/fa/ - Fashion

Finally shot and developed a Nishika roll.

>>6200
this is real nice, post more

Do you use Yellow filter for B&W ? Is it really usefull ?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490706169970"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>EPSON</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Perfection V700/V750</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>120 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>120 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:28 15:02:01</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Has anyone tried using the Unicolor C-41 Film Development Kit? Can it really be stretched to 30 rolls? Is it really as toxic as the label says? Any recommended alternatives?

>>6202
I do when I shoot foliage sometimes
>>6203
I use tetenal or whatever it is called. Pretty sure they're all toxic, just don't drink it

>>6204
Yeah. I looked at Tetenal on B&H. I can't seem to get it shipped. It's only available for in store pickup. Also it seems to have a prop 65 warning on it.

>>6202
If I'm shooting pan film in daylight.
With HP5 it gives you one more stop to play with, and a little more contrast without ruining skin tones.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490714645647"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:29 01:19:44</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/200 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-6.8 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Daylight</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>593</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6205
thats because freestyle ships it

>>>3041211
I'll try again, c&c please?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490715323202"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.9 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:17 22:46:03</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Jesus christ get over it. Its dead.

Hello what is good replacement battery for SP 675 mercury cell?

>>6203
I bet if you did all your rolls in a week you could stretch it, but casually deving over a longer period of time deteriorates the blix (I heard somewhere the developer can last longer but cause the blix is mixed it doesn't last as long) reheating the chemicals deteriorates them. I usually get my deving done in a day or two (10-12 rolls) then chuck it and mix a new one for my next set of rolls. Depends how much colour you shoot and honestly I haven't looked into it cause it's way fucking cheaper then going to a lab even only doing 12 rolls a box of Chem. supposedly the results you get back won't plummet as the chem deteriorates so if you have 30 rolls to dev, mix up your chem and keep deving till you get declining results. Like I said still cheaper then a lab if you have a dev tank, a thermometer and a sink.

>>6210
For what camera, I'd just google it desu, I got this.

What's the best light meter app for Android? They all seem like they have retarded clunky UIs and are plastered with ads, are there any decent ones that I'm missing?

>>6212
Its old cosina and i did some googling and seems like i need a cell that provides 1.35 V.
One site recommends wein cell batterys https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wein-MRB675-Non-mercury-Replacement-PX675/dp/B0002GVSWQ/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 but i was wondering if it would be possible to use some cheaper brands. Im totally noob in this situation

>>6214
Tbh it might be easier to get a different camera, I've used zinc air batteries on a Konica C35 and it worked fine, I think the meter read a little over so I just compensated with the iso setting. That was a while ago though. sorry not much help.

>>6213
I usually use a sekonic meter but in a pinch LUMU app worked fine, assuming it's for android.

>>6200
What settings did you use for the gif? I can never quite get it right for mine.

Nikon F3
Kodak Gold 200

>>6217

>>6217
huh, i expected more from a Nikon F

>>6219
just a snapshit and crappy lab scan

>>3047421

About the slow film, I was thinking of bringing a tripod and doing a long exposure.

Should I stick with velvia then, or do you have other slide suggestions?

I'll shoot the negative stuff first while i'm getting the hang of it since its so cheap, and make sure to use the flash if i'm going to any depth at all

Here's one from my point and shoot Yaschica with Carl Zeiss lens.

>>6222
goddamn, that is some beautiful color, what film?

You know, I got a question for you /p/:

Is it true still that you shouldn't travel and put your film rolls through the x-ray scanner? I apologize for my ignorance but I heard somewhere that it either messes up the film or something (urban myth or legend probably)

I ask because I've been thinking of bringing just film gear on a vacation for comfy feels. Thanks in advance.


... Oh! Also, any Canon lenses you would suggest for an FD lens user / "must shoot" film in 35mm ? 120 film? (Hasselblad 500C)

>>6222
How did it feel when you realised u got memed?

>>6222
Ektar 100. Here's another.

>>6225
I'm not sure I know what you mean.

>tfw its fucking HARD to find c-41 and e-6 chemicals in australia
FUCK

>>6226
>Ektar 100

mah boi.

This is from my first roll, and the scans were shit so was the dev, but my fuck, are the colours there.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490740018266"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>FUJIFILM Corporation</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Frontier SP-3000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>FUJIFILM Corporation FEII software</td></tr><tr><td>Maker Note Version</td><td>0130</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:06:12 11:57:54</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1228</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1818</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6219
A camera is a light tight box, you mongoloid.
Film and lense determine potential image quality, scan technique determines final image quality.
Classic /p/-style is to spend the most money on the least important link in the imaging chain, >>6217 and >>6218 demonstrate this perfectly.
>i just spent $300 on and olympus mjeme, whats the best scanner I can get for $100, anyone tried fomapan?

>>6230
it's gotta be a hard life to have to go tell people they are mentally challenged to prove a point. =)

>>6227
>>6226
>>6222
You may as well have shot through the bottom of a coke bottle m8. The outer third of the frame is fucked.

>>6224
have them hand screen it.

>>6213
LightMeter with the old school meter icon works great on my phone.

>>6216
200 milliseconds. And image order of 1 2 3 4 3 2 so it creates a back and forth loop. I used some online gif creator.

>>6217
>>6218
Good exposures and focus, but super boring images.

>>6221
Velvia would be OK.

>>6224
Don't put it in your checked bag and you'll be fine.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490741949647"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6224
>Canon lenses you would suggest for an FD lens user
The 35/2.8 and the 50/3.5 are real gems. Small, light, razor sharp. If you have a grand burning a hole in your pocket, the 85L is penomenal also.

>>6224
>"must shoot" film in 35mm
Agfa Precisa, Fuji Velvia, Provia, Superia (all speeds), Tri-X/HP5, Rollei Retro 80S. These films are all available new, and can give really stunning results. In 120, grain and sharpness don't really matter so much, so just shoot whatever gives you the colours or contrast you like.

>>6235
Hey! Thanks a lot! I'll look into those lenses and look around for those films. I''m Chicagoland based so I got options, and I believe if I look around LA and San Diego I'll find shops that carry that or some rare films as well!

Cheers!

>>6234

>>6233
So have them hand screened... Cool Thanks a lot!

>>6224
I've put film through the x-ray scanner and it's fine.

FD lenses-wise, the 28mm f2.8, absolutely tack sharp and superb. Are you in the UK? I'm selling one... *rubs hands*.

