Photography General - Sperging about taking pictures and shit

[NaggotFigger]

test

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

This is my late 19teens Kodak folding autographic brownie No.2

I cleaned it up, fixed the many pin hole leaks in the bellows, disassembled, cleaned, and lubricated the ball bearing shutter, and put a role of RPX25 in

this is the first picture out of it, in who knows how long (excuse the mottledness and dark patches/3 circles and focus, I took a photo of it with my phone up against my window with some baking sheet behind it, I should make up a lightbox or something)

I also made some rodinal to develop the roll, so I'm really pleased, this was the first film camera I have used in probably over 20 years, the first time i have worked on a camera, the first time I have used black and white film, and the first time I have developed film, with my own chemicals at that

 

[Silent Seeth]

This is my late 19teens Kodak folding autographic brownie No.2.

Ahahaha, boomer alert. Here in the modern world we only use 1930-70's cameras!

What a massively weird coincidence. Just got a Six-20 model D Junior I found at a car boot sale for a whole 3 quid. Open up the photography board for the first time in months and it's the older brother to my new camera.

Going to try and go full hipster and get/make a 35mm to 620 film adapter. Sprocket hole photography for the low price of my dignity. Can you still use your "viewfinder"? I was shocked mines still clear enough to use. Does need a thorough cleaning though.
Might also try 120 film, or maybe even the photo paper method. A 90 year old, 100mm 6.3-32 fixed lens feels like a handicap to its quality improvements though.

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

Can you still use your "viewfinder"?

That one has the one piece ground crystal, so barely, its like looking through a piece of frosted glass, but apparently they were like that from new. I have a later model from around the 30s and it has a fold flat viewfinder thats the same shape, but just has a normal mirror on a spring and its much better.
I have a couple of 50s cameras too, another german made bellows "baldafix" that was 120, but originally would have came with a massive so you could could take half sized pictures and get twice as much photos out of it. I ran some plastic sheet through a desktop cnc router and cut some replacements, one being a 35mm for panorama shots.l (you get about 2 2/3 35mm frames per shot) must finish off the cartridge adapters and use it.

mainly i sperg about ww1 era stuff, i have a vest pocket camera too, that il make something up to cut down 120 film and roll my own. This leaves you with a strip of 16mm film, so i may as well buy a 16mm camera........

 

[Silent Seeth]

That one has the one piece ground crystal, so barely, its like looking through a piece of frosted glass, but apparently they were like that from new. I have a later model from around the 30s and it has a fold flat viewfinder thats the same shape, but just has a normal mirror on a spring and its much better.
I have a couple of 50s cameras too, another german made bellows "baldafix" that was 120, but originally would have came with a massive so you could could take half sized pictures and get twice as much photos out of it. I ran some plastic sheet through a desktop cnc router and cut some replacements, one being a 35mm for panorama shots.l (you get about 2 2/3 35mm frames per shot) must finish off the cartridge adapters and use it.

mainly i sperg about ww1 era stuff, i have a vest pocket camera too, that il make something up to cut down 120 film and roll my own. This leaves you with a strip of 16mm film, so i may as well buy a 16mm camera........

I Recently got some bulk 35mm. Just need to bother buying/woodworking the adapters. Once I've sacrificed some film I might consider 120. No decent way of scanning the negatives at the moment though.


Have you considered using photo paper for the wacky large/medium formats?

It's not the way it was meant to be used, but the film speed is basically dead on for what they had at the time.


Funnily enough I ended up fixing a Zenit-E recently. Didn't fancy paying over the odds and fixed the cloudy mirror by rubbing off the cloudy bit and using Tin foiltaped down where the emulsion was. I might give the same treatment to my Kodak viewfinder if I get sick enough of it. Though mainly because the top one is basically as good as squinting.

I looked into it for my 8mm. Home development is actual hell, I also applaud someone dexterous enough to punch new sprocket holes in a bag/ blackout room.
If it weren't for me wanting to digitise it, I'd be tempted. Recently found a supplier that sells exotic formats at almost sensible rates.

