'll dump a few shots I liked
>>4489762
>how do I recover my love for photography
I personally just bring my camera while doing my hobbies, and enjoy having it there to capture some memories to share with friends

File: 000038910009.jpg (648.4 KB)

648.4 KB JPG

>>4489811

File: 000038910005.jpg (593.5 KB)

593.5 KB JPG

>>4489813
I've noticed a lot of my photos of larger landscapes turned out quite hazy, desaturated, and have a brown tint. Is this from a lack of UV filter, an exposure thing, or both?

>>4489814
Are you using a lens hood?

File: PXL_20251222_215859823.PORTRAIT.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Got my holiday travel kit nailed down. Hope I'm not taking too much

File: 000038890023.jpg (767.4 KB)

767.4 KB JPG

>>4489815
>Are you using a lens hood?
For most shots, yes. But it still happened in shots where the sun was behind me. Even with visible lens flare like in pic rel, it doesn't seem as desaturated and brown as some others.

>>4489762
>how do I recover my love for photography
by practicing another art

>>4489826
How are you metering your exposure? Lab scans? Just edit the haze/tint out as best you can.

>>4489831
I used the meter in the camera, a yashica fx-7. Although the lab scanning is a good point, they could have had some funky settings for one of the rolls I suppose. Perhaps I'll try scanning the negatives with my own camera at some point

>>4489836
Are the weird ones from the same roll as the good ones? Either way you should be able to edit most of it out. Atmospheric haze is just something you need to accept sometimes.

>>4489838
>Are the weird ones from the same roll as the good ones?
No, the odd ones are all from the same roll now that I think about it, so perhaps its also a possibility that something happened along the way with that one

>>4489843
I would chalk it up to either a scanning issue or some user error. Maybe you forgot to reduce your iso after switching films or something. It isn't so bad you can't edit it out if you wanted.

as a lover of ilford HP5+ what b&w should i shoot next
I have some delta 100 and kentmere 400 in 35mm and FP4 in 120
any others worth trying out?

>>4489848
An ortho film could possibly be fun.

What's a good three camera setup? I love shooting medium format but lugging around my rz67 is kinda wack. I'm thinking a Hasselblad 501, a Sony A7R IV for scanning, and then a Ricoh for events like concerts.

>>4489856
Contax T3, mamiya 7ii, P1 trichrome on a alpa A series.

>>4489848
>Ortho 80
For some funky landscape bullshit. It's less sensitive to red and orange light so can produce some nice high contrast images without any digital post processing or coloured filters. I've also seen people use this to good effect for classic cars and such since red is a common colour for muscle and sports cars. I'm working through a roll right now but since it's relatively slow film I find it's useless for anything outside of great light, even worse than Kentmere 100 since under artifical lighting the theoretical ISO becomes 40 instead of 80 (which is a lot of lighting conditions).

>SFX 200
Is kind of the opposite. It has way more red sensitivity and a decent mid-range speed that allows it make semi-infrared style images. You will most likely need a red filter to get a true(r) looking IR shot, but it's never a bad time to buy a coloured filter or two to experiment. Beware though you lose a stop or more of light with coloured filters (iirc 3 stops in the case of most red filters).
I haven't shot with this but it's intriguing as a film you can shoot normally with like you would HP5 but then get something nicely different out of.

File: 80s.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4489848
rollei retro 80S is amazing, its extra creamy in the mid highlights-highlights region though. does wonderful almost infrared if neatly managed, latitude to throw out of the window. also acros 100 (discontinued), if you can get any rolls, try it, its a superb film.

>>4489910
>extra creamy
>mid highlights
>almost infrared
>latitude
>acros 100
>superb film
spergs off like this and then posts a joke of an image without any aesthetic quality to it. this board is pathetic lol

>>4489910
Thanks for the example shots. Looks like a great film

>>4489926
>seething nophoto gets mad at film terms
Kek.

>>4489930
Uhh, nah man I have to agree they were complete snapshits with zero interesting elements and you could have told me that was kent 400 and I wouldn't bat an eye.

File: 7_proc.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4489931
>typing all that and still no photo posted
next time post your photos

>>4489945
Attaching a photo doesn't affect the argument either way. You're just being difficult because you're being called out.
Now type cope or something to make yourself feel better.

>>4489945
Good and creative photo.

>>4489931
>I can't into context!
Kek

>>4489959
In this context it absolutely does.

>>4489945
nophoto would be better than _that_

File: IMG_0017.jpg (698.8 KB)

698.8 KB JPG

Nophoto is starting to have meltie. Best and funniest option is to ignore and keep posting photos.

>>4489762
fixed focus reloadable camera unironically
works for me lately

>>4489945
That's not a photo, that's street. Photography is an art.

>>4489976
This is a photo no doubt. The Artistic can be easily spotted in it.

>set exposure comp to +1 because backlighting
>forget to reset it
>half the roll shot at +1
I guess it's a good thing proimage looks okay slightly over but damnit that's annoying to realize

File: DSC08880editSMBDR.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4490166
Annoying but ya will be fine

File: 026_27A.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

Can someone spoonfeed me on exposure latitude?
I've bought this cheap BW film at my local lab that's listed as ISO 100 but the datasheet says
>FOMAPAN 100 Classic has a nominal speed rating of ISO 100/21°, but due to its wide exposure latitude the film gives good results even when overexposed by 1 EV (exposure value) (as ISO 50/18°) or underexposed by 2 EV (as ISO400/27°) without any change in processing, i.e. without lengthening the development time or increasing the temperature of the developer used.
So does that mean I can just treat it as an ISO 400 film and the results will still be fine? How exactly does that work in technical terms? Does that just mean the blacks and whites don't clip as easily, so if I shoot at, say, 400 I'll get a darker image but with all the details still intact?
>>4489696
Hey, I shot one of those on my last roll

>>4490376
Firstly don't shoot foma100 at 400. Massive grain and waaaay too much contrast. Foma100 is really best at 50 or 80 for most uses. Most cheap films lie about their nominal iso.

When you change exposure on film without changing development time you shift your density/contrast along the characteristic curve. Less exposure(lower density) will move it to the left and more exposure(more density) will move it to the right.
Look at the tech sheet for foma and you'll see the characteristic curves and how iso, developer, and dev time all influence the characteristic curve. It would be good to compare against "better films" with greater exposure latitudes to get a frame of reference for what foma100 can really offer you.
It's kind of a complex subject if you really want a very technical answer. The main use for really understanding characteristic curves and how to achieve optimal density is when you have an intended goal in mind that requires correct film density like getting negatives that print easily for certain processes. If you're doing silver gelatin prints you want a certain film density, and plat/palladium or albumen prints demand a higher density. Scanning is extremely forgiving about film density as long as you do not block up your highlights so much that the scanner can't pass light through them properly.

anyone have experience with c41 b&w films? are they any good?

File: zf2.jpg (271.5 KB)

271.5 KB JPG

>>4489677

File: 1743107745850953.jpg (737.6 KB)

737.6 KB JPG

I found my parent's old film camera and decided to check it out and see what film is like

I have no clue what I'm really doing, what should I be watching out for when starting to use film cameras?

>>4490455
Underexposure, good focus, xrays, and ruining your film by not loading/unloading it correctly.

