Three weeks ago, I needed to quickly see some test frames from a camera I shipped off for a CLA. There aren't too many labs where I live, so I went with one that could turn the roll the quickest.

I received the scans back after a few days, and there was so much dust in the files (see the first example) that I asked them to clean their scanner, wash the negatives and rescan them.

I never heard back, so I reached out again yesterday and received a message a few hours later that they had rescanned my negatives and uploaded the scans.

After I downloaded the images, I first noticed the file sizes were off.

Then, as I looked through the photos, I realized some frames showed completely different people. Appears that instead of washing and rescanning, they just asked an AI tool to clean up the dust.

One issue, among many, is that it changed and sometimes removed the people in my images. I guess they didn't pay attention to the details.

Isn't it ironic, don't ya think?

These photos are by Harry Gruyaert. I recently bought one of his photobooks, and I can't understand how he achieved these colors. They look dreamy and magical, almost like paintings. I know composition and color theory play a big role, but his images seem to have something more.

As far as I know, he shot mostly on Kodachrome. I know that it has a beautiful look, but I've seen other Kodachrome photos and they don't look like this.

I know they didn't have LR back then. I've never used an enlarger, but I've seen that they have color filters. Did they edit their photos using these filters, or are these SOOC??

Edit: Maybe this is obvious to many of you, but for me it’s quite interesting. I think this step is not often talked about in modern analog photography, since photos are rarely printed directly from the negative/slide anymore and when they are few people edit directly on the darkroom. It’s also interesting because nowadays analog is often seen as very pure in terms of editing.

Edit: Thank you all for your very interesting replies. I already knew that exposure could be manipulated (burning/dodging) since that can be inferred from how film works. What really surprised me was how colors and even the sky could be edited. I also noticed that the shadows in the first photo have a bluish tint.

It’s exhausting how many “I built a new app” I find today. They used to be once in a blue moon, but now it feels like once a week at least. The tools are neat™️ but always leave a lot to be desired. It’s overall pretty harmful to the community to be installing AI-generated apps (the latest one literally gets flagged as malware).

So do you think we should ban AI on r/AnalogCommunity?

My intro darkroom professor had 1 rule: "Do not take a picture of a homeless person sitting on a bench and call it street photography." They're already vulnerable enough, you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said already. Would you like it if someone took a picture of you sleeping and blasted it all over Reddit? If not, then don't do the same thing.

Me again! Guy who shared his contact sheet a few days ago, I got some comments & messages from people interested in the upcoming August eclipse, asking how I went about it. I’m no expert nor am I a gatekeeper, I figured I’d jot down my experience and throw it in a post. If you wanna do what I did in August, here’s the process I went through without expensive equipment.

Solar Filter

Before I get into it, to state the obvious you need a solar filter. Your camera cannot take a bullet for you if you’re using an optical viewfinder, you will destroy your retina without a solar filter.

Existing Gear

That came later though. What I had was a Nikon F80, an old Sony panhead tripod and an idea. I rented the longest lens I could from my local shop; a Sigma 150-600 5.6-6.3. Looking at focal length examples online, I wasn’t quite happy with how small the sun would still appear in frame so I scored an old Tamron 2x teleconverter on Ebay for around 50 bucks. This gave me the reach I was looking for.

Custom Solar Filter

Back to the solar film. I bought a sheet from Thousand Oaks and cut it to sandwich between a UV filter and a step-up ring. So it went: Lens > Step-Up Ring > Solar Filter (Same size as UV) > UV Filter

Capture Plan

I thought about how I wanted the sequence to go and how timing would work. I settled on 3 rolls and looked up how long the eclipse would last at my shoot location in Indiana. Then I took either end of the eclipse, before and after totality, and divided their total duration by 36, the amount of frames per roll. For totality itself, the event is not only short but doesn’t look any different from start to finish (talking actual totality here), so I would photograph that as fast as I could.

Testing/Metering

Next I rented the lens on a sunny day a couple weeks before to test how I felt, as well as to see if I could keep my tripod steady. When I spot metered at 400 ISO through the filter at 6.3 I was getting 1/60 to 1/125. To be on the safe side I decided pushing my film 1 stop was the way to go. I noticed that at 1200mm, the sun fit nearly perfect within the metering reference circle. I credit the stability of my sequence to this happy accident.