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

i got a bunch of darkroom stuff recently and it came with a few packets of photo paper. its pretty old so i might experiment. (but i have to be careful because otherwise I will end up with a suitcase sized camera and flashpaper). i do want to try some cyanotype prints from the negatives though, i think that might be fun.

 

[dltzk]

Shot in a raw format with a rebel T2I, then exported with photoshop and I think it ruined the image a little bit, complete newbie and this was my first time experience with night-time photography.

 

[The Ghost of Rarity]

I like to take pictures of things in nature for fun. The sky, critters, bugs, animals etc. I bought an older but nice camera a couple of years ago but I was just too tech regarded to understand how to use it to get the best results, so now I just point my phone at things and take pictures lol

Spoiler: Photo dump

 

[sasazuka]

Shot in a raw format with a rebel T2I, then exported with photoshop and I think it ruined the image a little bit, complete newbie and this was my first time experience with night-time photography.

Did you use a tripod or did you just put it on a ledge or bench and set a timer (a perfectly acceptable alternative to a tripod for night photography if you're like me and don't want to carry around an extra bag for a tripod) or a remote shutter if you have one?

I think it came out pretty well, I like the colour in the reflections. You might want to try an even longer exposure setting next time if you want more detail and less grain on the bridge.

I like to take pictures of things in nature for fun. The sky, critters, bugs, animals etc. I bought an older but nice camera a couple of years ago but I was just too tech regarded to understand how to use it to get the best results, so now I just point my phone at things and take pictures lol

The photos look pretty good. I recently got a used iPhone but it's only an SE with the single tiny back lens with mediocre picture quality.

Assuming that you still have the other camera but aren't interested in learning more about the camera's ISO, Shutter, and Aperture settings, don't let the photography snobs dissuade you from using AUTO, which takes perfectly fine shots in most situations, at least in daylight.

 

[dltzk]

Did you use a tripod or did you just put it on a ledge or bench and set a timer (a perfectly acceptable alternative to a tripod for night photography if you're like me and don't want to carry around an extra bag for a tripod) or a remote shutter if you have one?

I think it came out pretty well, I like the colour in the reflections. You might want to try an even longer exposure setting next time if you want more detail and less grain on the bridge.

Thank you! I don't think I used anything to help with the stillness in this picture, but I did for a lot of other photos I took that night. I'm still trying to learn how to shoot in manual mode, currently I just shoot in auto and I don't feel I'll get any better just letting the camera decide what to do. I'll do some research tomorrow and go out that night with proper manual settings. Ill your advice into account, again thank you!

 

[triggersliver]

I'm still trying to learn how to shoot in manual mode

Like the other guy said, try shooting with a lower iso and longer shutter speed. Maybe you could try shooting higher up so that the lights are blocked by the edge of the bridge, this would have an interesting effect on the lighting and allow for a more evenly illuminated shot. Shooting directly into bright light sources will skew the exposure metering. Would you mind sharing the exposure data/exif of the picture?

 

[dltzk]

Like the other guy said, try shooting with a lower iso and longer shutter speed. Maybe you could try shooting higher up so that the lights are blocked by the edge of the bridge, this would have an interesting effect on the lighting and allow for a more evenly illuminated shot. Shooting directly into bright light sources will skew the exposure metering. Would you mind sharing the exposure data/exif of the picture?

Sorry for getting to this late. Here it is.

 

[fontina]

I've recently transitioned to film from digital (rebel t5i/Nikon J3)(partially as part of love of the medium, partially to stay off the computer), and I've had to change my approach significantly. Film is expensive, and much less forgiving. I've gone from a shotgun approach, of taking TONS of photos, and now have a more sniper approach of having to be very intentional and thoughtful about my shot. I haven't gotten a good at-home scanning setup yet, and i'm stuck using Lightroom through the webapp to set things like black point post-lab-scan.

I learned also, that I would expose my film to X-Rays in the airport, shots I thought were super grainy, turned out to likely be that I blasted them with radiation twice a trip. But my exposure could use work too.

Getting good composition feels more difficult too. My shots feel much less dramatic. I have lots of frames that feel like the early days of snapshitting. I think its partially not being able to see the result, relying on post-processing by the phone camera for some, and being able to farm luck by sheer volume (if i take 1000 photos, one will surely be decent). Not to mention my shaky ass hands. For travel, it can be difficult to quickly get a good shot too. I'm getting better though.