>>4490456
What would be some good recommendations to fight underexposure? Since you have no idea if the shot you took is correctly exposed until its developed it seems quite hard to learn through exsperience

>>4490461
Spot meter the shadows and then place them correctly in your exposure or a camera with a good light meter. Unless you have camera or skill issues the film will not just give you bad exposures, barring old or gay film, for random reasons or by strange coincidence.
Takes notes if you think that could help!

>>4490386
>block up your highlights so much that the scanner can't pass light through them properly.
just increase the analog gain on your scanner

>>4490448
I'm a sucker for minimalist shots like that

>>4490461
I've owned my film camera for almost exactly one year and I've been mostly going with my internal light meter and gut feeling for most of my shots and it's been working out pretty good. You do build up a little intuition over time.
Though I have one arriving in the mail soon that doesn't have a light meter, so maybe it's finally time to learn sunny 16 and I might just keep some notes on the settings I used for that one

>>4490455
The other anon had some good pointers, but I'll add a dumb basic that I've made the mistake on: when you load your film and start shooting, make sure that the rewind wheel on your camera is actually spinning when you're advancing (assuming you have an older style camera and not a late era blob). Nothing worse than thinking you're shooting a roll only to get to get to the end of it and find that oops, the film wasn't properly loaded and you've actually shot nothing.
Also, if your camera has an inbuilt meter checking it against even a free phone app can really save you some headaches. Some older cameras were meant for mercury or other outdated kinds of batteries that have slightly different discharge patterns, which can mean your meter gives you a bad reading.
Good luck and post some pictures when you get your first roll developed!

File: copal0escapementrepair.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

Got a new (used) Nikkor W 150mm f/5.6 for Christmas, but it needed its timing escapement cleaned and lubricated due to sluggish speeds and stalling. Works perfect now, excited to take it out for some shots. I now have 90mm, 150mm, 210mm, and 360mm and think I'm pretty much set except for a recessed lens board for the 90mmm. LF has been a lot of fun

Doll anon vs mannequin anon who wins in a fight

File: Elite_Chrome_001.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4490461
Learn your meter. Shoot a roll exposing each shot exactly how your meter tells you. Review the photos and see what scenes tricked your meter. Might be none, might be backlit scenes only, etc. Now you're learning when to deviate from your meter. This should only take a couple rolls to figure out.

What I've learned after shooting silly film for over 20 years: most cameras meters (from consumer p&s to pro slrs) will nail almost every exposure. Backlit scenes may need you to overexpose a stop or so from what your meter says. Fog may require the same. Snowy or sandy scenes may require 1-2 stops overexposure. There is absolutely no need to get into spot metering or overcomplicating this. You can even shoot slide this way.

Pic related: Kodak e6 overexposed 1/2 stop from what the meter was suggesting because I knew the foggy sky was throwing the meter into underexposing.

>>4490544
Merry christmas dollanon. I am happy to see you have posted one of your pics. Very cool and nice shot. Your focal plane is a dollhair short, regardless I like the composition, lighting, and subject matter for the most part. Fun picture.

Have you considered getting any vintage barrel lenses?

File: mannequin - gold highlights.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

>>4490549
I am a man of peace

>>4490544
Based.

>>4490591
taking pics of slendermans gf is probably kinda risky

>>4490376
you need to shoot fomashit 400 at like 100 for it to not look like trash so probably don't shoot 100 at 400, maybe 25 cause like I said it's SHIT. I am probably never getting foma again

>>4490386
Thanks for the elaborate explanation mate
>>4490622
Well that sounds discouraging. The old guy at the store said it's pretty good and I should try it. Then again he also told me that I'm crazy wanting to do double exposure as a beginner and I had no problems with it, so maybe he's just one of those people stuck in their ways/ not being able to admit when they're wrong or something, he definitely gives off that vibe.

>>4490376
You definitely need to adjust dev time for pushing foma. I fucking love foma 100 pushed to 200 and 400. The development time needs to increase significantly to do so though. Also, foma really benefits from using a yellow/orange filter as it's quite blue sensitive and blue skies will blow out quickly.

>>4490633
it's not THAT bad but I shot 400 (in rodinal to be fair) but it sucked shit and people said I had to shoot it at 240 for it to look right, so I did, and even then "it le likes a lot of light" so just to get consistently OK results I just shot it at like 100.

I might try it again with another developer but considering that kentmere 400 is so close in price I'd rather just use that instead of getting bottom of the barrel shit like foma. until I want it for some specific reason other than price.

Fomapan 100 pushed 4 stops to 800

File: Ariana100_at_1600_003.jpg (705.5 KB)

705.5 KB JPG

>>4490677
Cool image didn't attach

File: DSC04486editSM.jpg (307.1 KB)

307.1 KB JPG

Foma 400 pushed 2 stops to 1600

File: DSC04477editSM.jpg (538.1 KB)

538.1 KB JPG

Foma 100 pushed to 400

>>4490676
I think the big turn off for me is reading how the negatives supposedly deteriorate and lose quality relatively fast (whatever that means in terms of years)
Which sucks because I like the idea of keeping my negatives until I die

>>4490682
My Foma I shot in the early 2000s still looks the same as stuff I've shot recently. For whatever that's worth

File: 100S8016.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4490388
super old xp2 400

>>4490500
Thanks, so do I

File: 067.jpg (974.1 KB)

974.1 KB JPG

>>4490698
based shibuya muscle man club enjoyer

File: mannequin - crown of light.jpg (4.6 MB)

4.6 MB JPG

>>4490618
I trust he'll understand they are for purely artistic purposes

>>4489683
Based

>>4489677
I just got a Nikon FM, four lenses and three rolls of film from my sister-in-law. Kinda overwhelmed desu. All the lenses have fungus and I'm wondering if it's worthwhile cleaning as much of it off as I can before I commit to using the film?

>>4490995
nah just shoot through the fungus. it will add character. I mean it's film so it's a meme anyway

>bought some old soviet rangerfinder camera to see if that's something for me without spending big bucks on more expensive models
>it's already broken
Good thing I noticed before loading in film. Don't quite know yet, if I should try to fix it (the shutter curtain doesn't always hook in properly, opinions online if this is someone a layperson can fix seem to diverge) or just cut my losses and send it back. Which would be a shame, because it's in great condition cosmetically, especially compared to a lot of the other models I've seen online.

>>4491064
send it back, if you don't you'd want a better rangefinder sooner or later which inadvertently will lead to getting some outrageously expensive rangefinder bodies and lenses

File: DSC_9764 (4096).jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

Trichrome with HP5+ sheets, turned out okay except the blacks came out too blue

File: _DSC4926-positive.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

usually I shit on foma , but I've tried Ortho 400 and it is a good one. The grain is similar or even slightly finer than HP5 developed in XTOL 1:1 and the sharpness is decent. It has a very nice tonality that you can't achieve with a panchromatic film.
>>4491091
That's a very nice trichrome, pleasant colors

>>4490682
I've never heard of that.
If you store acetate film incorrectly the film base will decompose but that's brand agnostic.
Undeveloped 120 type film ages badly due to the backing paper and should be used soon after buying, but the finished negatives are stable.

>>4490895
More like autistic purposes

File: image-870.png (787.6 KB)

787.6 KB PNG

Shot on EXR 5293 with a yellow green color filter + tiffen fog #2

>>4491092
soft as hell and missed focus. why bother?

