File: P_20260120_110418~2.jpg (297.9 KB)

297.9 KB JPG

Contact printing 6x9 makes me diamonds.

File: 000032.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

some shots from my first roll of film.

File: 000033.jpg (994.9 KB)

994.9 KB JPG

>>4494667
wtf happened to the captcha

File: 000048.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4494669
do we need to take an iq test to shitpost these days

File: 000034.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4494670

File: 000028.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4494671

File: 000042.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4494672
2 internet points for anyone who knows who this coat belongs to

File: 000036.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4494673
Posting this photo not because I think its good, but because at the time I thought it would be a fantastic photo and I fumbled it

File: 12386.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

<3 my stylus epic

i like black and white bc its automatically a bad picture according to that anon

i also like to print in the darkroom and its easier with a safelight and i can mix up my own chemicals

>>4494702
Based

>>4494642
Based.

I feel like if you're broadly hating a type of photography you're either an autismo or trying too hard. There's lazy and shitty b&w, but there's also stunning b&w shots. Same with color.

File: A014274-R1-02-4A.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

Shot my first roll of film. Holy shit i should not have picked "small scan" but on the other hand high resolution scan of shit pictures isn't worth more than what I paid for the camera.

File: 1 - Copy.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4494610
>Do you prefer color or black and white photography?
It really depends entirely on the setting. Where I live is grey and dull half the year, so B&W is useful for that since there aren't really any stand out colours worthy of drawing attention to. But I like having colour to take portraits and more general use.
Normally my 120 film is B&W and my 35mm is colour.

File: HolidaySnapshit (2).jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4494789
Also rate my holiday snapshit. I don't know a lot about nor like street photography but I thought this turned out okay.

How bad will old undeveloped film look? I have a roll from 4 years ago that I forgot to get developed and then I found two unused rolls that are also at least 3 years expired which I'm considering using.

>>4494794
>How bad will old undeveloped film look? I have a roll from 4 years ago that I forgot to get developed
No difference from fresh (b&w) or negligible difference you wouldn't be able to tell without seeing fresh one side by side (color, slide, b&w over 800 iso), unless it was stored in an oven. Give it 15% more dev time (b&w), or ask for +0.5 push (+1 if your lab only does full stops) if sending for C41. E6 I'd dev normally.
>two unused rolls that are also at least 3 years expired which I'm considering using.
No difference from fresh, unless again stored in an oven.

>>4494782
This is a very nice shot anon, maybe I'd crop it a little tighter to make the bridge and person with the dog more prominent, but not necessarily.
But holy fuck people having the audacity to ask any money for this puke of a scan.

I'm getting into photography. I want to get a point and shoot, specifically a Canon AF35ML. I plan on using it for "in the moment" type shots. I'm going to get Cinestill 800t for my first roll, and I'm wondering about nighttime shots. I'm going to be using the flash but I do want some without, so how feasible is it with this camera? It's supposed to have a pretty hit and miss autofocus which I'm okay with; but with that film at night and no flash, would it just be a wasted shot every time?

>>4494826
Two seconds on DuckDuckgle tells me AF35ML only reads and meters up to 400 ISO. So you're kind of SOL for Cineshill (rated 800 ISO), as well as night shots in general.
There is hearsay that late models could do up to 1000 ISO which would be much more viable, but I'll leave it up to you to figure out if it's true and how to score one of those.

>>4494834
Is there exp comp?

>>4494835
I dunno anon, RTFM

>>4494834
I've been reading up for more than two seconds: it's 500 ISO and has good latitude as well.
What's the lowest ISO that's viable for nighttime?

>>4494839
500 is the original rating of the ECN2 motion picture stock that Cineshill respools, but they rate their still version with ECN backing removed (or never coated on by Kodak at this point) at 800.
Lowest ISO for night shots depends on how steady your hand is and what subjects you're photographing, but for spur of the moment snapshots it would be silly to go below 800.

File: Red Arrow.jpg (787.9 KB)

787.9 KB JPG

>>4494839
Night photography really needs to be done with a tripod, which means you can (potentially) go really low in ISO (e.g. 100). Doing it handheld is hard because the shutter speeds are often so slow that you get bad blurring, even with high speed 800 ISO film (e.g. Portra 800).

An autofocus/autoexposure camera is also likely to struggle more dialing in the settings, so it's more likely that your exposures will be way off until you get a feel for the camera and how to deal with it's peculiarities.

I would personally start out with using pre-dawn light as it's vastly easier and you still get a lot of the same fun film characteristics like halation that stand out.