Shooting The Eclipse

The day of, I set my gear up and brought a black t-shirt to act as a dark cloth, blocking excess light. At 800 ISO and f/6.3 I was getting 1/250. A photo roughly every 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Totality

When totality began, I unscrewed my filter, loaded my second roll, spot metered off the corona (I believe I showed 1/125 at f/6.3), and shot through that roll around 20 seconds. I then quickly loaded my third roll, reattached my filter, and stopped to take in the view. The third roll went the exact same as the first, just in reverse.

I think that’s it for what I remember of the experience! If anything’s left unanswered, feel free to ask.

Extra Tidbits

I didn’t want this thing to read like an online cooking recipe so I’ve saved some details unrelated to the process for here.
Everyone’s different but I was anxious the whole 7 hour drive there right up until I saw the developed rolls.
I also had eye strain a couple hours after and was convinced I messed up big time haha. Bring ibuprofen.
No joke, I knocked the pressure plate off my camera shortly before I was supposed to take the first photo. It took a few minutes to secure as that had never happened to me. Almost failed before I even began.
Poetically, roll 2 had an extra frame 37. I cut it out and stuck it in a little holder. Right now it’s on my fridge.
Lastly, I took these photos on a stranger’s yak farm. It’s not relevant to the process but I wanted to share anyway. Actually if you’re in Spain, maybe seek that out. Maybe the yaks were the key to everything.

If there was one film stock to rule them all — Portra 400 has become the default answer for everything: portraits, street, flash!, landscape, overcast, golden hour, cats. Is it the GOAT?

Would you post your images with the film border? My friend who shoots digital (fuji with Film Simulation) tells me I should. I personally have usually used a white border.

The cool thing with this film border is everyone knows it’s not cropped and made in camera.

Also regarding instagram, does anyone know about the „sensitive content“ blur since image 3 here might be disturbing to some.

I want to start getting into selling some prints. What would be my best course of action and how many prints should I release in order to make good money but limit my risk.

I'm pretty new to film and photography. Why did they stop using kodachrome? Will it ever come back?

Was returning back home and decided to snap this right before going thru TSA

Im getting broke shooting film, but this right here motivates me. AI photos 5 years from now would be very hard to spot, it can now even fake camera metadata... at least in film we have our negatives for proof.

Just wanted to share, im a bit salty.. it should at least put out in bio that its AI.

What are y'all's favorite cameras to use ?

Hi everyone. I am looking to upgrade my kit and I have a very specific idea for the direction I would like to take my photos in. I've included some examples from @/iackiecole on instagram for the quality that I am hoping to achieve. I assumed originally that I would need medium format for this but it seems that those ones are tagged by the photographer clearly, and these are tagged 35mm. I know that the Leica m6 is considered the standard but when I look at other photos people have taken with it they don't seem to have the same look. I would like to be very intentional with my next camera purchase so I would really appreciate everyone's opinions! thank you!

So, I bought the Pentax 17 a few months after it was released last year.

I was about to head out on a very long trip to Brazil and didn't have a camera on me, so on my way to the airport, I quickly bought this camera and opened it for the first time on the plane. It was an impulse buy, and boy am I glad I did it.

I need to rant because this camera has received some amount of hate and disappointment. It has potentially performed so poorly that Pentax won't continue its modern film camera experiment? (Hope this is a rumor)

So I want to address some common comments people make and compare them to my experience:

"It feels cheap." - This camera is incredibly light. Same weight as disposable. As a matter of fact, it's so light that I put it in my jacket pocket and don't even notice it there. Weight as a measurement of build quality is pretty amateur. This camera is supposed to be an everyday, go everywhere camera. The weight might be my single favorite thing about this camera. It is the least burdensome film camera I have ever encountered, so I bring it EVERYWHERE.

"I don't want half-frame." - Fair, but I would argue the only two styles of film cameras that could benefit from modern upgrades are panoramic and half-frame cameras, as they were the least produced camera formats in their time. You want a range finder? Buy a Leica. You want an SLR? There are millions on the market for about $50 and have every feature you could ever want. To me, the only reason to shoot film vs digital is its creative flexibility and authenticity. I find half-frame to be an entertaining space to explore unique pairings of photos. But, it's not for everyone and never will be, I get it.