>>4489677
I got a Fujifilm XT-3 and I want to start film photography, what camera can I get for cheap? and how can I develop my own film at my house? I'm not looking to make prints, just develop the negatives and scan them

>>4491181
>what camera can I get for cheap?
olympus om-4
nikon fm-2

>>4491183
I got a canon AE1 from my grandpa but when I went to a photo store they told me the shutter was old and I need to service it, I don't believe them cuz it shoots fine to me at least by hearing the shutter

>>4491183
get a pentax super program, thats what I use

theres a billion videos online for exactly what to do and how to dev at home. Start with black and white since its piss easy.

>>4491184
maybe shutter times are slightly off

File: film-dev-costs.png (151.4 KB)

151.4 KB PNG

>>4491181
Any Canon EOS SLR. You can get basically any three or four digit camera (EOS 650, EOS 3000 etc.) for anywhere between $20-60. Spend $100 and you can get a double digit like a Elan 55 with more features which is what I did. EF lenses are cheap. Can be used on a DSLR if you buy one later.

>pic rel
Here's my layout, which I posted not long ago, and you can probably make some guesses as to what it'll take and cost you. Everything in $AUD and you'll have some differences in cost depending on how to scan and whatnot.

>>4491188
Digitalizing film with a camera is better than a "film scanner"? You think I can use my Fuji XT-3 for that?

>>4491184
Shoot a test roll at various speeds and then decide, duh

>>4491092
>>4491091
Thanks for posting.

>>4491204
shot a cheap fuji 200 i'll see

>>4491196
>Digitalizing film with a camera is better than a "film scanner"?
Errr, yes and no.
For 35mm film a decent purpose-made scanner is fine and much cheaper. I wouldn't use one of these for medium format or higher.
I already had the macro lens and the digital camera so it just happened that it "saved" me money that way.
>You think I can use my Fuji XT-3 for that?
Sort of. You need a macro lens to get close enough to the negatives and fill the frame up. You **could** just crop the photos using your current lens, but the overall quality is going to be trash. The XF 60mm Macro would fit your camera and would be good enough I think. That lens will still cost more than a 35mm scanner, but if you wanted a macro lens for other reasons it's a good double whammy.

File: _0004.jpg (903.2 KB)

903.2 KB JPG

>>4491196
>>4491360
I use my XT-3 and their 80mm macro to scan and it works ok.

File: 100S9353.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

scanned on gfx with adapted nikon macro lens

>>4491450
>scanned
lol mentally ill retard

>>4491464
Projection

>>4491450
Extremely based.

File: IMG_875716709.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

>>4491450
Nice, scanned this on a 5d2 with a native sigma macro lens.

File: 100S9356.jpg (5 MB)

5 MB JPG

>>4491464
sure but what does that have to do with my post?

>>4491482
real

File: DSC_9766 (2048).jpg (957.5 KB)

957.5 KB JPG

>>4491177
>image taken with aperture wide open is soft oh nooo
suck my balls

File: 100S9350web.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

view from porch

>>4491519
lovely colors

>>4491519
The guy that drives this car thinks it's gay to wipe his ass after taking a shit

File: IMG_875716708.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

>>4491525
Ya but tuff

File: IMG_875716717.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4491523
Aw thank u bro, its porta 400 35mm

>>4491509
Ultra based.

I personally like the look of wide-open softness and bokeh plus film grain. The texture grain gives makes it look organic.

Can anyone give me a quick rundown on EOS cameras? I'm thinking of spending a few hundred on a lens with IS and an EOS camera body. I'm mostly looking at the EOS 50/Elan IIe, the one with eye controlled AF because it seems cool.

Is the eye AF worth it? Should I consider a Rebel?

>>4491618
Do it. They have excellent AF and the lenses are very good for film, even the zoom L lenses.
Eye af was not included on the pro canon cameras because it is not so useful in reality. It's cool, but also sort of a gimmick.
Get the canon with the best AF you can afford.

>>4491618
I own an elanII and it's a joy to use. Plenty of direct controls, great AF, built well... Eye AF is nice, same with eye DoF preview but you since I wear glasses its accuracy depends on how straight I sit my face to the viewfinder.

Very good camera. I never use my rebel 300 anymore.

>>4491622
>>4491624
fuck it, I think I'm just gonna get an elan iie

>>4491509
more trash out resolved by a iphone 12. how are you this bad lmfao

>>4491509
Nice shot.

File: IMG-20260102-WA0001.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

Shot on Kodak 200 film, scanned this one myself.

>>4491635
What the heck did you scan that with?

File: sawmill.jpg (475.4 KB)

475.4 KB JPG

>>4491629
The photo posting will continue until morale improves

>>4491693
I improvised a lightbox using a LED array and a couple diffusers from a phone displa, placed inside a 3D printed box. Then I slid film into it and shot it with a zoom lens + extension tube using a DSLR. I find the terrible texturing and imperfections quite pleasant to look at, but next time I'll have the guys that develop my film scan the negatives instead.
On a similar note, are there any decent dedicated film scanners for under $200?

i only really do bird photography and don't have a small camera for city trips but thinking of getting a film point & shoot instead of a lens for my bulky digital. I haven't used a film camera since the 90s and want a purely mechanical one. maybe a rangefinder or other type? What's a decent starting camera that's not too expensive? (<1k)

File: DSC09204editSMBDR.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Scanned some rolls from summer/fall tonight

File: DSC09238editSMBDR.jpg (926.6 KB)

926.6 KB JPG

>>4491924
Cheaper option ($250-$300): canon p + canon 50 1.4
More expensive (~$700-$800): Leica/Minolta CL + Voigtlander 40/1.4

Hello /fgt/. I just bought my first film camera, a Minalto X700, after using a cell phone and a couple camcorder for a couple years. Is there anything I should know about film photography? I was debating on whether or not to grab filters, but I decided not to. I got two lenses, a nifty 50 and a 135, both 55.
I know film is a little expensive to mess around with, but I love how it looks and I feel like it can't compare to digital. Anyway, I don't plan on running through it like water, so it shouldn't be an issue.
How do you guys feel about the x700?

>>4491988
Also, are multiple exposures a meme or do people actually do them?
How about tricolor/trichrome?

>>4491992
If you have a cool idea for a multi exposure then go for it bro. Why would the idea of it being a meme stop you if its a cool idea?
Trichromes are cool, but can be tricky. Dollanon posted one in this thread or the previous one I think using 4x5 film.

Just don't underexpose your film and youll be golden.

File: knifelakefalls.jpg (908.2 KB)

908.2 KB JPG

>>4491988
I liked mine so much I got a second one. They work well in Program mode. Pretty hard to screw up. What kind of film will you primarily be shooting?
Multi exposures and trichromes are memes. Don't let that stop you from having fun if you want to try them.

Is anyone up on information about Horizon(t) panorama cameras? Looking for a 202 and so far I've understood that a lot of these can be in pretty shitty condition mechanically. The 303 seems better in this regard but apparently the lens isn't as nice.

File: 74482995.jpg (408.1 KB)

408.1 KB JPG

I know nothing about film cameras. Is this a good deal?

>>4492303
That image is AI.