>>6238

No, sorry I'm in the states: Illinois

>>6203
Your pic related is a 2 liter kit. It is good for a decent bit more than 30 rolls. I've easily run 50 rolls through the same kit, though it carried the Unicolor label. And that is over a year and a half time span. Chems stored in plastic soda bottles, air squeezed out after each use. This shit is indestructible, no lie.

As to the toxicity, there are no c41 chems that are going to be less toxic. That said, treat these chems as you should treat any photo chems: use common sense and you will come to no harm. Incidental contact with the working solutions won't hurt you. I've been using the same microwave that I eat out of to heat the chems for the last 5 years and I feel better than ever. Do some research on how to dispose of the blix.

Come to think of it, I still have a 2 liter kit I mixed up around June 2015 sitting poorly stored in my closet. It has about 40 rolls through it. I will blow off a roll of Ultramax this week and see if it still works. All for you /p/ :)

>>6238
>>6235

I have a 50mm 1.8 and a 35-70mm 3.5 and they, you know...take photos, but I will look into this glass to get optimal sharpness.

>>6241
I have a 28mm 2.8 in great condition. $50 shipped and it's yours.

Pic related and >>6234 was shot using it.

Questions from a film beginner:

Pic related - kodak colorplus 200 35mm, cheap lab scan

Would a better scan improve the image sharpness e.g. the door or is it inherently like this due to the cheap film used?

Also I notice that when shooting plants hey have a sort of "wet" look like in the bush of pic related. Is there an explanation for it?

>>6240
For someone who doesn't have their hands on a kit, can you answer a few more detailed questions?

What's the basic rundown of the process? There's heating involved, as I can see from your post.

Is it easy to fuck up? I'd love to grab the E-6 kit but E-6 film is so expensive and most of my shit is no-longer-produced expired stuff. Don't want to ruin it making retard mistakes or messing up shit that requires fine tolerances and meticulous attention to detail.

>>6244
Oh, and last question:

When you reuse it, are you just pouring the liquids right back into the bottles, like re-bottling used stop/fix?

>>6202
It's really handy for turning cheap orthochromatic films into almost normal looking film if you're willing to lose a few stops' light.

>>6242
$50 huh?

PayPal work? How do I contact you with the info and such?

>>6242
Sent you a message on Flickr, hombre

>>6228
I know your pain, my dude.
I just ordered 2 1-litre Unicolor kits from burgerland. 21 shekels each, 25 for postage.
It'll take like a month to get here, but it's still cheaper than eBay.

>"This films is far too good for it’s intended use in cinematic photography!"

>"Quite simply this is one of the loveliest black & whites available, right up there with FP4 and Plus-X in fact some say it’s superior…..it holds great detail, sharpness and superb tonal detail."

>"For some reason it’s very popular with OLYMPUS TRIP USERS…the two go together like strawberries & cream!"

Top kek! I've lost it!

Are they trying to scam dumb hipsters or what?

>>6228
>>6248

https://www.thefilmbloke.com.au/

thank me later brodies

>>6243
This is just an extremely garbage scan. All 35mm film has way more resolution than what you posted.

Find somewhere else to develop and scan your film

Picked up the Nikon s2 with the 2.8cm, the 5cm f1.4, and the 13.5 cm all in mint condition and a roll of tmax. Does anybody have any tips and tricks shooting a s2? Or should I sell it all and buy a m3?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490752266400"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Huawei</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Nexus 6P</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>angler-user 7.1.2 NPG47I 3795619 release-keys</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:25 12:37:32</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/24 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Not Defined</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>524</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.0</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>4.67 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3024</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>4032</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6252
Sell it, get a Bessa R2, or a Contax G2

>>6210
Hearing aid batteries (675) are very close. They do deteriorate over time, even when not used. Let them 'breathe' for a while (15min) after peeling off the airtight tab before inserting

>>6253
Why? Also my rz67 mk ii seems to be malfunctioning. It constantly flashes a red light even though I ran through the check list from the manual and everything seems to be in working order

>>6255
Because.

Actually, fuck if I know. Do whatever the hell you want, it affects me in exactly zero ways. Smash it and post it up on youtube.

>>6207
Thanks, but 54 bucks for 12 reels? I think I'll just stick to Unicolor.

>>6246
>>6247
Messaged ya back on Flickr.

>>6250

>67 dollarydoos for a litre of Unicolor C41
>plus postage

Ya galah.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10123-Unicolor-Powder-C-41-Film-Negative-Processing-Kit-1-Liter

HEY FAGGOTS GUESS WHAT I SHOOT FUCKING FILM HAHAHA NO ONES GONNA STOP ME

I wish I could shoot with film, but I don't want to wait for development and I do not have access to a dark room.

>>6244
My comments above concern only the c41 kit. I have also used the liquid e6 kit from Freestyle, but I can't comment on yield or longevity because I don't shoot enough e6.

As to a process rundown for c41: plastic tank (better insulator), I do not use a water bath, heat chems in the microwave, 107F Blix, 103F Dev, prerinse tank with steady running water at ~104 for about a minute, when Dev drops to 102F pour into tank, 3:30 for fresh chems, agitate first 30secs then 2 inversions every 15 secs, pour out, dev will have lost 2 degrees in the process which is totally fine, no rinse, pour in blix, agitate first 30 seconds and routinely thereafter to a total of 8-10 mins. Pour out blix, rinse in running ~100F tap water for 3 minutes, then rinse in a bath of either photoflo or Flexicolor final rinse (FUCK that stabilizer that comes with the kit. Leaves crusty white shit all over the film.)

I've yet to ruin a roll of film with this method. I have underdeveloped, overdeveloped, undertemped, overtemped, it all comes out in the scan (within reason). And since there ain't nobody still doing c-prints with an enlarger, minor variances in development does. not. matter. It will all come out in the scan.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490756345592"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/4 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-2.5 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6261
Guess film isn't for you then.

You don't need a darkroom btw.

Forgive me if I fuck up the names of some of the below items, but I'm super new to photography. To the point, though. I came into a lot of gear recently from my aunt who used to shoot professionally. A pair of Nikon F100 bodies (plus another lower-end camera that escapes me), a Sigma 28-90mm D AF Aspherical lens, a Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di, and another telephoto which I can't recall the name of right now as it's upstairs someplace, as well as a nice tripod with pistol grip and some lighting gear. Meters, flashes, spotlights, that sort of thing. I bought some (7 rolls) drugstore Kodak Ultramax and Fuji Superia Xtra 400 to sort of get into the learning process. Problem is, I have no idea where to start with any of this stuff. I have a bare-minimum understanding of technical terms, so be gentle. What do I need to know and what should I keep in mind when I'm starting out?