File: 000071820004_corrected.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4494610
I love black and white
when you remove color, you get the real picture

>>4494610
I'm ramping up my efforts to actually build my darkroom. 10'x14' is how much space I've decided on.
35mm dedicated enlarger, a seperate wall mounted beseler 45vxl enlarger with color head for all other formats up to 4x5, RA4 auto print processor that does up to 11x14 prints. Building everything to accommodate up to 20x24 prints. I'm also going to install a positive pressure HEPA system to keep dust down to an absolute minimum. Silver trap, auto water temp mixer, drying racks for prints, film drying cabinet, loads of storage, etc.
Big darkroom sinks are freaking expensive btw. Much more expensive than any camera, lens, enlarger, or anything photography related I've ever purchased. SIX THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS. Seems pretty awesome to have a 9 foot sink I can keep my entire wetside in tho.

If it's a powerful enough darkroom I may be able to rent out time in it or offer printing classes. Could be cool.

>>4494848
What's your total bill for fitting it all out? And tell me more about silver traps pls

>>4494852
Not totally sure yet, maybe around 20k in total for everything. The two enlargers were around 3.5k, print processor was 3.5k, misc stuff I have is another 2k. Electrical and plumbing shouldn't be more than another 3-4k. Permitting BS is probably like 1.5k, hvac system another 2-3k, hopefully.
I only need 2 walls built into an existing building I have, so that shouldn't be too much if I can do it myself lol. Im pretty handy, so I could probably figure it out.
Not sure if I'll build my own sink or spend the 6k on the stainless steel sink.

>>4494842
>>4494843
I guess I'll just keep the flash on, then. We hang out at bars a lot, that will be the setting most of the time. I assume bar level lighting would still be too dark for handheld?
Thanks for the help anons.

>>4494852
Oh yeah a silver trap is this filter or electrolytic contraption that removes the silver out of your fixer by converting it to metallic silver, and yes you do get to collect the silver that is accumulated over time.

My plan is to run the wetside drain through an air gap piped to the silver trap, small pump resevoir, then to a large holding tank outside. I'll haul the tank to a hazardous waste place when it fills up. I'm on septic so it's the easiest permit wise and most environmentally friendly way to do things.

>>4494806
Thank you. I liked the experience of shooting film and I should probably try to start scanning myself. Seems fun

>>4494667
>>4494669
>>4494670
>1st roll of film?
Those are nice, what type of camera/ film?

>>4494853
Nice, I hope I can build something like this for myself I've day, instead of endlessly dicking about in the bathroom. The only upside is that it has no windows and is past two sets of doors from the nearest one, so I just need to keep the doors closed for perfect lightproofing even in the middle of the day. If I had to seal any doors or windows on top of setting up the gear each time, I'd probably have given up.
I don't know about pricing of stuff, but 6k for a sink sounds obscene, even that size.
Are you getting the enlargers new or used?
>>4494856
Ah, so basically what I've already been doing in a jury rigged way, collecting spent fixer in gallon jugs and stuffing them with steel wool. Never occurred to me to look for an industrial solution.

>>4494844
>>4494845
>>4494846
>>4494847
were these pushed? that's a lot of contrast.

>>4494889
hp5+ shot at 400 on my minolta freedom zoom 160c, these arent even edited past the scans and some light cropping

>>4494879
Already have both of the enlargers. I got them used. Found the print processor for sale as NOS.
My 4x4 tent works for 8x10 prints but it's ghetto and severely cramped.

Yes except the trap removes silver from all the rinse water as well. With larger prints the amount of fixer going down the drain can add up pretty quick.

File: watn.jpg (3 KB)

3 KB JPG

>>4494892
>be me who just got his first roll of HP5 and decided to shoot at 800 to start off

>>4494899
it's prefectly pushable and printable to 1600 when it's developed properly, and when your lightmeter is good. You can't tell shit from scans.
Still pushing in my humble opinion of a darkroom printer, is mostly retarded. It's a trend by influencers who never developed film and has no fucking idea what they're doing. Pushing is raping and compressing your tonality. Its ok when it's necessary (low and or very flat lighting) and it makes sense only with few films on the market.

>>4494899
Why wouldn't you shoot the first roll at box speed? That's film 101

>>4494854
A little research says this af35ml or whatever has a max aperture of f/1.9 so you should be able to get some decent shots without a flash too

File: 000029.jpg (640.8 KB)

640.8 KB JPG

>>4494868
Thanks, its a Nikon F2, it was a Christmas present.

I should've said rolls of film plural. The ones of mountains and pic related are Mr negative Daylight Robbery. Most of the others are Ultramax. The one of the washing line FujiFilm 200

File: compareegg.jpg (563.9 KB)

563.9 KB JPG

Left was shot at 64 iso, devved for 11:30 and used the warmest color balance my lights could be set to. Right was with neutral to cold lighting, shot at 80 iso, 1230 dev time.
Same exact edit for both negatives.

I think left is definitely an improvement, subtle, but an improvement. Thoughts?

>>4494931
imo left def looks better

>tfw finally have images to post but ip range blocked from posting images

>>4494939
Describe each of them using the full 2000 characters.