File: image.jpg (338.8 KB)

338.8 KB JPG

>>4492303
I would not trust a seller with generated image.

>>4492303
Even without the obvious lens lettering, the moment I glanced at that it was apparent it's AI. Don't buy listings with shitty AI pictures.
It takes all of 2 minutes to get some nicely lit product shots with bounce flash.

File: Bellowsegg.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

Weather has been terrible for too long. SAD hitting me hard. Needed to photograph eggs. Great warm up shot after weeks of no studio snapshits or conventional film.

Opinion on the background? It's an old busted bellows I had laying around. I think it has potential for some cool shots.

Halfway through my first roll of film and I only now begin to realize why I'm doing this, what inexplicable urge drove me to buy an ae-1 off ebay and start shooting the garden and neighborhood I've shot passionlessly on digital for years. It's because of AI. The discouraging sensation of unreality everywhere. I don't want to spend hours in Lightroom before my DSLR photos are "complete" any more than I want to be forced to read Grok summaries or pause scrolling tiktok to figure out if that cat meme was fake or not. I hate this shit. I'm going to press photons onto film and enjoy my shittily exposed but authentically related impressions of the real world

>>4492399
He's beginning to understand

>>4492399
Next step is a darkroom.

>>4492399
Based. Humans are meant to be creatives and shape their environment. I used to hate the term NPC but now I can see a lot of people are dead inside, going through the motions, with zero creative drive. That's the kind of empty person who sees a mediocrity generator machine as their new god, why go through the effort to manually generate "content" to "consume" when you can scroll in an app or push a button forever?
Don't mock zoomers who flock to shitty point and shoots and camcorders much, they're trying to wake up but they are not equipped with the tools to do so. Give them a hand.

File: Eggbellows2.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

Second attempt. I like and dislike them both for different reasons. Hard to say which one is better. I think this one could use additional refinement to the framing. Feels a little too tight maybe.

Another day another egg still life...

>>4492642
you could probably sell that one as a comment about society

File: 20260107_115030.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4492646
Interesting interpretation and not one I considered either. Thanks.
I may set up a small display for my framed egg prints at my farmers market egg stall if I ever find the time to print my ever growing backlog of negatives.
I've sold some "pretty" egg pictures to people like pic, but these more "serious" images almost feel silly to display when everyone knows me as the pork and eggs farmer lol. Probably just overthinking it...

>>4492303
are you retarded man

File: file.png (570.3 KB)

570.3 KB PNG

>>4492585
There's literally nothing wrong with P&S cameras and camcorders. They sold more than SLRs and other cameras years ago because those people aren't "into photography", they just wanted a camera. I still carry a P&S more often than my SLRs and rangefinders because in my daily life I'm more likely to take some snapshits than I am to set up shots or do an unscheduled portrait shoot.

The more normies using film, the better. It's better for film prices in the long run, for film to still exist, it's driving manufacturers to make new film types, and so on. And most importantly it makes the world a slightly nicer place because film is nice and whatever modern alternatives now are evil and disgusting.

Anyway, I think you guys should consider a cheap fixed focus camera. I've been using one like picrel lately and it's really nice to have with me at all times.

File: Cosmo500T (12).jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

Any of you Anons have any idea what the fuck happened to this shot?
Both sides in focus, yet the center is severely backfocused (note the very bottom).
This is the only shot where it's this bad, but I do notice it in other photos as a lack of sharpness round the center.
New lens, but unsure whether it's the lens or the camera, lens seems to work ok on digital.

>>4492689
What format? Maybe film flatness issue.

>>4492673
Anon, I meant digital point and shoots... like people actually seeking POS cameras with tiny sensors and proprietary memory sticks for some reason

>>4492690
35mm, but I found the source of the issue.
It's the lens, not sure how, but at infinity focus wide open it does this weird shit, also on digital.
Going to have it returned.

>>4492703
Very strange.

>>4492691
dipshit anon, the same term is used on both camera types. you have nobody to blame for this miscommunication but yourself.

>>4492691
digital shit hardly ever crosses my mind tbqh

File: IMGP4803.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

>>4492000
>>4491700
nice
>>4490677
>>4490678
what developer did you use

>>4492689
I'd assume it's because the sides are much closer than the middle.

File: 1.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

I'll post some Ultramax 400 snaps because it's the folder I currently have open on my laptop

File: 100S9418.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4492822
fellow berryposter

File: 1bw.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

>>4492825
Hell yeah all my homies fw fruit
Also fuck it here's some b&w Tri-X shots

File: 1p800.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

Also some shots at the end of a roll of Portra 800 I used to shoot my family's Christmas

File: eggbrick.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

Eggs and bricks. Happy thursday.

I totally screwed up my first roll. But I really love this shit now man. I jist ordered two more. Eager to perfect this process.

Do you guys remember your first roll?

>>4492938
>>4491988

>>4491988
Great post I just bought the same model from some japanese dude on ebay with a 50mm. I'm probably gonna get some shitty aliexpress film so I'm not too sad fucking them up practicing, and can reveal those shitters at home. We be postin our shitter pics later anon

>>4492943
I hear the japanese model is chrome. Was yours chrome?

File: IMG_20170404_0013.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4492938
Great to hear. Keep at it and everything will become second nature with only the occasional heartbreaking thoughtless mistake.
>first roll
I have vague memories of grabbing my parents slr and taking pictures of them with it when I was like 7 or 8 maybe.
My first "serious" rolls were when I decided to start doing street photography with my recently acquired M4. A lot of excitement and nervousness when I first started. Fun times, but I've moved on from city life and annoying strangers.

>>4492967
nope, black, the chrome model is sexy but a bit overpriced online imo.

Is there any specific developer I should use for a roll consisting of stroboscopic flash shots and multiple exposures? It's TMAX 100. I'm thinking of doing semi-stand with HC-110 in order to not overdevelop the highlights with a very dilute ratio of dev.. or I could get some pyro

>>4492938
>Do you guys remember your first roll?
As a child? No, used a lot of disposables and also had a cheap old point-and shoot i used for trips.
As an adult? Yes, I bought a shitty old Ricoh for $30 on marketplace and shot a roll at a local park and around my neighborhood. It went surprisingly well.

>>4490388
They're all right. The 1-hour Photo places they were designed to take advantage of are an endangered species these days, so there isn't really any reason to use them over normal B&W.

>>4492938
My first roll was Foma 100 since it was the cheapest I could find. I had no fucking clue how to use the meter, so pretty much none of the pics came out properly. Still, I loved learning how to shoot, and a $6 roll of film wasn't tragic if I fucked up, so I've been shooting film almost exclusively since then.

File: IMG_7408.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

Some photos I took while walking around at night, just a couple blocks away from the old town center that has a bustling night scene.

Do you guys use a darkroom if you develop or a bag?

>>4492938
i underexposed everything for a couple rolls but I got some ok pics

>>4493067
I convert my bathroom into a darkroom by putting black trashbags and taping them over the threshold.. not that it lets in much light anyways but it's a safety precaution. doesn't matter much when I work with prints but for rolling film onto reels. I prep the rolls in light so I pull the leader and round the corners with a scissors, start loading it on the reel and then I cut the light and wait a bit before I start loading more, for 120 its straight up dark but to be fair its much easier to load 120 than 35mm

>>4493070
Do you not lose a couple exposures doing it that way? It seems much easier, but if you're cutting the leader and loading in the light...