>>6264
Do you know how exposure works?

>>6265

To an extent, but not anywhere near 100%. If I'm not way off, I grasp that film speed is the sensitivity of the film itself to light, shutter speed determines how long your aperture stays open and that the F Stop determines how wide it opens. As I understand it, you balance those two to get a good amount of light for a clear shot (I think the F100 assists in balancing as well) but I'm lost beyond that. Also, I should note that I haven't finished reading my user manual - figured I might need some more basic info before the depth of customization really makes sense to me. A few rereads are probably going to be in order.

>>6264
Grab one F100, put the 28-90mm on it, set the lens at 50mm and leave it there, put camera on P mode, work on focusing and composition and holding the camera still.

Did your aunt give you any darkroom gear, development tanks, chemicals, changing bags, etc? I mean, professionals used to shoot mostly slide back before digital came along, but there's an off chance. Mainly studying photography with film should happen with black and white, and maybe a scanner -- if you don't want to spend on a halfway nice digital compact or some such just to study the basics without the lab turnaround.

>>6252
I know who this is!

>>6267

Can do! I'll actually be going out tomorrow or over the weekend to shoot with a few friends. One of them has experience with film photography so I think he will be able to give a few pointers.

She didn't - if I recall, she had a friend who worked in a local lab (now closed) who would do special processing jobs for her. If I want to avoid drugstore mail-order labs, I think I'm stuck going to a lab that's about a half hour away - totally doable - or investing in development gear and learning to do it myself. I do have a Canon Rebel T4i with two of the bundled lenses on loan from family (indefinitely) that I can use to pick up on focusing and composition in general if that would be helpful, but I'm not on any time crunch as far as learning, so the lab turnaround doesn't really bother me.

>>6269
Immediate feedback ("chimping") is very helpful in the process of trying stupid shit, and you won't have to pay like half a dollar per frame. I'd suggest learning the major technical concepts on the rabble, since they'll be mostly the same on film as well.

On the other hand, the F100 is a lot better body than any rabal. So therein lies the rub. Anyway, if you do end up practicing with film, start taking notes on how you shot once you deviate at all from the "P mode, EC at 0, ISO set correctly" scheme.

Also, don't look at the sun through a SLR finder.

>>6252

>>6251

If my negatives were developed in a cheap lab, can a good quality scan still make a difference?

>>6271
that has to be the most awkward way to hold a camera ever.

what camera is this?

>>6272
see >>6230

After exposing colour neg film can you store it back in the fridge for a while before developing? If so how long before you would start to notice loss of quality etc

Im going to yodobashi in a week. What am I in for?

>>6277
A fuck ton of digital cameras and a tiny film section.

where can i get microfiber cloths for cheap?

Bronica users, specifically SQ-A, have you ever used a flash with it? I want to try some flash portraits, what would you recommend? I've read that I'll need manual flash and PC sync or using the grip. I was also looking for a trigger to go with the flash.

>>6280
I just use the speed grip and put a flash on it (ETRS)

>>6281
And you have any problems synching? Would a cheap auto speedlite, like those from yongnuo, work? Or does it have to be manual?

>>6282
No, I just use a slow shutter speed, 60 or slower. The one I use for the ETRS is an ancient AGFA flash, it always works. For some reason, my more modern flashes won't fit the hot shoe.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490797944110"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>samsung</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>SM-G901F</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>G901FXXS1CQA7</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Sensing Method</td><td>One-Chip Color Area</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>31 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3264</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1836</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Right-Hand, Top</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:29 16:32:09</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/124 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Normal Program</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>5.3 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>4.80 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3264</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1836</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Unique Image ID</td><td>F16USHD01SA</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Whats a good ISO film to start?

>>6284
400

>>6276
bump

>>6274
An old roll film Polaroid converted to 4x5.

>>6284
ISO 37,1. Don't go for the ISO 171 stuff people recommend because it reticulates so badly. You just need to watch out for bromide drag so tell the lab to stand develop it and cross process it and then scan it with a Noritsu Frontier and you should be good.

>>6284
6400 then work your way down to 0.05

>>6284
400 is the best place to start. Anything above 1600 is for shit light/being lazy.

>>6288

>>6288
kek

Anon who bought the shitty neg "scanner" from Lidl. I wisened up and scanned the prints I got from my local lab. I used the scanners I can use for free at my uni. (They have Epson DS-6500 which go up to 9600 dpi, lol)


<table class="exif" id="exif1490812590164"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Paint.NET v3.5.8</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:29 10:45:01</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6293
Looks decent, what film is this?

>>6294
Portra 160. 15 second exposure at f/3.5 (I think), First roll of film I've ever shot, so there was a lot of trash on that roll; out of focus, over-exposed and all that.

This one is from my second roll, Tmax 400.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490816147420"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:29 00:13:23</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6199
What are some decent compat cameras that shouldn't cost more than 20 €?

>>6284
Somewhere around 0.000001. It was good enough for Nièpce to start with, so it should be good enough for you

>>6293

I got bored.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490822433361"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:29 22:19:27</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2970</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2082</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6262
So do I need a Jobo monster for this shit or can it be done by hand?

I'm about to get my first MF camera (pic related). I got it for 81 eurobucks, and the seller assured me that everything should work properly.

Anything should I know before loading my first 120 roll into this Yashica ?

>>6293

Looks like some shitty place in France.
C'est ça ?

>>6277
Unfortunately not alot these days. Fuji some Kodak about whats available anywhere else but i guess natura is nice.

>>6279
>where can i get microfiber cloths for cheap

If you are in the states, Advance Auto and Auto Zone sell packs of like ten 14"x12" microfiber cloths for about 5 bucks. Look for them near the car wax section.

>>6299
You absolutely do not need a Jobo unless you plan to process more than 5 rolls a day. A patterson-style tank sized for how many rolls you plan to do at once is all you need. As I said, I do not use any water bath whatsoever with c41. I do, however, fill the sink with hot water when I do e6.

>>6199
Not really a poorfag here but just bought my first house so have other priorities to take care of first.