>>4494931
oh hi anon im the nice guy from last thread, yes the left one looks significantly better. i still think you should maybe use a red filter but also i like my "statement" pictures to have loads of punch to them lmao

>>4494942
Ortho film would probably be even better than a filter.
If I edit it enough I can make it a lot punchier, but I don't really care all that much. I just kinda play it safe with a semi neutral contrast most of the time.
I did a much closer crop with some hopefully more interesting lighting using my new modular spot light modifier that I plan to develop tonight or tommorow. I'll give it a punchier edit just for you. :D

File: 2026-01-22-0001.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

this was straight scan no edits by puter

kentmere 200 in d76 stock
ilford pearl rc 5x7
liquidol
no filter

need to start doing fiber based paper when going into galleries idk why i havent been doing that, drymounting looks way better

File: PICT0068-1-modified.jpg (13.5 KB)

13.5 KB JPG

>>4494610

Hello /fgt/, new to 4chan here. I took this photo for a unit on perspective photography. I know it's not exactly groundbreaking, but I like how it incorporates graphic elements into an otherwise pictorial image.

Location: Coop's Shot Tower
Camera: Kiev-4M + Jupiter-8 lens with y1.4x filter
Film: Ilford hp5+ @EI 200
Dev: Xtol 1+1, 12 mins, 20'c

Unfortunately I didn't record shutter speed or aperture - I'm not that thorough.

>>4494987
Please post photos that aren't fucking 100 pixels wide and maybe we can comment on them.
Welcome to 4chan, faggot.

>>4494987
A PICTURE FOR ANTS
>>4494947
mmm blue

File: PXL_20260123_171450355.jpg (887.1 KB)

887.1 KB JPG

fuck my life
It's a FM2 so it's worth it

>>4495007
>to disassemble the camera, you must remove a part stuck on with adhesives because god forbid we let the engineers just use screws
I hate industrial designers so much it's unreal.

File: zoolander-ben-stiller.gif (146.9 KB)

146.9 KB GIF

>>4494987

>>4495016
If the camera looks cooler with hidden screws we love that feature

>>4495026
But they could just incorporate the screws into the design. Hell, use bespoke one-off seven pointed screws carefully made from folded japanese steel hardened and quenched in matcha prepared by an authentic geisha that can only be produced once a year in a festival ritual. The extra 200 yen is worth it. I am just so sick of designs where damage is inherently required for disassembly

>>4495028
Make your own camera with 1000 times folded tamahagane! It will be a very honorable quest.

>>4495016
This isn't the fault of industrial designers.
>>4495028
Yes but most people consider that to be low quality because they are retarded. Maybe 15% of people actually repair their own stuff to any degree.

File: PXL_20260123_185754213.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

I might have actually fixed the fucker. Gave it a deep clean in lighter fluid and tore off the rest of that old fucked up foam that turns into dust and it looks like the second curtain works now
>>4495016
lol yeah fuck that, still FM2 is quite easy to disassemble

File: Untitled (52)_1.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

Extra crunchy edit as promised. This is uncropped and roughly 2x magnification.
Used my new modular spotlight modifier for the first time as well. Could have refined the spotlight a bit better, but whatever. Good practice balancing a fill and spot.
I think this composition is the best one so far. More direct and to the point.

>>4495072
Cute, but the blur makes it a bit uneasy feeling. Is that a lith print?

do photography competitions want you to develop your own black and white photos for their BnW categories? What are your experiences with developing your own film?

>>4495076
Are you talking about printing film on paper or developing? Both are straightforward and basically boil down to cleanliness, consistency, and precision.

>>4495076
the only reason why i fucked up my development is because my temperature was off, its otherwise ezpz

i dont think photography comps care how the film was developed, but its a good "i worked harder on this than you" type brag

>>4495078
Printing film on paper isn't required for competitions that you send to digitally. But thanks.
>>4495079
Do you think you can do it in a rental? How do you get rid of chemicals?

>>4495090
You could always scan your print for extra brownie points. :D
You just need a changing bag and a daylight dev tank. Developer goes down the drain if it's one shot and fixer can be reused many times. The only time you would need to rent a space or use anything larger than a changing bag is if you're doing tray development with sheet film.

>>4495090
rental like ur renting a place?
yes use a changing bag, and a developing tank. you dont even need a darkroom!
developer and stop can be down the drain
fixer you save until like 10-20 rolls of film, then head to the recycling plant in ur area and drop it off (read their website for details)

File: IMG_20260112_230803~2 (1).jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

Got my first ever roll back and this is my favorite

>>4495101
cozy

>>4495074
egg boy, why don't you post in /bpd/? what is an egg if not a premature bird? you'd be right at home there.

>>4495074
Just a smartphone scan (via the Polaroid app) of B&W I type film. Getting the Polaroid Now to focus properly is a huge chore for anything that isn't a landscape.

