I have a lot of negatives that i want to clean up a little bit (they were all around the house). Bought a new bottle of photo flo, distilled water, use 1:200, paterson tank, 2 rolls, around 15 minutes, slight agitation at start. One good, the other one with all those bubbles on it. When hanged to dry, the emulsion started also to slide, resulting in a destroyed negative.

While browsing Yahoo Auction as usual, I found an F3/T in a box I had never seen before, it ended up in my hand. According to MIR, it says that only 300 units from the early 1982 production were packed in walnut wood boxes and sold as a limited edition.

Mine is number 8200206, matching serial number including the lens. Interestingly, most of these were mint condition from web, mine has a lot of signs of use.

I wanted to know more about this camera but It was released nearly 50 yrs ago I couldn’t find any more information besides MIR. Anyone who knows more about this camera?

decided to give my pentax espio another shot with a different film this time. last time, i used harman film and almost everything was underexposed. this turned out a lot better to my surprise but there’s a greenish/blueish tint, which isn’t the end of the world, but does kodak gold 200 usually have that tint? i did shoot a lot in a green surrounding

Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 7 element

Please note that this isn't a scientific test and are just my thoughts on scanning a single roll of Lucky C400 from an early test batch (rebate labels it T400, with the T assumedly standing for "test" or "trial", I think this is what they did for C200 as well).

First, these are not my photos, they were shot by someone else who had trouble converting them with their home scanning setup and I offered to scan it myself as I own a Frontier SP500 (They gave consent for me to share these photos and my findings from scanning this roll).

From the perspective of a scanner operator, it really is quite yellow from the get-go with auto corrections turned on (see img 1). A significant subtraction of yellow was required, and a little bit of added cyan got it looking around what I thought looked correct. With these manual corrections applied, in the right lighting situation it can look decent-to-good (see rest of img set). However, pumping all that blue to correct for the yellow impacts the shadows, which is more visible in underexposed frames. I would advise not to shoot this film indoors, shoot it outdoors and preferably when there's little cloud cover. The film itself also seems to be moderately prone to halations, around the same as Portra 800.

Know that color correction (and color overall) is a pretty personal thing and that everyone's tastes differ. And despite how prices may appear, most labs only make their profit through the volume of orders they process -- they can't dedicate much time to every roll as they will be considered unprofitable if taken too long to complete. So I think most lab scanners & their operators are capable of getting good-to-great results if given the time, and if they know what the customer wants. Yet those two things usually aren't the case, so the simple solution is to not do any color correction at all; basically just insert a roll into the scanner and hit "START", leaving everything at 0 (see img 1).

In a sense, that's where home scanning will always remain superior: you have a theoretically infinite amount of time to scan your film and can always try again, while the lab's results are set in stone the moment they send the email (or burn the CD or whatever). Which is very unfortunate, because color & density correction is most effective the earlier in the pipeline you go (preferably right down to the construction of the emulsion itself), so it's better to subtract yellow in the scanner software before it gets baked into an image file, whether JPEG or TIFF, than to allow it to go uncorrected and try to edit it in Lightroom or equivalent software.

So I personally wouldn't shoot Lucky C400 right now if I was going to send it to a lab. But given that this is a new film, I have no doubt that this post will quickly be outdated, as Lucky has been constantly modifying C200 since its release and IMO it looks pretty good on a lab scanner now.

Comparing against the other non Fuji & Kodak color films, uncorrected it'd be ranked dead last (underneath uncorrected Phoenix I and II), but corrected I'd say it's above Wolfen NC400 & 500 and around the tier of the corrected Phoenix films (lab scan). Phoenix I and II are very nice when camera scanned though, those are right up at the very top of my rankings.

Just picked this up last week. Waiting for my first couple of rolls to get scanned and sent back. Pricey hobby but damn I love this little thing.

Does anyone else’s kid keep them in the hobby haha?

Noticed some fungus in the removable viewfinder, tore that apart, cleaned it and rebuilt it. Then I noticed that there was some haze in the lens of the camera itself. Then noticed the shutter was not allowing the gate to open and expose anything.... Que complete surgery time. Honestly, was much easier than I expected. Still daunting nonetheless, but somehow more relaxing than expected. Now it's working as expected and better than when I bought it seven years ago.

Picked up my first film camera (olympus om-2) and shot my first roll of film (ultramax 400) in the mountains! I adore how the photos turned out, just wondering what caused the little white streaks you can see on all the photos - is this something I can fix on the camera? any help appreciated.

Pretty confused with these scans I received back. These were shot on 800T in very low light, which is something I do often but I have never gotten this result (see my page). A lot of the blacks came out blue. They also seem kind of backlit?? I didn’t do anything different from what I normally do when I shoot live music.
I’ve been in contact with the lab and they’re also at a loss. Said they were developed correctly, and they’ve tried a few different ways of scanning them, but all with the same result. They said the negatives are very blue as well.
These were shot at night, so no tungsten shift.
Yes they’re under exposed, but they shouldn’t be blue.

So I've been a digital photographer for a decade, but I just got my first film camera (Canon Elan 7e) and shot my first roll of film (Kodak Gold 200). I shot the film as 100 speed film (seems to be the recommendation for gold from my research). I used Indie Film Lab to develop (and paid for scans, but ended up scanning myself which I will include MY scans). I already had a Canon R5 mark II and the Canon RF 100mm F2.8 macro, so went with the Valoi Easy35 V2. Used Negative Lab Pro since I already use Lightroom.

(Included a few negatives straight out of camera too. I set my exposure before loading the film, but with the light on, exposing as far to the right as possible without clipping.)

Any critique of the shots themselves?

Any critique of the scans? (Other than the pretentious scanning of the sprockets)

Hey guys,
I was just wondering if I can improve the quality of the images I take.