I want to get into medium format for less than $50 dollars if that is even possible. I would be willing to go up to $100 but I don't want to go much more. I would prefer something where I can control it fully manual. Any recommendations?

>>6303
i'm in canada
but i'll check out some auto shops here
why the hell do they have microfiber cloths?

>>6305
m8 your first two rolls of velvia will cost you more than that once you get them developed.
Ante up or choose a cheaper hobby.
That said, pic related is your best bet.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490831181220"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:10:20 14:18:36</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/100 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>1.1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>-0.3 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1500</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6307
I plan on self-developing anyway. I currently shoot a shit ton of 35mm b&w and film cost isn't that big of an issue. How are the brownie cameras? I've actually considered them just to be able to shoot medium format.

>>6295
I like it. The chain link fence actually improves it.

I just missed out on a 700$ CAD jobo lift kit. Mega fucking sad.

>>6308
The lense is fine, you just need to hold the camera still and get your exposure right.
I usually budget around f/19 and it's in the ballpark for neg film.

>>6276
bump

>>6276
You can, but I wouldn't advise that you do it for more than a year. I usually shoot 15 rolls and then develop them all at once since the chemicals for C41 dev go off pretty quickly, and I just leave the rolls just in room temperature. No problems yet

Modern emulsions are really stable, I wouldn't worry too much about colour shifts unless you plan on leaving the roll a few years

>>6305
Agfa Clack is your best bet. You can choose between two apertures and it doesn't have anything but 1/30s shutter time. So you'll get nothing extra out of MF, but it sure is <100usd


<table class="exif" id="exif1490845889180"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Google</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1600</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1067</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6305
Pick up a TLR or something like that.

You can pick up a Yashica Mat pretty cheaply, might cost you a little more than $100 but it's worth it. It's a fully featured camera, and pretty much just as good as the Rolleiflex that it's a knockoff of.

I wouldn't bother with any of these toy cameras you're being recommended, you're gonna be dissapointed after shooting manual 35mm cameras

>>6313
Alright thanks mate

>but I wouldn't advise that you do it for more than a year
Nah it wouldn't be that long, probably less than a month

>>6310
Ehh what do you need that for??

My first film rangefinder. How did I do?

>>6318
I have one of those, but the shutter sticks, so the results are... very artistic.

>>6298
Thanks, that looks a lot better this way. I just posted those the way they came out of the scanner. The only thing I did was lower the saturation a bit in the scanner settings.

>>6301
Germany actually. Bielefeld to be precise.

>>6309
Thanks! Might have been even better if I had hit the focus properly on that icy pipe, but I'm happy with how it turned out.

GA645+EKTAR
A
6
4
5
+
E
K
T
A
R


<table class="exif" id="exif1490869161307"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6321
the silhouette of ur qt's tt is the best thing about this
>tfw no longer have halfbreed white asian gf ;_;

>>6322
I'm more interested in what she's cooking, but I'm also pretty gay, so there's that. :^)

>>6323
it's scrambled eggs and bacon isn't it pal

your powers of deduction aren't so good hey

>>6324
If he thinks dicks are for sucking and boy butts are for fucking, he's clearly undergoing some cognitive impairment.

>>6324
Thought so at first, too, but a saucepan full of eggs isn't how I scramble mine.

>>6325
>>>/b/

Thoughts on the FED 5?

>>6328
Russian piece of shit. You honestly won't find one that's not broken in some way or another.

If you want a cheap rangefinder, buy a Canon P (or if you want a lightmeter, Canon 7). Infinitely better build quality, and you can still use all the leica thread mount lenses you wanted to use on the FED

How does the Epson V600 shatbed hold up nowadays for 120 film? How big a difference in quality between it and the V700/750?

I would prefer the V700/750 but no one on ebay sells them new, and the couple selling used overseas are so overpriced due to shipping cost that I'd be better off spending a bit more and buying a new V800 (I don't want to spend $850 on a scanner atm).

>>6330
I use a V600 for 120 and I'm quite satisfied with the results (for 35mm too). Don't think there's really that much of a difference between those 3 models desu

>>6322
T-thanks.

>>6326
Omelette yo

>>6330
DSLR scan is better if you already own a good digi. Otherwise yeah, just get a v600.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490879084326"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6332

this. I got laughed at early on in the days of DSLR scanning for some slides I posted but look, now everyone is doing it even camera shops are.

The jig isn't hard to fab up I have a picture somewhere. You'll need an external flash and a sync cord to illuminate the slide from behind. I made the whole thing from a small cardboard box. You will want to use a decent telephoto macro or 55mm macro if you have one.

>>6328

It's shit, that's coming from one of the biggest proponents of Soviet RFs on this board. FED2 is better and was built when the Soviet Union was competing with the United States to prove they could achieve German build quality on Communism without the need for capitalist pigs, and we all know how that ended. After 1970 Soviet QC fell off and went south like the Wehrmacht after getting their asses handed to them on a Mosin-Nagant in Stalingrad.

>>6331
Realistically what's the biggest you could print with good results?

>>6332
>DSLR scan
Yeah that's what I'm doing currently, but it's a real pain in the ass taking 6 images per photo then having to stitch them in lightroom, it's fiddly, real time consuming, and depending on what's in the photo it will sometimes refuse to stitch properly.

Since now I only using my dslr for scanning and metering, the idea was to sell it and buy a dedicated scanner along with a small, light and portable camera for metering (and in the off chance I want to shoot digi I can still use that)

>>6335
I don't really print 120, but I can get a usable A3 sized print from a good 35mm scan

>>6335
>taking 6 images per photo then having to stitch them in lightroom

Why in the hell are you doing that? I take a sine photo and then crop. If I ever need to print big I'll go back and rescan with the stock method.

Stitching every shot you scan is madness.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490881509035"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>6000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>4000</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:10 17:38:44</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>2.5 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-6.3 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Daylight</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>667</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6337
I like having a nice big scan to work with. When I did my first scan attempt I tried a single image per photo but the results I got were shit, and if something every happens to the original negatives then it's nice knowing I've still got a good scan. I don't know man, I'm an autistic fgt

>>6336
Alright that's good to know, cheers

>>6336
>I can get a usable A3 sized print from a good 35mm scan
Really? I felt I was pushing the scanners limits printing 12"x12" from 120. I used properly adjusted BetterScanning holders too.