>>4495114
My egg pictures aren't really about the eggs enough to be part of /bpd/ imo. In reality I should just start my own egg thread, but whatever. I'm content posting in fgt for now.
I have a neat idea for a series I want to explore that focuses down my egg photography into what will hopefully be a sort of "visual language" that produces coherence between the images I make that isn't just egg in picture. It will make more sense when I post more pics. If they come out really good I want to print them big too. All pictures in the series will be at 1:1 reproduction ratio or larged and printed 20x24 or bigger. Big, powerful eggs.
>>4495123
Sounds like it is time to get a polaroid back for your rb67!

File: 2026-01-24-0001.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

this isnt a real "hey guys look at my print" type post but i still think its cool that i can use a 6x7 negative carrier to get the borders on a 35mm negative like this.

maybe i can use a card to cover up the rebate and expose a good print on the negative itself, then burn in the rebate or smth

>>4494847
is that your friend painting the fill or is that random dude just standing against the wall?
>mepz2 gh

File: impoor.png (2 MB)

2 MB PNG

Photo newbie here, I just developed my first two reels of film and the photos have shit composition but I liked taking them anyway.
I'll post the least worst ones once I get a scanning rig built. Is the TTArtisan 60mm II ok for this?
pic is a crap "scan" I did on a phone camera just for fun

>>4495183
uh I meant 7artisans, the other chinesium lens dudes

File: P_20260124_201722.jpg (241.6 KB)

241.6 KB JPG

[Sad News] I finally got my shit together and set up a printing rig. It's extremely ghetto and cheap, however after 15 minutes I went ahead and ordered a copy stand to attach the enlarger to. I meant to cheap out on it and only get it later on while dealing with the tripod in the meantime, but it was too frustrating dealing with it.
I did some contact prints from medium format before, but this is infinitely more fun. I feel I could spend the whole night doing this.

File: P_20260124_201251.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>4495203
I don't mind not having an easel that much, but I do mind having to level the base board and the enlarger head separately.

File: P_20260124_201336.jpg (189.2 KB)

189.2 KB JPG

>>4495204
This first print is going to feel very special I feel like

File: 2025_0014_005_print.jpg (287.5 KB)

287.5 KB JPG

>>4495205
Dried and scanned

File: 2025_0014_005.jpg (402.3 KB)

402.3 KB JPG

>>4495206
And here's a film scan from LS-5000. I think I posted it here a while ago.
Woomy!

File: DSC09145editSMBDR.jpg (1022.9 KB)

1022.9 KB JPG

>>4495183
>>4495185
Why not get a 55mm Nikkor macro?

>>4495203
Hellya anon

>>4495183
I read in some review that the ttartisan 40mm is better in the corners so I got that one (solely for scanning), and don't regret it so far

File: Image_20250407-112113416AM.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Photography novice here. My wife got me a Polaroid Now last year after I mentioned that I felt like all of the pictures I'd take on my phone just ended up in Google Photos hell. I've got enough time consuming and expensive hobbies that instant film was appealing to me - I simply am not going to go down the SLR rabbit hole right now.

Overall, the Polaroid now has been an equally rewarding and frustrating experience, with a pretty hefty film overhead that makes the frequent bad shots extra painful. I've gotten what I think are some really beautiful compositions from it....

File: Image_20250526-085955951AM.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4495263

File: PXL_20260125_170817142.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

>>4495264
The autofocus feels very prone to screwing up, though, and the way the viewfinder is set up makes getting you r subject in the center of the frame, especially with glasses on, difficult. You can go through entire packs without a single crisp image. I'm sure that's partially a skill issue, but it really does feel like a crapshoot whether or not the picture is going to come out blurry.

Under and overexposing is also a pretty frequent issue. There's a pretty small range of light levels that this camera likes.

File: Image_20260125-111633436AM.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4495265
I'm leaving for a week long vacation on Saturday, and ordered a Lomo'Instant Automat Glass as well as a bunch of Instax Mini film to where I'm going to be in hopes that I'll have better luck. On top of that I've been shooting 35mm film on a Canon Autoboy 2, though I haven't developed any yet.

>>4495263
>SLR rabbit hole
you can buy a K1000 and a lens for like $100 on Marketplace and it'll take way better pics than this thing. Also 35mm film has got to be cheaper that Polaroids

>>4495279
But the vibes bro

>>4495279
>>4495280
Film price is why I grabbed the Canon Autoboy 2 from the local camera shop. I understand that there isn't an impenetrable learning curve for SLRs but for now I'm sticking to point and shoot.

Instax mini film is like 1/4 the price of Polaroid I Type, which was a big motivator to try out the Lomo.