>>4493088
no, it's just the leader and that part was already exposed to light when I loaded it in the camera. I still get 37 exposures this way... i could probably get 38 but this is more convenient really

I'm bummed freestyle closed their physical store

File: P_20260110_213450.jpg (145.4 KB)

145.4 KB JPG

Do you even devmaxx, /fgt/?

>>4493412
Much cheaper than sending it in. The cost of a dev kit is much better and pays for itself over a few rolls as opposed to even $5/hr plus shipping plus prints.

File: 2026-01-10-0003.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

found a shitty printer that has a document scanner, not the best scanner but its something

5x7 ilford glossy rc
panf plus 6x7
tachihara fiel 4x5 camera

File: 2026-01-10-0004.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

forgot that its 4.9mb max

5x7 ilford glossy rc
kentmere 400
olympus om 2n

File: 2026-01-10-0022.jpg (723.1 KB)

723.1 KB JPG

5x7 artisa edu pearl rc
kentmere 400 accidentally overdeveloped lol
olympus om 1

File: 2026-01-10-0030.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

idk what 5x7 fb paper this is but it was slightly expired cut down from 16x20
kentmere 100 pushed to 400
olympus om 1

>>4493437
>>4493436
>>4493435
>>4493432
all of these were in ilford muligrade developer i have more but those are the cool ones lmao

File: 20260111_184137.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4493432
Very nice. I finally got around to doing some Azo + amidol contact printing the other night. I was going to do more, but my day was spent seperating cream and making cheese. :(
Try and go for atleast a touch of tone at the borders of your image, the pure white skies, or your eye sorta naturally drifts off from the image. It can be a pain to do sometimes, but it will improve your prints. If youre using VC paper try a split tone print with enough C0 exposure to get the slightest bit of tone before attempting to burn them in.
My faves are the landscape and the graffiti. The graffiti has a nice contrast to it and would probably look pretty cool framed on the wall with 2 or 3 other graffiti prints.

File: 2026-01-10-0021.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4493439
heres another one of that same day

and yeah i've stopped doing that, was my trend for a year or so before i started having more sky in my frame. i liked doing that because i can put some clouds from another negative there which i used to do a lot (but those prints are with my professor as an example now)

how is amidol? ive heard it stains you, at least the old old formula. are those 8x10 contacts? i only have an 4x5 camera so i can only contact print that, ill send a contact sheet of 4 that i did yesterday

File: 2026-01-11-0001.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4493439
4x5 catlabs 80 @ 100
arista edu 8x10 rc glossy
hc 110 @ 8:30

also i remember that >>4493435 was basically all overcast so thats literally the sky lmao

>>4493441
Oh thats a pretty cool idea. Never done any composite stuff like that before. Yeah 8x10, and amidol is kinda nasty. It stains everything, and I have to mix my dev from raw chemicals each time I print. The developer is also so dark you can't really see your prints in the liquid.
It is the absolute best developer for azo/chloride papers for the improved dmax, super linear development, and ability to control contrast relatively easily.
You use a secondary waterbath as a sort of compensating developer similar to how stand development bakes in the highlights without touching the shadows. 1 minute dev time is pretty nice also.

If you got some of the adox contact printing paper it could be fun to try using amidol to make contact prints. Photographers formulary sells kits, but be warned that amidol developers only last between 4 and 16ish hours depending on the formula you use.

>>4493444
the hardest part of that process is making sure the two parts of the print dont overlap, meaning i have to either make a cardboard cutout (easier but may be messy/unsharp) or make a litho mask to cover up, say, the bridge (harder but very sharp). then all it is is to expose the first negative, then place the mask, take out the negative and place in the new negative, focus with a deep red filter over the lens, and expose the second negative.

i dont have any contact paper, im probably gonna get a bunch of expired paper soon for cheap/free from marketplace so thatll be fun

>>4493412
No, I dilute from stock and use as one-shot. I'm currently using Xtol 1:2 (now Xdev due to trademark memes). I previously used D-76 with reuse but wasn't thrilled with the results. I realized I'm not poor and didn't want to pinch pennies on the relatively cheaper part of the film development process (the film being the expensive part)

>>4493446
Damn that sounds like a pain to do. Do you have any scans to share of your composites? I got an old registration punch for sheet film, but I have yet to make or find a pin register to use with it. I think it would be cool to mess around with unsharp masks and that all stuff one day.

>>4492943
why do you know the size of the sellers penis xD

File: PIE CHART OF SHIT.png (77.8 KB)

77.8 KB PNG

>>It do be like dis doe

File: skull and books.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4489677
This is an old picture and very shit but I was trying to salvage it from being underexposed and too dark. I'll see what my next batch looks like; it's currently being developed and scanned in a lab.

>>4493453
i dont, but ill probably do more once i get some good sky shots soon (with cardboard bc litho dev in my closet darkroom rn will gas me lmao)

I found a film camera at the flea market i got it for like 20 bux with a lens. It seems like it works. What film do i use?

>>4493527
Gold 200 maybe or some cheap b/w film.

Anyone here have experience with the Nikon F3?
I'm going to get the 105mm 2,5 AiS lens for my Zf soon because you can get it really cheap. But then I looked up the price of the F3 and was surprised how cheap you can get one of those too.
I was thinking about getting the F3 too and use it with the 105 as a fun portrait camera and using my old 5dmkii as a dslr film scanner.
Could be fun

>>4493529
The F3 is an excellent camera. It was good enough to be kept in production until 2001 for the handful of professionals who were still manual focus grognards. If you can get it for a good price, running it with the 105 is a great setup for portraits, especially if you load something like FP4 or Pan F.

>>4493532
It looks pretty easy to use for a dweeb like me who hasn't touched a film camera since the 90's.
There's a couple of them pretty cheap on ebay right now. I won't have dosh for something like this for a few months, but it's nice to know it's so cheap. Won't have to sink a lot of money into a side project, but still get good results with it.

>>4493527
Ultramax 400 for color, Kentmere 400 for b&w
>>4493528
Gold is good if you really want that kinda yellow-y vintage look

What films are decent for portraiture other than Portra? I was going to pick up a 5 pack of Portra 400 but it's pretty expensive. I'm planning to do a small photoshoot, but it's for fun and I won't be getting paid so I don't want to pay for Portra.

I heard rating Ultramax 400 at 200 can be interesting, does anyone have examples of this?

I'd try ProImage as well but I would rather not go that slow since I'll probably be doing available light shooting outside. Even 200 is already a bit slow.

>>4493539
If you're shooting outdoors during daylight hours there's no reason to avoid 100 or 200 iso film, even in shade you'll be able to shoot at perfectly reasonable shutter speeds. plus with lower ISO you'll be able to open up for nice bokeh/subject separation without an ND filter

>>4493541
So if I'm looking at cheaper film for a fun photoshoot, what should I try?

The only reason I don't want to just shoot Ultramax 400, which is my regular choice for everyday use, is I often find I get muddy/grainy results. But I'd consider it if the grain tightens up and it just looks cleaner and slightly more like portra if you rate it at 320 or 200, which is what I've heard.