>>6328
it's a rangefinder with a failure-prone cloth shutter, an acceptable set of shutter speeds and an abysmal viewfinder with zero framing/parallax indication. it's great as an entry level $10 RF to get an idea of rf workflow but that's about it. worth if for that price, completely not worth the bother for more. Everything beyond the shit viewfinder is subjective illogical hatred. you'll need a lightmeter to use it to its full extent, too.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490886372569"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SAMSUNG</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>SM-P605</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>P605XXUCNF2</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>32 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3264</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1836</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:09:16 10:45:59</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Normal Program</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>3.40 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3264</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1836</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

Thoughts on the CanoScan FS4000US? Most online reviews seem a bit old, anybody still use this scanner and have some sample images?

>>6341
where to cop that light meter?

>>6341
>nokia E2
god damn i loved that phone when i owned it, until the keyboard failed.. too bad it still costs around 100$ for one in good condition

Loaded some freezer stored Sensia 400 that expired in 2009. Going to use it at box speed because my camera only does full stops for ISO. What kind of tones should I expect from this film?

I just noticed something about the prints I got.
So, my local lab only develops colour film and they send in b/w film to a larger company. Normally, they'd just have the film developed there and do the prints themselves if customers (like me) ask for them. But the new guy/intern/whatever fucked up and forgot to write "develop only" on the bag and so the large, factory-style lab added their shitty prints.

I mean, look at this shit. The black bar on the righthand side isn't a wall or something, its the fucking transition to the next image.
I was 100% sure that I stood right in the middle of the hall when I took the shot...


<table class="exif" id="exif1490901260238"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.16</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>600 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:30 20:48:22</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6346
...and I did

>>6222
>>6226
>>6229
Okay guys, I must be doing something terribly wrong because this is what I'm getting out of DSLR scanning Ektar.

Tips?

My method is basically backlighing the film through a piece of semi transparent plastic with a flash and then I shoot the film using a telephoto lens with an extension tube at around f/11, exposing "to the right".

I surely must be doing something terribly wrong because my scans look like garbage.

Sorry for PNG.

>>6348
this is what the scan looks like before processing it raw


<table class="exif" id="exif1490902625340"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)</td></tr><tr><td>Photographer</td><td>PETER_WILKINS</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:30 20:36:58</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/160 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>135.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6347


<table class="exif" id="exif1490904224914"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2048</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1605</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:30 22:03:26</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1234</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>967</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6349
From your "raw".
>Curves alt+auto - > per channel contrast

Your neg is also underexposed.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490904531581"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Photographer</td><td>PETER_WILKINS</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:30 22:07:13</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/160 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>135.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>821</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1234</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6343
eastern Poland antiques streetmarkets, ex eastern bloc auction sites, local museums and skips.
>>6344
designated clock and mp3 player, infinite battery life

>>6351
>>Curves alt+auto - > per channel contrast
I knew about that, but I thought it looked pretty bad when I did that, or at least not as good as the many examples of ektar that i've seen in this thread.

Could it be this?:
>Your neg is also underexposed.
What do you mean by this? The picture in the film is underexposed or the picture I took of the film is underexposed?

thanks

>>6350
Thanks, anon. I think I'll pay my lab a visit tomorrow and see what they can do about it. Maybe a discounted set of prints or something.

>>6353
>underexposed
The film is almost transparent in the shadows >>6349

No detail. Try exposing ektar at ISO 50 instead. It will be denser, and slightly less contrasty, but you'll get good shadows.

>>6320
I think your original looked better desu

>>6333
Oh yeah, why don't you post some of those "early slides" so we can all have a laugh again, Sugar?

>>6341
What is the ground made of in this photo, slavshit?

>>6345
>What kind of tones
>K Y S
>Y
>S

What is all the hype about the Makina 67 about? Is it actually worth $1500?

>>6355
Thank you. After fucking around with it I got to this point which seems okay (not amazing still) to me.

I will expose Ektar at ISO 50 next time. Is this a thing with Ektar (or new Ektar)?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490908574565"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

I was running my finger around the rim of my lens as I hiked because I have autism and I like the feeling of the grooves. But then it unscrewed a bit and thats how I discovered that my camera has had a Skylight Filter on it this whole time and I never knew.

>>6361
Color negatives in general does not like being underexposed. Ektar even more so, for some reason.

>>6361
this one looks better


<table class="exif" id="exif1490908799302"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6361
DSLR cuck scanner here.
I concur that your neg is parlously underexposed.
Your scan is underexposed too, however.
It's fine to let the sprocket holes blow out, you want to get the neg itself as close to clipping as possible.
Also, working on your raw file, you want to normalise the colour there as much as possible, by adjusting your white balance (if the range of adjustments in your raw converter make this possible) or curves(if necessary). When you need to massively increase the contrast, like in your scan, this will give you less blocking, banding, whatever.

I wouldn't necessarily encourage you to shoot your Ektar at 50, you will get good results if you meter properly for 100. Consistently underrating your film is more like a "hack" that relies on the overexposure latitude of neg film to stop you from underexposing it no matter what fuckery your meter does, but in a lot of scenes you're just throwing away a stop of shutter speed. What camera were you using? A centre weighted meter should have given more exposure in this scene.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490910220260"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td>Photographer</td><td>PETER_WILKINS</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:31 07:31:03</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/160 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>135.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>545</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6365
>What camera were you using? A centre weighted meter should have given more exposure in this scene.
Thanks for the detailed answer m8. I'm pretty sure it was an EOS 100/Elan. I was probably using Evaluative (the one that measures the whole viewfinder, not sure what name it's got) which I usually get away with using my dslr but clearly didn't quite work using film...

I've been messing around a bit more and came with a workflow that's giving me some pretty nice (I like them so I'm happy) colors.

Also I see that there is quite a lot of difference in how each of us has scanned my frame. For me obviously the one that looks the best is >>6361 the one I made since I was there and that's what things were looking like (it was -4C and about to snow like crazy, pic related). Is this usually how it's done, by eye?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490911528281"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6366
more decent colors


<table class="exif" id="exif1490911596431"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6367
and this'll do with flooding this thread with my photos


<table class="exif" id="exif1490911765772"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6354
By the way, is it normal for lab prints to only cover around 90% of the negatives?

I noticed that on the other roll I've had developed as well. To be fair, those prints were only 9x13, so I'm guessing they should naturally have some stuff missing left and right.
But with regular 10x15 prints that shouldn't be the case, right? I noticed that on almost all of the prints; the example in >>6346 is just the most extreme case.