>>4495263
If anything a decent SLR would be a great inbetween given that polaroid is vastly more expensive than 35mm film (at least last I checked when the missus wanted one).
>>4495281
The learning curve for SLRs is non-existent if you aren't completely retarded like most "people" you see in photo forums. It's also useful as a learning experience even if you still stick with P&S at the end of the day.
Not going after you specifically here (you seem 'aight) but as a general rant/whinge "film photography" as a hobby is inundated with point and shoot users who require spoonfeeding the most basic of information and pretty much just do it as a trend. I avoid most forums now because after the 20th "wot is an exposure triangle??" post it becomes impossible to suppress the urge to respond with slurs.

File: 5222 03312025-5.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

lil dragon

>>4495283
Fair enough. I'll put several rolls of film through the Autoboy since I have it and then maybe look into a cheap used SLR if I'm not as high in the results as I'd like to be. Thanks for the pointers.

File: flex-1.jpg (513.5 KB)

513.5 KB JPG

>>4495234
I could get the 7china one cheaper than it in my country, all used ones I've found were overpriced, might as well get a brand new one. Plus I have a Canon.
I've thought about getting an enlarger lens and 3d printing adapter shit but I dunno.
Nice print.
>>4495256
Mite look for one later if this is suboptimal.

I just found out you can bw develop Kodak Vision Print 2383 and it works well if you shoot at ISO 12, which might be the most stupid reuse of film ever but these shitters are so cheap I'm gonna buy a couple of respooled canisters and post results. Perfect excuse to get a tripod too.

File: IMG_20260126_161632_568.jpg (257.7 KB)

257.7 KB JPG

using this much movement just to get a 6x7 image is super funny to me

First roll of film isn't a failure, what an awesome wave of relief. The youtuber's advice I took to overexpose everything by a half or full stop maybe not always ideal for my conditions but I'm happy

File: 00814517003111.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4495456

File: 0081451700071.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4495459
Alright sideways it is

>>4495457
What lens is this? That bokeh is fucking crazy.

File: 0081451700022.jpg (4.7 MB)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4495463
it's the 50mm 1.4 FD S.S.C at wide open

File: IMG_0788 (1).jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

>>4495464
Holy shit what a bunch of faggots
>pic rel

>>4495466
>being from Sydney
>calling others faggots
Okay pal. Cute cat though

File: 100S9694.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

yippee i can post photos again!

>>4495459
Cute

>>4495457
>>4495459
>>4495460
This doesn't look like overexposure to me desu, looks like you nailed it.

>>4495482
and you posted this?

Need advice /p/
I have recently become a /fgt/ and am wondering if buyin film in bulk and rolling it yourself is an option to make it cheaper.
Also curious about different film stocks. So far shot with ilford hp5 400 and delta 100 in BW, and kodak 400 in color. Any fun stocks I should try for street photography? I have no idea what to buy next. People on r*ddit rave about things like portra 800 but paying 25$ for 36 shots seems like a bit of meme

>>4495563
Shot 14 rolls, 12 were cinema repacks and 2 were Portra, all fresh and new. And 1 of the Portra roll had light leaks. All on the same camera and none of the other film had light leaks. Is it possible that the film loaded wrong with slack in it or did somehow just 1 roll from the retailer have X-ray or some other damage? Never seen defects on Portra before.

>>4495563
5222 @ 800 or 1600 iso with a yellow filter or trix pushed to 1600 are both cool for street.

>>4495563
SFX 200 Super is a funky B&W stock I shamelessly shill. Works better with a red or orange filter but still gives some different results.

File: 100S9725.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

>>4495554
yes, obviously. and this >>4495481
>>4495263
baesd

File: DSC09204editSMBDR.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4495563
Buying 100' rolls of bw and developing yourself is definitely MUCH cheaper than blasting colour film. I've been shooting only bw for a 3 years now and it tickles the film itch just fine for me.

>>4495603
To be fair even buying pre spooled Ilford or Kent films and self dev is like fractions of the cost of shop-dev'd anything.

>>4495563
It feels like wasted effort to buy a giant roll of 5222 and related fuckery (a film canister spooler, 135 cans) unless you’re really gonna let that Canon rip everyday all day. Best to buy those already respooled piecemeal imo.
But developing and digitizing is 100% worth doing it yourself for bw.

>>4495563
>People on r*ddit rave about things like portra 800
For good reason, it's a fucking great film stock. But personally I wouldn't use it for snapshitting. Great for trips or for family functions but if you're just snappin pics Ultramax 400 is good enough.

Silly question, out of curiosity: which eye do you use to look through the viewfinder?
Somehow it always felt natural to use my left one, though with an SLR that has the viewfinder in the middle of the body it never really mattered.
However I've recently gotten a rangefinder camera with the rangefinder window on the left side of the body, so using my right eye means I don't have to press the body against my nose
>>4495563
Kodak Gold is what a friend recommended me when I just started out. It's probably one of the cheapest films you can find and at least i my area every drugstore sells them. As the name suggests it has really nice colors to use for golden hour or blue skies.

at which point should I (as a complete beginner) start thinking about bulk rolling, self dev (bw) and scanning? Should use the same filmstock for every shoot and dev/scan/post process at a lab at first so I can accurately see what I'm doing wrong? Yes, I want to save money but I'm worried about introducing too many variables to fuck up too early.