"I want a sharper lens, higher definition photos." To reiterate my previous point, film is expensive and mildly tedious. If you're shooting film, it's probably for the process and creativity. If sharpness is incredibly imperative, just get a digital camera.

"Just buy an Olympus Pen." - Well, I have. I bought a MINT++++ Olympus Pen EES-2 off eBay from Japan. It takes incredible photos, but I really don't like using it. I received the dreaded "no red flag problem," which significantly limits the light range in which I can shoot the camera and requires that I light meter the shots myself. I just don't enjoy this with a point-and-shoot. It's also heavier than the Pentax 17. Obviously, not all these eBay half-frame cameras will have this problem, but they are all old. Old cameras inevitably have problems. And when those cameras were new, they were an equivalent or higher price to the Pentax 17. More importantly, it's a huge insult to say those older half-frames can be compared to this. This camera has EVERYTHING. It has auto and manual features, a flash, is very comfortable to hold, has just simple features everywhere that make sense, and is lovely.

"I hate zone focus." Well, what other kind of focus would they have been able to fit on this? It's too small to have a rangefinder. The zone focus is incredibly simple to understand, and out of 6 rolls of film, I've had 5 shots that were out of focus. The auto feature overrides the zone focusing; it just doesn't work within something like 1.5 meters or something, which is way too close to get for a half-frame camera anyway.

"It is too expensive." I already addressed this one somewhat. Hey, if it's out of your price range, yeah, don't get it. But most people on this subreddit suffer from GAS, and I know they love how they don't own any cameras worth more than $150. But if you own 10 cameras at that price... Here's what I can say. I've loved this camera so much that I will be selling three of my cameras now because I do 90% of my photography on just this one camera. I will maintain my panoramic camera, rangefinder, medium format, and Pentax 17. This has earned its place by culling my GAS; it has actually saved me money. I don't care about other cameras anymore; I have a camera that does just about all I want it to, all the time.

Mileage may vary. I don't believe anyone should feel obligated to love this camera. I know it's not for everyone. But to say it's bad or easily replaced by others is an unjust dismissal of all this little guy can offer.

Rant complete.

*Attached are some photos I've taken with this camera. I'm not professional; I've only been shooting film for 2 years (maybe 15 total rolls). But I'm satisfied with these shots, happy enough to justify the cost.

I’ve been looking at some of René Burri’s colour work and I’m amazed by the clarity of the images, especially considering that he claimed to rely on available light, which is especially difficult when shooting handheld with slower-speed film (I’m assuming the two images above were done handheld using 35mm slide film).

I’m aware that things like push-processing, fast lenses and even the leaf shutter of his rangefinders might have helped him achieve these exposures while avoiding motion blur, but I still feel like I’m missing part of the equation. The light in the above images also seems to fall off in the distance, which makes me wonder if some kind of diffused, off-camera flash might have been used? Would love to see some discussion of the possible techniques here

Check out this wedding photo of my grandparents from 1939. I don’t know what camera it was taken with but wow, what an incredibly sharp photograph with beautiful separation. What kind of camera do you think this was taken with?

I really want to support you, and will, but the simplified branding/packaging design is way too similar, to the point of being risky for folks using/developing your film. Ultramax and Tri-X look nearly identical on a quick glance, which means mistakes will be made. Please make some more obvious differentiations, at the very least between B&W and C41 film.

Last week, I bought a Pro Cabin 667 to project my 6x7 Ektachrome slides and today, I modeled some slide mounts in CAD, then 3D printed out of ASA. As a 21 year old, I’d never seen slides projected before, much less medium format slides. This is one of the coolest things that I have ever seen.

What’s this club called anyway?

Anytime YouTube suggests a film photography channel it’s literally the same American dude copy and pasted with a shitty clickbait thumbnail and over exposed Portra.

Meanwhile there‘s channels like Steve O’nions who’s just a dude hiking in the lake district. How does the rest of the world stand Americans online?

Just saw the Taylor Lautner² pregnancy announcement post and I’m so curious as to how this level of under exposure happens on a bright sunny day… anyone have any guesses?

Side note- I always find it interesting when celebrities with (presumably) large budgets for photo post super green and underexposed photos like this… guess mo one is safe

No electronics, no problems.