>>6366
I would usually avoid using a matrix-type meter, because you really have no idea what it's trying to do. (what it's really trying to do is stop you blowing out slide film)
The Elan lets you select centre weighted metering, and has an exposure lock button on the back shoulder, that's how I shoot it.

And of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. They're your photos, you decide how they look.

>>6369
good, good.
let the labcucking flow through you...

>>6370
Thanks again, very helpful.

We'll see how the next roll of Ektar turns out, I'll be travelling to Norway soon.

>>6349
>>6351
I tired too. I'd say the worst part is that you're letting in stray light on the right side of the negative. Also like everyone else said the negative is underexposed quite a bit. Also we only have a jpg so editing is further fucked.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490915502807"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)</td></tr><tr><td>Photographer</td><td>PETER_WILKINS</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>2000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1333</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:30 17:08:36</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/160 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>135.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1094</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1622</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6373
Also looks like you're getting lens fall off on the wide edges of the negative too, results in a "bokeh" look/ slight vignetting.

Filmfriends, all this time I've been inverting my Paterson universal tank for agitation. But I recently noticed the instructions say "_or_ open tank with lift rod agitation"

Does this mean I can just agitate using the rod? I feel like an idiot, spilling blix all over the place during inversions. What's the best manner to agitate using the rod? Spin in one direction? Forcefully turn left and right?

>>6375
Well m8 I don't think it matters too much just don't attach a fucking drill to it and spin it 1000rpms. I'd imagine a nice left spin right spin would suffice, that's what i've done in the past.

>>6337
I'm a fan of your work, what lens do you use with your A7 to scan film?

>>6319
>Artistic

You mean light leaky and over all shitty?

>>6346
>>6347
>>6350
>getting a lab to process your B&W

you asked for this

>>6377
Thanks buddy. I use a Canon FD 50mm macro.

>>6379
Care to elaborate? That was literally my second roll of film I've ever shot.
And it's hardly my fault if the new guy is too dumb to write "develop only" on the bag, even though I even overheard his boss tell him to do exactly that, because he knew the prints would turn out crap.

>>6375
Blix is good for your skin, don't worry about it.
Also, you can properly seal your paterson with some selastiky schmoo, they leak around the join of the red and black plastic, usually the lid is pretty fine.
I always invert because simply rod twirling doesn't induce any top to bottom convection in the chemicals.

Also, I found in my bulk purchased pile of darkroom gear some old design Patersons, they seem much more skookum. All seams to the atmosphere are thickly gasketed. Rinse water doesn't flow freely out of them though.

I realized I'm a idiot because I've been shooting my rz67 without the proper finder mask. Can someone explain to me how to change it?


<table class="exif" id="exif1490921138196"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Google</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:13 20:05:04</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3035</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2035</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2035</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>3035</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6382
>selastiky schmoo
>skookum

What the hell are you saying

>>6381
I'm just saying that processing B&W film is stupidly easy, and getting it done at a lab is the equivalent of buying bottled water. If you're just getting into film don't worry about it

>>6375
The problem you are experiencing is pressure build up in the tank due to the blix reacting with the leftover developer. If you did manage to get your tank to perfectly seal, it will blow the lid off. You can either learn to burp the tank, or do what I do: invert normally in the development stage, and just swirl the tank occasionally in the blix stage. Blix is done to completion, so accurate agitation is not necessary.

>>6384
He's an AvE aficionado. I'm surprised there was no chooching.

>>6384

>he doesn't watch AvE

almost feel bad for you my man.

>>6288
underrated post

>>6337
provia has never looked this bad

>>6362
lmao

>>6390
its the dslr cuck scan "look".

>>6390
what did he mean by this


<table class="exif" id="exif1490932389622"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>6000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>4000</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:31 10:33:19</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>4 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-7.1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Cloudy Weather</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>667</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6341
>>6334
>>6329

I was only gonna get one because there's an unopened one still in box at my local camera shop for around $50. I've got a real small budget so I think it's ideal to get me into rangefinders.

>>6393
he meant provia usually looks good but >>6337 made it look uggo

>>6199

What is the recomended Minolta body for a first time film (well first time since messing with my dads old nikon back in the 90s) user?

Leaning toward X-700.

Cherry blossoms start soon, so I wanna give it a shot.


<table class="exif" id="exif1490937333464"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>E-10</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop 7.0</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/2.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2005:05:21 21:13:14</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/25 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/4.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Aperture Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>36.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>700</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>464</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6396

Can't go wrong with an x700.

>>6365
>>6364
fuck, why isnt this a diptych printed out in a largd format on a gallery wall yet
>>6358
you're mum

>>6396
X-500, XG-M and SRT-series

>>6399

Looks like X-500 is the same thing as the X-700 but just with some quality of life improvements.

Am I wrong? Does it lack anything the X-700 has?

>>6396
I'd personally recommend a full manual one like the SRT-101 since I had an XG1 just randomly die on me before. Was decent before that though

>>6401

I know this is heresy, but I was tempted by the P mode on the X-700. I have a basic understanding of how exposure works, but it takes time for me to figure it out. While full manual would be great when I am out shooting by myself, I wouldn't be able to use it when out with my wife if I couldn't shove it into a P mode and not worry. Manual focusing old lenses on my mirrorless already stretches patience.

>>6402
You shouldn't give a fuck what mode you're "supposed" to shoot in.

>>6402
the XG1 has an Av mode

>>6400
Yes.
The X-500/570 is better because it lets you use the meter in manual mode. The X-700 doesn't have any real benefits. Plus the meme tax

>>6322
>talking about actual human beings like this

>>6405

I can't find either at any shops locally (Kyoto, Japan).

But yea, the 500 is half the price of the 700 on ebay.

>>6406
Well women, at least. "People" is a bit of a stretch for something that doesn't work or vote or think.

>>6321
Did you make her eat all those eggs?

Recently obtained a bunch of expired films.
First roll I'd like to shoot is pic related, Kodak Royal Gold 25.
It's about 18 years expired. Any recommendations? From what I've read, this film sadly doesn't keep well.

>>6321
how do you like that camera? hows the autofocus?

>http://hugostudio.com/tlr--large-format.html#!/~/

Anyone here ordered some replacement leather from link related? Just wanting to know what the quality is like, especially over an extended period of time.