>>4495658
If you're trying to learn quickly using b&w and doing the dev and scan at home will greatly speed things up. You can have film processed and scanned sameday. If you stick to a basic dev like xtol, rodinal, or hc110 it is not difficult to produce consistent results.

I'd save bulk loading for later on just because it can introduce some annoyances that aren't really worth saving a dollar or two per roll...

File: PTRS.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

>>4495659
NTA but what do I need to get decent home scans? Every youtube video shills a different thing and can't help but feel there must be a cheap (3D printable?) DIY solution since it all seems to be variations of a brick that holds negatives flat with a light behind them.

I've got a DSLR I can use for it, I assume I can print some kind of film holder to keep it flat and use a light behind it for the scan. Then stick the DSLR on a tripod and point it at my film holder.

Is there anything else I am missing there?

I'm more looking at this because I want to fuck around with 35mm panos in my 6x9 camera and I'm not sure how my lab would feel about scanning them. Dev at home because if it's fucky experimental shit anyway I may as well save the pennies and won't worry so much about messing up dev.

>>4495663
Yeah just keep your film flat and don't scratch it. A copy stand is better, but tripod will work fine. If you're doing color one of those fancy lights is better. Some people will also use a flash when dslr scanning.

Well, I've just got my first rangefinder camera.
Really excited to load it up and take it to the streets this weekend and run a roll of film through it for testing. Hope there won't be any unwelcome surprised with light leaks or the like

File: 12641.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4495657
After a couple of days of forcing myself to shoot with my right eye, I got used to it and now swap between left and right eye with ease. I swapped for the exact reason you mention.

>>4495658
Never too early. It's a ~$100 investment for bw developing gear + a recurring ~$50 every 50 rolls (could be more could be less depending on what developer you go with). Bulk rolling can be significant savings too.

>>4495675
Nice anon that'll be fun

I have about 5 rolls of Kentmere Pan 400. I'm about to order some color film and I'm considering trying a couple rolls of Pan 100. Is it worth buying, or would I basically get the same result by shooting the Pan 400 at 100?

>>4495690
nice cosina swamp turd

>>4495663
I have a cinestill light source and a chinese 120 holder. I just velcro the negative holder to the light source and put it standing up on the table, then I line up the camera elevated with a book

File: DSC09219editSMBDR.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4495707
It's different film, but it's better to learn a couple of films well and how to manipulate them than to dabble in a bunch of different film stocks.

>>4495711
Ya I love it so much.

File: peter-woah.png (772.4 KB)

772.4 KB PNG

Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah....
Are am I reading right that using a colored filter with B&W film you're still meant to adjust exposure comp. even with a TTL meter?
That is to say, is my TTL meter unable to accurately adjust the lost light due an orange filter (1-2 stops), and I'm still meant to dial it up above what the meter says?
>>4495690
>It's a ~$100 investment for bw developing gear
My dev equipment minus stuff like scanning or chems was still about $200 but in fairness I bought a lot of "extra' shit. You could probably go bare minimum with $100 but that sounds a bit miserable.

>>4495690
Olive green cameras are the shit. I wish they weren't all fucking expensive.

>>4495666
>>4495716
Thanks anons, I'll bodge some shit together and try scanning some of my old test rolls eventually. Then look at dev gear.

File: DSC09238editSMBDR.jpg (926.6 KB)

926.6 KB JPG

>>4495731
>You could probably go bare minimum with $100 but that sounds a bit miserable.

Paterson System (tank + 2 reels) - $45
Couple storage bottles - $10
Measuring stuff - $10
Funnel - $5
Thermometer - $5
Clips to hang film - $5

Nothing miserable about that. Pretty standard I'm not sure how you spent an extra $120

>>4495731
Sorry meant to answer your Q, most TTL meters will correctly meter thru filters. It gets less accurate the more red the filter gets. Really only MAYBE an issue with deep red filters. Orange you'll be fine. You can also easily test yourself. Meter with the filter and without and see if your meter compensates correctly.

>>4495732
Ya it's a bummer. I only laid $420 for it in 2018

i'd love to meet the motherfucker from one of these threads who told me to learn how to color correct in photoshop instead of darktable. i've racked my brain over why my negatives always turn out looking like shit when i color correct, did i forget to set the iso? did i just take a bad close up on the light table? did i just fuck up the shot? no. here i am sitting there fucking around with histograms and layers for multiple rolls following direct instructions from pieces of shit in videos who don't tell you the hotkeys they're hitting.