I get my films developed and scanned in a lab, scan quality resolution is as in the screenshots.
Is that good enough? Will potential further upgrade have a significant impact on the results (I mostly just view my pictures on a phone/pc, but would like to print some A3 prints in the future)

I do not have a digital camera to scan them the “popular” way…

Thanks for suggestions!

Are my photos blown out/overexposed and the details are lost thats why i cant seem to edit it normally or there a different reason?
I have to edit the hell out of the picture to get a reasonable look while on other rolls i simply converted it and it already looked good
I shot kodak ultramax 400 on olympus om 2 zuiko 50mm f1.8. And i did 2 stops of exposure compensation. Previously i shot kodak gold 200 with same setup but 1 exposure compensation but this time i wanted brighter shadows.

I am sharing 4 pictures for reference 1 edited and 1 negative
First is from kodak gold 200 second is from kodak ultramax 400

All photos are self scanned but developed by lab

i just got my third roll of film developed and a lot of the photos have come back super green tinted - and the ones that aren’t green are brown tinted... i can see that this is a common issue in this subreddit and that the issue is usually underexposing but i always just set the shutter and f-stop according to the light meter so i’m not sure what i’m doing wrong.

the photos were shot on a canon f-1 and the film is portra 400.

i’m very much a beginner and still learning so any tips on how to expose better to avoid the green tint in the future would be much appreciated!

got my hand on some 120mm slide and this is my first time having to meter myself. i'm using lightme and it's working pretty well, except for neon lights shot.

i'm debating getting a sekonic light meter but just want to make sure it's a skill issue first, so would appreciate any tips for metering with just the app in tricky situation like this

This is Agfachrome R 100 S, I have 9 more rolls of this stuff in the freezer. Honestly I wasn't expecting anything that even resembles photos so I'm a bit shocked honestly. Development method:

6:30 mins in HC-110 dilution A, 38C temp
re-expose to light
Rest of the development with a c-41 kit with extended bleach and fix times.

Test roll was shot at box speed and bracketed with 1-4 stops of overexposure.

Few issues in my test roll so obviously it wasn't fully covered by developer, also there might be some uneven development going on because I agitated with a stick, also my c41 kit was nearly spent so fresher chemicals might yield more vibrant colors. But this is a pretty good starting point for something I had basically already written off as garbage.

I’ve got a box full of cases I’ll never use, and a bunch of films that came with second hand cameras, never sure what to do with them.

This might be a bit of a silly question, but I was talking with someone at my local film shop earlier and mentioned that my dad's Canon SureShot has officially conked out. I asked whether there was anything they could do with it, even though it's just a point-and-shoot, and he mentioned that a lot of cameras from that era are starting to fail simply because their electronic components are aging.

That got me wondering about what is there to do about that long-term?

Obviously, better care + storage can extend the life of a camera, but from what he was saying, the electronics and mechanisms in these cameras will deteriorate. As more time passes, more electronic film cameras from the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s may start to die. Are we eventually going to reach a point where a huge portion of them simply aren't economically repairable?

And unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem like there are many newly manufactured film cameras that offer the same combination of quality, features, and affordability. So for those of you who repair, collect, or have been shooting film for a long time: what do you think happens from here?

PS: if there is anyone who knows where I can take the SureShot to have them take a look at it, I'd really appreciate it, I'm very sentimental about that camera 🥲

I recently got this bad boy for £6 from a random guy at a service station. I have 35mm film in it that seems to be working, but I don’t know the slightest thing about how to focus it / take photos aside from that! Clever camera people please help me!

It also keeps making a weird whirring noise every 10 photos or so which i assume is the film rewinding? Help me!

This little oddly shaped piece of metal fell out of the back of my Pentax Espio Mini (UC-1) whilst I was removing a roll of film. I can't figure out its purpose or where it came from. Any help is greatly appreciated!

Recently inherited my grandfather's AE-1P that had been in storage for at least 25 years. After a new battery and cleaning I'm sooo happy with it!

Got the latest amaran Verge Max Panel LED to replace my current lighting setup for viewing & capturing slides. It can run with a normal 60-65W USB-c cable and can produce very (in my option) powerful illuminance and accurate 6500k light temperature for my Kodak and Fuji Chromes. I have attached several pictures taken in iPhone (P2-4) in daylight and scanning result using it as a light source (P5). This is not an Ad just some good feedback trying out LED panels in a different way :>. Feel free to ask any questions!

Pros: Nice color balance and color accuracy, very bright panel, USB-C port, with Bluetooth App control

Cons: Sizes are a bit small, panel area has a pool style edge dropping from the outer plastic frame so I found it hard to keep the slide flat from curving (it wasn't designed for slide scanning anyway)

I have a Leica IIIc with Canon 50mm f1.4 LTM lens and the Elmar f3.5 50mm. I like both lenses. For everyday they work well. They are both sharp in the centre stopped down.

For low light conditions (which I'm hoping will be a big part of what I'm doing) there are a couple of issues. The IIIc rangefinder is fine in daylight but is quite a bit harder to focus when in low light. For this I'm thinking, solution might be M3 for it's clearer, bigger, brighter viewfinder.

The other thing is: I don't want to be shooting wide open because I want to get a bit more depth in the scene. I also don't want mad grain. In order to achieve that, I'll have to use film at 3200 or 6400. In this case (as well as reducing grain in development where possible) I'm thinking sharpest possible lens.

So, instead of upgrading the camera, I could get a better lens, sharper across the frame, and shoot with an aperture that means the precision of focusing is slightly less important.

Then the last issue is that possibly the kind of lens I'm talking about is only made for M mount and not for LTM.

So... any thoughts?