I recently got a mini tripod though, polarizer, ND filter, and soon, a good flash.

Regardless, love my Nikon FM3A, and my Yashica T5. Love Portra 800 and Ektar 100.

---

Spoiler: Small Photo Dump

 

[triggersliver]

Sorry for getting to this late. Here it is.

3200 iso on an older camera is most likely what is causing all that grain. You could try using a tripod and setting a lower iso and using a longer shutter speed in manual. I haven't owned a Canon but I have heard a lot about Magic Lantern being useful to add more functionality etc. Also you could look into a cable release or an intervalometer if you wanted to take longer exposures with Bulb mode. Are you familiar with reading the exposure meter on your camera?

Getting good composition feels more difficult too. My shots feel much less dramatic. I have lots of frames that feel like the early days of snapshitting. I think its partially not being able to see the result, relying on post-processing by the phone camera for some, and being able to farm luck by sheer volume (if i take 1000 photos, one will surely be decent). Not to mention my shaky ass hands. For travel, it can be difficult to quickly get a good shot too. I'm getting better though.

I recently got a mini tripod though, polarizer, ND filter, and soon, a good flash.

Regardless, love my Nikon FM3A, and my Yashica T5. Love Portra 800 and Ektar 100.

Congrats on the transition, next step is a drum scanner and a 4x5 lol. You should check out lomography.com , they have a really good community and you can see all kinds of film stocks and camera models people use. Do you have a local lab you get your dev and scan done or do you send it out? The pictures you shared look pretty sharp, im not sure the xray machine at the airport is powerful enough to do a lot of damage to film though. You might be interested in the Pentax 17 as it's a little cheaper to shoot half-frame sometimes. (36 exp roll is 72 shots on 1/2 frame).

Some reading i'd recommend to everyone:
Why People Photograph by Robert Adams
Modern Instances by Stephen Shore

 

[Hentai-Semitism]

I know I may be late to the party, but I recently discovered the power of the RAW format.

For those who don't know: some cameras and phones are capable of shooting RAW pictures. Those files are about 5x bigger than the usual JPGs and can be edited with software like Lightroom or Photoshop with Camera RAW plugin You can adjust brightness, saturation etc. waaay more accurately, it's amazing. Another big plus is that you can completely remove your phone's aggressive noise reduction, which butchers high ISO photos. Remember, RAW is devoid of post-processing.

Check if your device is on the list, make sure you're shooting RAW and take an underexposed, low ISO picture in the dark. Import to your PC, adjust exposure, highlights and shadows and watch your jaw drop. It's magic.

 

[sasazuka]

If I'm shooting profesionally, I would shoot RAW however, if I'm just shooting hundreds of personal photos at an event. I'll just shoot JPEG both to save on hard drive space and also because most websites will not let you post RAW images as is.

Even those times that I do shoot RAW, I use the RAW + JPEG option so I have files that I can post quickly without needing to open a photo editor.

 

[Hentai-Semitism]

Even those times that I do shoot RAW, I use the RAW + JPEG option so I have files that I can post quickly without needing to open a photo editor.

That's the ticket. My phone always saves both. You can always edit the RAW later if you want to, but it's optional.
Honestly I'm still impressed with the ability to make visible things you can't see with the naked eye. Just point the camera at a dark alley at night, take a picture, then quickly edit it in Lightroom (there's an Android version) and bam! You can clearly see that guy in a ski mask sneaking towards you with a knife.

 

[dcss]

My pride and joy, my Minolta SRT-101. Finest Damn film camera I’ve ever used, takes razor sharp photos with the right lens. Got it for like 100 dollars on FB marketplace with three lenses.

 

[Hentai-Semitism]

My pride and joy, my Minolta SRT-101. Finest Damn film camera I’ve ever used, takes razor sharp photos with the right lens. Got it for like 100 dollars on FB marketplace with three lenses.
View attachment 7316659
View attachment 7316660

Did you pick the wrong file to attach? It looks like an upscaled 400x300 photo saved as JPG with quality set to 20.

 

[dltzk]

Forgot to dump this here.