>inb4 skill issue
sincerely eat my ass

File: 12243.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4495737
This is all you need to do, no stupid video required. And if you use the same couple of film, you can create a Photoshop action for each that will batch edit 90% of the work for an entire roll in minutes.

https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/06/02/scanning-and-editing-color-negative-film

>>4495733
I went and checked my documentation and turns out I spent $130 on dev equipment. Changing bag was $20 and got a few extra beakers. So quite accurate to your estimate actually.
>>4495735
I was using a yellow and read that there's basically zero reason to exp. comp., but now that I'm using orange and red I wanted to read over stuff again. I'll do the test you mentioned. Cheers.

>>4495746
Yellow 12/15 is ~1 stop compensation. Orange is ~1.5 stop compensation.

Have not shot since highschool, recently pickup up an old nikkormat from a garage sale (just turned 27 and purchased my first home).

Portra 400
50mm
Nikkormat ft2

What the fuck is this captcha I have not posted since 2016

>>4495762
Comfy, boring and nice blantons barrel strength. It would be funny if you did a big print and hung it up above your fireplace.

File: DSCF8405-positive.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

So up until now, I've been scanning all of my film on aperture priority underexposed by a third of a stop, but I've seen some people say that this is a no-no and you should be using a fixed aperture/ss/iso for everything.
Is this just because it would theoretically make it easier to batch edit entire rolls, or am I missing something that I'm screwing up by using AP?
Also, this new captcha system is AIDS.

>>4495772
Aperture priority is fine. Adjust EV as needed. If you really really need control, do full manual. But why bother in most cases where you're just going to pick the aperture then adjust the shutter speed until the meter reads in the middle anyway?

>>4494610
I'm confident that I don't need a light meter to expose a shot anymore, and I can mentally work out how to expose correctly if I need to change the depth of field (aperture) accordingly.
Anyone else on my level?

File: wheels1111.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

Any tips on making my pics less flat looking? I get the colours and exposure how I like and then the picture tends to look flat. This is a picture from one of my first rolls so maybe I didn't have the exposure set right when I took the picture?

File: IMG_6123.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

Hi
Long time lurker took these on a Nikon F-501
Nothing special

>>4495796
Are you just scanning or have you made prints in a darkroom? Show us some of your negatives.

>>4495772
nice shot in this thread for once

>>4495803
Looks like overcast day in forest? Just have a good light and correct exposure. At open, morning or evening at mostly sunny day, in shrubbery even midday. Try macro on overcast days. Under/over exposure matters. Correct exposure for subject sucks least in whatever light.

File: bridge.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4495827
yeah it was mostly overcast but a little sunny. Even some of my sunny pics turn out this way - maybe you're right though i should try macro? I have a point and shoot typa lense and a telescopic lens do you think I should've used the telescopic one? This was a relatively sunny and this was a shot I got. Maybe I'm just being too picky but I feel like there's more potential

>>4495830
Are you editing your scans? You need to edit them. It still looks fucked if you aren't. What film and is it fresh?

>>4495831
this was fresh colour corrected, still need to edit it but it's still flat so idk how i'd fix it. contrast, exposure you think? film is kodak 200. I'm still learning and figuring out my camera so bear with me. Trying to do the research I can.

>>4495832
Your dynamic range is way too compressed. Drop the blacks and raise the whites. A little pure black/white is okay if it's natural looking.
Your scan looks kinda weird as well.

>>4495839
I'll mess around with it thanks. I want to make a little flip book for myself but want then perfect before I do anything.

File: 000011.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4494610

>>4495879
this is cool but not really... interesting? i guess

>>4494673
>2 internet points for anyone who knows who this coat belongs to
this stirs memories of something I read long ago but I can't quite place it
something about traditional outfit of fishermen somewhere or something

I just bought a Canon IIIc on ebay with the biggest Serenar ever built before even getting to scan my first film reel. Consumerism is a bitch but hey, cool poorly framed pics coming soon

>>4495934
Fuck you cunt i found it plenty interesting.

File: R1-05198-0034_02.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

I prefer b&w for the way it makes you feel

File: 1000004028.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4494915
>>4494826
>>4494843
>>4494842
Update on these: I just got that point and shoot in last night and took it with me to the bar. Was presently surprised to see that it's the version with a 1000 ISO setting. Its build is way more solid and hefty than I thought it would be which honestly gives me a bit more confidence in its overall quality; perfect condition aside from small scratches, light seal looks perfect, battery compartment super clean, lens looks great.
The autofocus indicates quickly and as intended, no fuss and holds focus lock when moved until the light isn't good enough then buzzes. All indications are great but obviously we'll see once I develop.
I took two or three definitely iffy shots, all handheld in a mostly neon-lit bar so I expect they won't be good but I want to test with this first roll. Also took a flash shot to confirm it does work.
Thanks for reading my blog.

Is there any reason to get a dedicated spot meter vs just metering on a mirrorless camera?

>>4495999
Post results

>>4496009
Nope. Quite a few large format photographers actually use digital p&s for metering.