What do you think? Out of Gold, Ultramax, and ProImage, is there one you think would be better for this? I'm looking for finer grain if possible. I've shot gold and ultramax, obviously, but never proimage. I'd be willing to give it a try.

Is it worth trying 30-40 year old expired film? It has been kept at roughly room temperature in a closet inside a metal container. I have roughly 5-6 reels here of various kinds. The majority are black and white. Should I try it? I know expired film is mostly a meme and overhyped especially on socials, but I think it'd be a fun experiment. I also hear that black and white is more forgiving than color on these conditions.

>>4493543
Probably sucks. You can get thaf stuff to help reduce fog, use low fogging devs, and give it more exposure. The slower the film the less fog will have built up. If it's cheap to free you may as well shoot a test roll for fun I guess.

>>4493543
if you already have it then fuck it let it rip

>>4493542
Gold 200 has that classic Kodak yellow look and is fairly fine grain as you know. proimage is quite soft and has more of a blueish cast but is also very fine grain and has reasonable rendering for most skin tones. It has less exposure latitude than gold (especially for underexposure) but looks great 1/3 to 2/3 overexposed. I'm on my phone rn so I don't have any pics handy but I can post some later. I guess you're looking to save on costs but you might also try some E100 sometime because there's nothing quite like seeing the saturated color image on a light table.

File: 011_12A.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

Got the first scans back from my point & shoot I got primarily to take more casual photos on trips.
Honestly I'm just glad it works it acted kinda funky while shooting it and I was half expecting getting a bunch of useless shots back
>>4492378
I like it
>>4492303
Kek, for a solid second I started to doubt my ability to detect AI images, because I thought it was AI from the colors but imagined nobody would be dumb enough to use AI for a fucking product photo.
>>4492817
>>4492818
giwtwm
>>4492826
cutie
>>4492835
God, I wish 800 ISO film wasn't so expensive. I'd love to shoot some.
I've been considering getting myself a roll or two as a treat...but what if I get addicted to it?
>>4493412
I'd like to get into it eventually.
I'm a bit put off by the fact that if I develop myself I'll probably also want a scanner and printer and that's really expensive and a bottleneck for quality compared to lab I go to

File: 026_27A.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4493543
A fried of mine got some really pretty shots on expired film.
The two rolls that I shot (on account of them being in a camera I bought and found at my parents' place respectively) came out completely useless

File: 016_17A.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4493562

>>4493559
I actually am buying some E100, it's in my online shopping cart along with the 5 roll pack of portra. I've shot some Velvia before and I'm willing to pay more for slides. I have an 812 filter coming in the mail too. Is E100 pretty good for portraits?

>>4493559
>>4493559
Also I already have a ton of Gold and Ultramax in the form of "Fuji" 200 and 400 so I guess I may as well run through that. photoshoot is for fun so if it comes out bad I can just try again a week later honestly

File: 100S9337.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

>>4493542
i recommend kodacolor 100 for fine grain desu. in my area, it's only a dollar more than fuji 200. if no kodacolor, then proimage 100. proimage is what i used at my friend's marriage ceremony and what i plan to use at his wedding. in the end, i think the difference in grain between all these slow 35mm films is marginal and if you are going to be such a stickler about grain, you should shoot medium format for portraits.
pic related is kodacolor 100 as well as this one >>4492825

>>4493458
average taken from measuring otokonokos frotting with my own pp
>>4491988
>>4492943
let's fucking go dude I already got the camera and wasted some TX400 frames on stupid shit. Just need to buy home lab shit now

File: 2024_0049_022.jpg (394 KB)

394 KB JPG

>>4493543
>1996 was 31 years ago
>mfw
I've been shooting 30-40 years expired b&w film on the regular, not as a meme, and I love the results. About 1/3 of my work is on rolls expired that much. Pic related.
Since you already have them, then as other anon said, lfg. Because what else are you gonna do?
Based on storage conditions you described, I'd shoot them 2 stops over box speed. 2.5 to 3 stops if it regularly gets 30°C at your place in the summer.
In your situation, there are just a few complications:
- You have random rolls (assuming each one unique), so you don't have room to experiment and calibrate for best results.
- Biggest question, do you develop yourself? If yes, toss them in 1+100 Rodinal for an hour, agitate at the start and once halfway through. Can't go wrong for a first attempt with unknown old film.
- If you can be arsed at all, shoot 12 frames of one of them, 4 typical but varied scenes and light conditions, bracketing each shot +1/-1 (relative to your chosen base speed, as above) and develop just that. It should give you SOME idea of the condition which you can extrapolate to the other rolls. Some idea is infinitely more than no idea.
- Yes, you could add some BTA (benzotriazole) as fog restrainer, but it makes no sense if you're gonna be one and done with your rolls. It also takes trial and error (for each stock separately) to get it right, too little and you may as well have not used any, too much and it will eat out your shadows. Don't worry too much about fog, scanners can see through a lot.
- If you don't then you're gonna have to find a lab that does special processing for b&w, few do, and can be costly. But also a viable option.
In summary, go and shoot them and have fun. Yes, in your case it will be "experimental", so don't take them to once in a lifetime photoshoots. But you'll get something good out of them for sure.
As for the color ones, +3 box speed, send for regular C41 processing, but have zero expectations for results. HTH.

File: oly.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

How hard is it to clean gunk out of a fixed lens rangefinder lens? I bought this guy on Ebay and didn't notice until after I paid that it looks like the lens may have some fungus or something in it.

>>4493561
>I've been considering getting myself a roll or two as a treat...but what if I get addicted to it?
If money wasn't an object I would shoot Portra 800 every time I wanted to shoot color film. It's so goddamn good. That being said I still shoot Ultramax and Kodacolor for regular occasions and they're solid enough. But Portra definitely has something extra.

>>4493676
may range from easy to impossible

>>4493748
I am lowkey hoping the bigger one is just a bit of dust or something on the back element and not fucking fungus

File: kiev-4-belichtung-998145021.jpg (365.6 KB)

365.6 KB JPG

Does anyone here own a Kiev 4 (or Contax II)?
I've read that the shutter often breaks on these when the lubrication dries up. Since buying used analogue cameras is always a cat in the bag I was thinking if maybe I should relubricate the shutter before using the one I'm due to get in the mail.
Anyone ever done that? I can't seem to find much info on how to do it online.

File: Untitled (44)_1 2.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

Petzval snapshit cropped to 16:9 because of vignetting. Shot at f8, but still has a ton of that swirly petzval character.
This was taken at 10 iso because I didn't have enough aperture for anything more then changed the dev so it wasn't too dense. Worked okay I guess.
Scanned fine but may be tricky to print it. Even if the shot is trash it is a good data point at least..

>>4493778
Spooky.

>>4493767
The dust may not effect image quality as much as it causes you psychic damage. Do a test roll in a variety of lighting situations to see if it has any noticeable effect on contrast before attempting to clean it. Dust particles are usually pretty benign compared to haze, fungus, and balsam seperation.

>>4493807
Fp4+ btw

File: Untitled (48)_1.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

Goat pic no.2

File: Untitled (49)_1.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

Goat pic no.3, a portrait of Barbara. She's the oldest goat in the herd.
My favorite from today by far. Taken with the Cooke soft portrait lens at f22.