>>6218
oh hey it's <this shot> again

posting from my first roll of kentmere 100

1/3


<table class="exif" id="exif1490985362144"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>674</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6414
2/3


<table class="exif" id="exif1490985434951"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>674</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6415
3/3


<table class="exif" id="exif1490985509950"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>674</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

test

>>6410
Rule of thumb says 1 stop overexposure per decade past expiry; in your case you'd expose it at ISO 6 and hope very hard.

I've got a 120 roll of Fujicolor 100, expired in 1989, got the olympic rings and everything. Waiting for the sunny days.

>>6413
At least you caught a bifurcated one.

>>6406
You sound like you're ugly and smell bad.

>>6417
Yes, even faggots can post in this thread.
>>6418
You haven't lived until you've bifurcated one of these >>6321

>>6388
>>6387
Post your skookum choochers + the cock for dolly
>pic related

>>6348
Inverted
Auto colour/tone
quick curves pulling the green and blue to get rid of excess cyan

its quick and dirty but its a start to the process
also expose the neg a bit more, youll get it eventually


<table class="exif" id="exif1491002393458"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 7D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td>Photographer</td><td>PETER_WILKINS</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/5.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:23 16:19:01</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/160 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/11.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Center Weighted Average</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>135.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>Uncalibrated</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1065</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1617</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6393
still looks like shit and not at all like provia retard
but I guess sonyggers wouldn't know what real colour is

I got one roll of film left, what should I get next?

>>6422
Not him, but fuck you. Post up your "proper" Provia. Matter of fact, post up any scan of yours that comes close to the quality of that scan. You can't. All I'm going to get from you is more butthurt waaaaaaaaaaaaaa it dont look like provia waaaaaaaaa. KYS

>>6419
well post away brother
what's that got to do with me though

>>6422
So does this look like Kodachrome out of a 110 instamatic shot in 1980???? No??? Well it looks fucking exactly like this on the light table. You disagree??? kys


<table class="exif" id="exif1491008088000"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/4 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-3.1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2100</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6423
Acros 100 is the pinnacle of modern smooth high resolution T-grain and Tri-X is the perfect classic film. Everything else is redundant, and color is for amateurs.

>>6426
>ILCE-6000
kys my man.

>>6407
Did you try Camera no Naniwa? I also see those cameras in the bins at Hard Off all the time. Whether they work or not I'm not sure.

>>6408
She probably makes more $$$ at her government position than you do bud.

>>6409
We shared <3

>>6411
It's fan-fucking-tastic. Hasn't missed focus once out of 3 rolls so far. No complaints, going to load it up with slide next and see how well it meters. I've read it should be no problem. The AF is loud as fuck tho.

>>6422
*Giggles* but it's expired anon, I even got an explanation back from the lab saying so.

>>6422
Also, I know this is what Provia looks like, silly.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491008611363"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>4000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>6000</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:01:27 22:19:00</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>2.5 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Shutter Priority</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-7.5 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Cool White Fluorescent</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6428
Nice comeback. The a6000 captured this slide as good as any consumer grade film scanner could do. Tones, shadows and colors match the light table. What part of this bothers you so bad?

>>6427
>color is for amateurs
damn...

>>6429

>camera no naniwa

I checked their site some more. They have 700s, but no 500s. I will go check local store later today, but I am pretty sure everything is listed on the web.

And I dunno about hard off, but at camera no naniwa the bin is all junk stuff.

Honestly these bodies are so expensive, I am tempted to just get a Minolta a7 so I can use modern a-mount AF lenses.

>>6433
Ask the person working at Naniwa about other used camera stores in the area. They have a little map they can give you showing a few other stores. There's one along the Kamogawa about ~10 minutes away iirc. Have you looked into just buying off yahoo auctions (assuming you live here)?

Here's a Provia 400X scan with 'true colors', maybe? Waiting for Mr. Expert for confirmation.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491009658879"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-7</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length (35mm Equiv)</td><td>0 mm</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>6000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>4000</td></tr><tr><td>Number of Bits Per Component</td><td>8, 8, 8</td></tr><tr><td>Pixel Composition</td><td>RGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:10 17:36:57</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>2.5 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/0.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-6.6 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Daylight</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>0.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1000</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>667</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6432
I'm mostly just kidding because I don't have a darkroom setup for color. I'd love to do some color but then I couldn't print it and I'm too lazy to scan and invert that shit.

>>3049317
No that's a Bessemer converter. Nice photo though, where did you take it?

>>6435
Sadly I have no darkroom at all. I am looking for Black and white too though so thank you

Is this too good to be true?
>in canadian dollars
>seller in Albany, New York
>hasn't sold anything in over a year

>>6436
Whoops, the deleted shot didn't match the light table. Had to adjust. Wouldn't want to not look like Provia.

But as to your question, that Bessemer sits in Station Square in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491011546276"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/60 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>1.1 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>933</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6439
>steampunk_R2D2_with_beret.jpeg

>>6436
>>6440
This is a horrible picture, but here's more "objets d'art" from Station Square.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491012593957"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/60 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>1.0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>2100</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6438
Sure that's not price per roll? Some sellers are tricky like that.

>>6441
"objets d'art"? They're milestones from the Industrial Revolution. The steam hammer was essential for larger and more streamlined smithing work during the 19th century

>>6442
I don't think so, tempted to just give it a try considering the ebay/paypal refund policy.

>>6443
I won't argue your point. But these little pieces of art are the only thing left of a once great powerhouse of an industrial giant of a city. We are not referred to as rust belt inhabitants for no reason.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491014233157"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/40 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>0.4 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>933</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6445
I know, I'm just being a pedant. Nice photos!

>>6434

I didn't see any on yahoo auctions either when I looked.

Gonnahesd out to camera no naniwa in a few. Will see what they have to say.

>>6438
dont do it.

>>6445


<table class="exif" id="exif1491016072727"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:04:01 00:07:24</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1400</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>933</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

How 'bout some Ultramax?


<table class="exif" id="exif1491016848157"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Capture One Pro (for Sony) 10.0 Windows</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>300 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/10 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-0.8 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

What should I check out on a film body before buying?

How do I check it out?

>>6451
What camera? Generally check if light seals are rotten, put a battery in it and see if everything lights up and turns on, check by ear if the slow shutter speeds sound like they're right especially if it's mechanical, check if the shutter curtains are damaged. Mount a lens on it make sure the aperture stops down when the shutter fires.