In my experience, don't worry about any type of external meter if your camera has a built in meter. Most film cameras I've used can meter a roll of slide film just fine.

what's a good film stock if I want to try some B&W photography? Something that's on cheaper end but not bottom of the barrel garbage

>>4496065
Kentmere 400, Tri-X 400, Ilford HP5. People have preferences between the three but they're all super similar and less that 10 bucks a roll.

File: 000533210011.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4496065
Ilford HP5+ is pretty good and easy to shoot.

>>4496070
>>4496071
Neat. My local lab owner sold me two rolls of Fomapan, one of which I am currently running through a second hand camera I got to make sure it works properly.
But I've read some less than ideal things about it so was curious what my alternatives are.
If I'm not mistaken the drugstore I usually go to has HP5, so I'll give that a shot.

>>4496065
HP5 as other anon mentioned is pleniful and popular. Medium speed so it's versatile enough for anything that isn't the dead of night or indoors lit by a candle.
Kentmere 400 is basically HP5 with less silver that's relatively cheaper. Lower contrast but saves you a couple bucks while still being decent.
Kent 100 and FP5 are slower films that do better when light is plentiful.
You can save more money by buying cheapshit chinesum films like lucky SHD 400 but honestly they're a whopping step down from Kent to only save a few bucks.

I will be experimenting with analog unsharp masks soon.
Has anyone used these before?

File: DSC09273editSMBDR.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4496072
Fomapan is perfectly fine film. My advice would be to pick a film and stick to it for 10+ rolls. Learning how to shoot and develop a certain film will yield better results than trying a bunch of different ones right out the gate. If your photos on Fomapan suck they would've also sucked on something more expensive like tri-x.

>>4496259
The pics aren't so bad, but I will happily pay an extra buck or two for non curling film.

File: IlfordHP5demo.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

>>4496072
Foma is fine. I didn't notice any appreciable difference between Foma 400 and Ilford Hp5 in my tests on 120 film.

>>4494789
picrel is Fomapan 400. Through a Microcord TLR. Picture attached in Ilford HP5 through a Zeiss Ikon 515/2 (so remember there may be changes due to lenses here, I'll dig out a Foma 400 photo from the Zeiss).

File: Resized - Copy.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4496296
This was taken with the same Zeiss but with Foma 400.
All are straight lab scans.

File: Portra400ZeissIkon.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

>>4496297
And here is the same Zeiss Ikon but with Portra 400 just for fun.

Yes I know all of these are a little shaky, I was using a shit cheap tripod, I've replaced it since.

File: Image_20260202-175335465PM.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

Idk man I'm kind of loving this. Lomo'Instant Automat Glass.

File: DSC3390s.jpg (508.1 KB)

508.1 KB JPG

Long time lurker

>>4496072
foma is fine, just every now and then you'll get a roll with glaring manufacturing defects. And it's a pain in the ass to dev/scan because it curls, but if you're taking it to a lab that's somebody else's problem.
>>4495830
Even just autolevels would make a big improvement but these are some awful scans
>>4496196
I can't say I have but I salute your autism

How much chemical is recommended per tray for Paterson's 12x16in trays?

>>4496259
>>4496265
>>4496307
I see.
I just finished a the roll today and have one more left. Gonna drop it off at the lab tomorrow and see if I like the look of it. Though I think I'll still switch to HP5, just because it's more accessible to me.
>Learning how to shoot and develop a certain film will yield better results than trying a bunch of different ones right out the gate. If your photos on Fomapan suck they would've also sucked on something more expensive
Good point, I've only been shooting film for a bit over a year and it's been almost exclusively Kodak Gold and wanted to expand into a B&W film.
Also would love to try some CineStill 800T sometime down the line, but that's another story.

As for Foma's problems, I've read online that it can have poor archival quality and negatives fade after a while, but people on here said they haven't experienced that. Also some anon said that they recommend shooting it like an ISO 50 film, even though it's rated 100f or better results. But I'll see about that as soon as I get them developed.

Waiting on some scans that I’m convinced will be dogshit. I love this hobby

>>4496371
The scans may be garbage, but the prints you eventually make will be exceptional! You are planning to make prints one day, right?

File: Image_20260203-133812378PM.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4496301

File: _DSC3385 (big hd).jpg (843.4 KB)

843.4 KB JPG

>>4496305

>>4496371
For me it's the cost vs uncertainty of waiting tradeoff that's kinda annoying.
If I bring them to the lab, I'll get my scans sent by mail within a week but it'll cost me a pretty penny. Or I could let the drugstore develop them for pocket change but I'll have to spend a month checking in if they're done or not, because it's unpredictable how long they take and the online status has been unreliable lately.
I'm all for delayed gratification, but this is a bit ridiculous.

Gonna go to the lab tomorrow to get some film developed that I need asap, since it will tell me if my new camera works or not and I would like to see the results before I run another roll or two through it