/p/ — /fgt/ - Film General Thread

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

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

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

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

File: toiler4.jpg (1.35 MB, 1439x2054)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File: PXL_20260508_132752508~2.jpg (2.19 MB, 4080x3072)

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

>>4511317
what lenses do you use?

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

File: xg7minolta.jpg (223 KB, 1058x1077)

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

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

File: pixel_studio_20260526_23301528.jpg (563 KB, 1004x763)

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

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

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

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

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

>>4511315
experience of using scanners in general.

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

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

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

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

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

File: toiler7.jpg (451 KB, 1720x1140)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File: hp5-849.jpg (798 KB, 1720x2595)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does film last longer than digital storage media?

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

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

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

File: 20260528_110204.jpg (3.35 MB, 3000x4000)

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

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

File: Untitled (6)_1 1.jpg (2.21 MB, 2101x2567)

>>4511692
And here is the resulting picture.

Egg + bone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>4511737
Yeah, the aesthetics are lacking.

File: Untitled (55)_1 1.jpg (3.39 MB, 2683x2175)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File: gfxfgt.jpg (129 KB, 668x941)

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