>>4493824
>>4493816
I dont know how to give constructive critique to snapshits this bad
>start over
>look at photos and paintings that have met with success (maybe not (((success))) iykwim)
>do that instead
>get creative after you get… better than this

>>4493828
Can you show me a goat portrait that's good? I think that's a you problem if you don't have the ability to verbalize why you don't like photographs.
I can pretty easily explain why I like and dislike them. Lol

Meanwhile on the farm
>look jebediah, its one of them photomagraphs. i even made it a jay peg with this here computery thing called a flat-bed. like a truck.
>woooooo eee zachariah, that’s impressive. i aint never seen one of them before! how bout we do the cows next? call sally oe’r here, i bet cuz wants to take a look
>why i’ll be! can ya make one of my dawg?

>>4493830
Verbalizing it would be too brutal because you did everything wrong
https://lenscratch.com/2019/04/kevin-horan-goats-and-sheep/
https://www.naturettl.com/mountain-goats/

>>4493832
Lol. Absolutely ridiculous comparisons bro.
I think the portrait is fine. Personally I find the background and feet position of the goat to be complimentary to the mood of the portrait in general. The tired face and beat up hoof being the main in focus areas. She's a tired old goat and I captured that pretty decently. The harsh lighting even adds to it imo.

3 goat pic I could have been timed better. The baby goat in the background was moving around a lot and it finally held still for a second so it wouldn't be motion blurred.
I think the 3 goats makes a nice triangular composition and the tired looking nanny goat with her kid out of focus running in the background is nice, but obviously with better positioning it would have been better.

>>4493833
>something is in the photo
>now hold on there that there blurry goat half outta the frame is what you city slickers call an element of the composition
>poorly angled snapshit from a bad angle with 90% of everything out of focus
>its wut yew clitty lickers call a subversive artistic decisionun
Visual illiteracy is incurable
Massive ego is terminal

>>4493836
Well now I know why you didnt want to provide a real critique. Thanks I guess lol...

>>4493837
There’s nothing to critique. These are thoughtless test shots. How do you have so much gear but no clue?

>>4493838
>seethes about gear out of nowhere
I knew it. Kek.
Post some of your photos or you aren't getting another response from me.

>>4493807
>The dust may not effect image quality as much as it causes you psychic damage
probably meant for >>4493676?

>>4493839
You list the gear you use

The photos are snapshits. They are so bad that if you submitted them to a contest they would be extra polite and use at least one :) because they’d think you were an absolute beginner. It literally looks like an exposure test or an accident.

I like the goat pics personally

>>4493676
>>4493748
>>4493807
Good news, it came in today and the dot on the glass I was worried about was just a smudge and the dust in the lens is minimal. Light meter isn't working but it also came with no battery. Waiting on an adapter to come in the mail and then I can test it out.

>>4493879
Thanks.

>>4493856
Correct.

File: IMG_7599.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4493027
I completely forgot to post any more photos. I’ve been too busy with work and getting some other art ready for a gallery.

File: IMG_7600.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4493828
They’re not that bad desu. Forgettable and that’s perfect fine for snapshits/test images.

For the first one, >>4493807, I would have liked the goat side profiles to be tighter together, maybe have more of the front of their faces too. Bokeh is dizzying and unappealing for this shot imo. This dizzying effect and the fact that the goats aren’t entirely in focus would have been fixed if they closed down the aperture but I’m guessing this was a photo to test the bokeh. Idc if the goats are entirely in frame or not so I have no comment there.

For the second one, >>4493816, the oof kid in the background is a little too close to the edge imo. Maybe if they’d captured the trio to form a triangle closer to equilateral the composition would have been better. (Meaning the kid being closer to that high point of the rock outcropping.) Otherwise the goats are fine as they are.

For the last one, >>4493824, comp is fine for me. Focus is fine I guess, I’d have liked for both legs to be in focus but I guess you need to make compromises.

They’re not terrible and they’re okay for test shots, even almost pleasing. I’d understand you being upset if these were in a gallery in SoHo but they’re not so chill.

Anyway, another night shot. Feel free to critique, I know they’ve got flaws but I love them. I liked how the streetlights put a spotlight on graffiti.

>>4493879
Correct.

>>4493890
Tanks.

>>4493895
He's just mad that I posted some casual 8x10 pictures. I've seen people get mad about graffiti photos as well and it's just as stupid.
Thanks for the critique. I don't agree the last two are snapshots considering there was obviously thought put into selective focus, framing, and composition, but whatever. We can all have opinions.
Personally, I give the 3 goat pic a 4/10(maybe a 5 if framing/subject placement was better) and goat portrait is a 6.5/10.

File: night courtyard.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4493807
ty. I've been working both in camera and with my digitization and editing efforts to get better nighttime rendering. see also:
>>4493779
>>4493780
>>4493781

I think your goat pics probably read a lot better irl with the print processes you use than they do digitally. to me, no. 2 with the three goats is close to being perfect excepting the kid wandering off. the other two I think could benefit from potentially better framing or a different angle; but then again, I'm sure the goats have a mind of their own and aren't always good sitters lol. I'm sure in print a lot of that nit-picking melts away

>>4493904
>did you know i used 8x10?
I thought it was a shitty medium format SLR. Press camera tops. Even worse. So you’re the german shepherd fucker.

In terms of composition, timing, basics like camera angle and placement, lighting, you are somewhat below huskyfags godawful test shot photography - to reference your /an/ circlejerk buttbuddy. You should have stuck with studio attempts because these hasty test shots are not photos. They are snapshots. You set the camera up where you could use it without laying in shit, when you had enough light, got frustrated when the goat moved, and hit the button anyways. Nothing looks intentional or desired. Git gud and consider switching to a tool you are competent with.

>>4493912
They always look better printed as long as your negative will make a good print. You can actually enjoy the resolution and muh rich tonez and all that stuff. As you can imagine the full resolution scans are barely comparable. I downscale to around 10-15% of the scan size when converting to jpg, and recently I started scanning at like 1200dpi because I don't need or want 1gb scans.
Why do you think nophoto is writing cope essays about goat pics when there's actual snapshots itt he could cry about instead?

File: IMG_7604.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4493904
I consider all of my photos snapshots even when they clearly take at least some forethought. Yeah, I put effort into the photo but I don’t take it seriously and because of that in turn I sometimes call other photos here snapshots even if they clearly have thought behind them.

I won’t disagree with you if you don’t call them snapshots because you’re clearly coming from a different point of view. If I used your reasoning then I wouldn’t call the last two snapshots either. I haven’t used my LF in months. I got burnt out from this summer when I shot 30-40 sheets and then I came back to the US and fucked up one of my last sheets of Aerochrome.

>>4493914
Plane of focus and bokeh is always the LF tell. There’s only a handful of MF lenses that can simulate the look and they usually cost more than a full Hasselblad or Mamiya Kit.

Anyway, here’s another night shot.

>>4493919
Agreed for the most part. Just some relaxing fun, good practice, and a break from the normal studio work I do.
I was more curious why my goat pics caused someone to have a complete meltdown lol. There's always the off chance you'll get some constructive feedback, but unfortunately he was too angry to do anything except write multiple fanfics about me and call my pictures the worst images ever taken.
There were a lot of obvious clues that it was large format, so many I'm sure he is lying about not knowing it was LF.