Light seals rot eventually and replacing them is easy it's not a big deal, walk away from anything with damaged shutter curtains though.

>>6450
calibrate ur eyes my bro.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491017837467"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>72 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:04:01 00:36:03</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>1200</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6452

X-500 if I can find one.

I'd trust camera no naniwa's description, but not some other random place if I have to go find one.

>>6453
Ah, you didn't like my cyan skies. I don't blame ya. I reworked and came up with some purples in the bottom which I think I like. In the end, I'm really impressed what can be had from such a cheap film.


<table class="exif" id="exif1491019111289"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>SONY</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>ILCE-6000</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Windows)</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum Lens Aperture</td><td>f/1.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>240 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2017:03:31 23:57:46</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/10 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Brightness</td><td>-0.8 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Pattern</td></tr><tr><td>Light Source</td><td>Other</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Hard</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>6448
you're probably right, I just stumbled upon more stuff that seems too good
>melbourne stock
>ships from italy

>>6438
>58 sold
>absolutely 0 feedback as seller
I mean everything screams scam but honestly you can't go wrong trying. You spend $9, if you get scammed then you're 100% guaranteed to get your money back from ebay

>>6457
this has been happening since last year or even more. they use more plausible names now, they used shit like chingchong989.58958695 before. yes, you get the money back but whats the point on throwing away money on a boomerang.

>>6458
So what do they actually send you, just a single roll?

>>6459
they send nothing you dummy.

>>6434

This is the Naniwa online listing, had no chance to go today.
>http://cameranonaniwa.jp/shop/goods/search.aspx?pb_tree=A5A0&pb_filter3=MKR018&search=x&pb_search=x

Might try tomorrow.

>>6444
>>6442

Wait you can refund if you get tricked like that?
I bought expired fucking fujifilm for 5 bucks a roll because in the pic and the title it was about "5 rolls of Fujifilm" but in the huge description that whore wrote that she's selling them individually for the price.

I'm still furious about this

>>6199
>mfw /fgt/ is actually for /fa/gs now

Threadly reminder that HP is SHIT!
SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!

>>6199

How easy is it to replace this stuff? Do like replacement kits exist for common models? How bad must it get before it is a problem?

And what the fuck is the English word for it?

>>15399
Mirror bumper foam is what you seek. Buy a complete seal kit. Search for Jon Goodman. He used to sell on ebay, but no longer does. As of last year, he still sold kits if you contacted through email. Top quality seals, and they fit perfectly. He is in the states and I am not sure if he ships overseas.

>>6450
>ywn have ultramax in 120

>>15915
thankfully.

>>15399
I get mine from Aki-Asahi. Great price, friendly guy.
There's a pre-cut kit for a ton of different cameras and you get the whole sheet so if you don't mind cutting yourself you can cut out new seals for at least another ~5 cameras.

>>15918
get out

>>15325
HP5 shit? Why?

>>15399
It's the malt plane, baby.
(it's for some reason a total japlish bastardisation of the word "moltoprene" which stuck)

>>15915
iktf but for Superia


<table class="exif" id="exif1491084403810"><tr><td colspan="2">Camera-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Equipment Make</td><td>Canon</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Model</td><td>Canon EOS 550D</td></tr><tr><td>Camera Software</td><td>GIMP 2.8.14</td></tr><tr><td>Firmware Version</td><td>Firmware Version 1.0.8</td></tr><tr><td>Serial Number</td><td>1132529712</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Name</td><td>EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Image-Specific Properties:</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr><tr><td>Image Orientation</td><td>Top, Left-Hand</td></tr><tr><td>Horizontal Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical Resolution</td><td>350 dpi</td></tr><tr><td>Image Created</td><td>2016:07:11 16:25:36</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Time</td><td>1/125 sec</td></tr><tr><td>F-Number</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Program</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>ISO Speed Rating</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Lens Aperture</td><td>f/8.0</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Bias</td><td>0 EV</td></tr><tr><td>Flash</td><td>No Flash, Compulsory</td></tr><tr><td>Focal Length</td><td>100.00 mm</td></tr><tr><td>Color Space Information</td><td>sRGB</td></tr><tr><td>Image Width</td><td>531</td></tr><tr><td>Image Height</td><td>800</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Scene Capture Type</td><td>Standard</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Focus Type</td><td>Auto</td></tr><tr><td>Metering Mode</td><td>Partial</td></tr><tr><td>Sharpness</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Saturation</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Contrast</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>Shooting Mode</td><td>Manual</td></tr><tr><td>Image Size</td><td>Unknown</td></tr><tr><td>Focus Mode</td><td>One-Shot</td></tr><tr><td>Drive Mode</td><td>Timed</td></tr><tr><td>Flash Mode</td><td>Off</td></tr><tr><td>Compression Setting</td><td>Fine</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Timer Length</td><td>10 sec</td></tr><tr><td>Macro Mode</td><td>Normal</td></tr><tr><td>White Balance</td><td>Custom</td></tr><tr><td>Exposure Compensation</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Sensor ISO Speed</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td>Color Matrix</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"></td></tr></table>

>>16572
but there is superia 120. theres even proimage 100 120, looks awesome.

>>16211
ultracuck is trash.

How do you film-guys get your shots to a digital format? Am I just retarded?

>>16603
by using a flatbed scanners.

goofballs will use sumetimes the cumbersome dslr ""scanning"" method.

>>16616
Alright, thanks

>>16587
>but there is superia 120
Not any more.

>put cinestill 800 through an airport (carry on) scanner

how fucked am i

>>16572
i also have that feel

>>16591
It has great colors faugette, its only downside is its excessive grain. on MF that would be eliminated

>>16565

Yea, local store has a bunch listed as ﾓﾙﾄ劣化 which means Molt degredation. They are extremely cheap, so I assume it is a pain to replace.

Couldn't figure out the English word from molt.

Ultramax is shit. Insane grain.

>>16990
You'll be fine.

What ya'll shooting today? Depending on lighting I'm either pushing Tmax 400 or Provia 400X to 1600.

>>6199
/fa/ here, why is that film in what appears to be a refrigerator?

>>17042
moltopren. its the material of which old lightseals were made of.

>>17050
film has a date of expiry, at which it doesnt die but it starts degrading. you can prolong its useful life if you store it in a cold environment (such as a fridge).

>>17080
Makes sense, very wise.