Cool shot btw. Idk when I'll get burnt out from LF. The entire process from photo to print is just too appealing to my autism for now.

File: KODAK15.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

I got a bunch of this film that's all jacked up where it has the pattern from the backing paper burned into it. I didn't store it properly but I think it's partly a manufacturing defect particular to these films that expired around 2018. Newer films have a sort of plastic coating on the backing paper.

I've been trying to think of some sort of project I could do with these where it wouldn't matter.

>>4493930
This is where it becomes truly unique. Run with this shit and don't look back

File: 000021060030.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

Expired Velvia 50

>>4493885
Okay bad news the light meter isn't working and because of this auto mode isn't working either. I took the bottom plate off and it looks like the cable is disconnected from the battery holder. I am going to have to replace that wire because it's too short to reconnect.
What gauge wire should I use for this job?

what's the verdict on the AE-1 Program? Is it worth getting for a beginner, and how much should I expect to spend on one?

File: IMG_7620.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4493990
It’s pretty fun, you’ll inevitably leave it in auto and because of this it won’t help you learn settings as much as a fully manual mode camera would.

I recommend it as a secondary camera because every once in a while I pick it up when I don’t want to think and I just want to shoot.

>>4493990
My gf has one and it's a solid camera. You can easily find one for like $100, or under $200 in great shape with a nice lens.
>>4494018
>It’s pretty fun, you’ll inevitably leave it in auto and because of this it won’t help you learn settings as much as a fully manual mode camera would.
This is why rather than something full auto I'd probably recommend something with just aperture or shutter priority for a beginner, probably the former. It will show you the relation between both factors (along with film speed) while also allowing you to take nice pictures that will make you happy and keep you from getting discouraged.

>>4493990
My *opinion* is that they are over-priced and inevitably cause beginners to not learn the fundamentals they need to explore more.
But I am in the UK, so maybe prices are cheaper for these in America.

Personally I would get a Praktica of some variety, MTL/LTL/TL1000 are all good options and were fairly well regarded even back in the day, at least from people I have spoken to. They also tend to be extremely cheap (I regularly see functional examples for under £20, I paid £5 for mine iirc).

Also they take M42 glass which gives them a particularly good selection of Soviet/German/Pentax lenses.

>>4493990
May I suggest the AV-1 as well?
The AV-1 uses aperture priority by default which I believe is more useful, and because nobody thinks of it it's cheaper than the incredibly hyped AE-1. Only drawback is if you want a set shutter speed it's 1/60th or go fuck yourself.
If you want direct control over shutter speed then nevermind because as >>4494018 points out you aren't going to actually learn much about exposure without a fully manual mode and using it that way.

>>4494038
There are so many non-Canon options that let you go full manual when you want and don't force you into 1/60th speed

File: 1761530412283262.png (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB PNG

I like this photo more than I should. It's nothing but a building

>>4494114
Thats ok. We can like what we want. For the record, the framing is just fine.

>>4493528
>>4493535
I shot my first roll of ultramax 400. I hope the camera worked and i metered correctly(probably didn't)

I sent my film off to be developed and scanned. What the fuck is with those scan prices? Like to get them scanned higher than 2mp it costs more than the actual film

>>4494169
Time required to scan them. You can rig up a scanning rig if you have a digital camera at home instead. But then you have to scan them and that costs your time.

>>4494170
I looked into the valoi easy35 thing but i need to also get a macro lens on top of it. Don't know if its worth it right now since i literally only shot one roll and don't know if i'm gonna stick to film.

File: 000013 (1).jpg (753 KB)

753 KB JPG

>>4494101
>>4494107
>>4494108
>>4494110
Is ektar 100 not the greatest negative film ever made?

>>4494185
I think that award goes to 5222.

>>4494186
color > b&w any day of the week

>>4494169
If youre testing film, or even if you are a pro, unless you are publishing photos or making huge prints there is literally ZERO and I truly mean zero reasons to have giga high res scans.

What do you need 20mb scans of a shitty photo that youll never print frame or otherwise look at anywhere but your computer screen or phone? Especially if you arent using a fine grain film. If youre shooting E100 sure a high res scan will come out nice but most other cases all it does nothing for you

>>4494193
Lets see your RA4 prints bro

>>4494196
NTA but I fucking love RA4 prints as an output, I just fucking can't be fucked setting up for it in a way that I don't get that demotivated or lazy for printing B&W.

>>4494196
?

>>4494210
If we're talking about b&w or color film the accessibility and relative ease of b&w analog printing makes it the superior choice by a long shot.
You can even apply the annoying but true, but also kinda stupid, "large format sucks because of muh limited film selection" argument. There's like one or two RA4 papers to pick from and dozens of b&w papers.
If you're only scanning film are you just shooting digital with more steps?
On a purely visual/aesthetic basis I think they can both be equally good, but it depends how you use them. They both have their own crutches, pros, and cons.

>>4494209
2026 will be the year I build my darkroom and do ra4 prints with the 11x14 print processor I got. It would be nice to shoot more color, but it feels pointless if I can't make prints with my negatives! I also hate keeping c41 developer because of the limited shelf life.

File: 1753356633829053.png (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB PNG

>>4494185
Wanna see what pushed Ektar looks like?
[spoiler]it looks bad[/spoiler]

File: 2_000010.jpg (848.7 KB)

848.7 KB JPG

>>4494213
I could care less about format or accessibility. Anyone claiming a format is bad because of accessibility is a retard. Its really more about the point of photography. Either to capture a moment in time as any one human might perceive it OR as the artist perceives it. We don't see in black and white. We see in color. But the main reason I dislike b&w is the abuse of it to try and compensate for otherwise shitty photography. Black and white is a tool to accentuate or to narrow perception. It only takes away when used for anything else.

For example in this thread alone the only picture that has ANY business being b&w is >>4490448.
This is composed perfectly for b&w because the colors would only serve to distract.

What is b&w doing here for basically any other photo? The answer is absolutely nothing, not that color would help. For some reason if I try to link any of them my post is detected as spam so I cant put all these retards on blast but whatever.

>>4492779 should be in color, good composition but having lots of colors with a similar grey scale gives you just a grey picture with no shadow and no contrast which makes it not interesting

>>4494213
>2026 will be the year I build my darkroom and do ra4 prints with the 11x14 print processor I got. It would be nice to shoot more color, but it feels pointless if I can't make prints with my negatives! I also hate keeping c41 developer because of the limited shelf life.
Nice, that sounds like a lot of fun. I have a Cibachrome 8x10 drum and it absolutely works but it's just a pain in the arse workflow compared to processing black and white in trays and it's enough that I really have to be in the right mood for it which makes it less likely a set of chemicals will be used to their full capacity before they age out.

Printing is such a joyous thing to do, to see an image appear on paper that you can hold after tweaking it to exactly how you envisioned it, there something very enjoyably magic about it.

>>4494218
>I dislike b&w is the abuse of it to try and compensate for otherwise shitty photography.
It's funny because it works exactly the same way for color.

File: wet-plate-40.jpg (111.7 KB)

111.7 KB JPG

>>4494222
Yeah, I love printing a lot. It's a big part of why I take pics.
I think wetplate is the best when you fix the negative. Really satisfying to see the excess silver get washed away to reveal your image.