Analog film photography and cameras

Also (thought I had posted about this before but can't seem to find it) there's the new Rollei 35AF coming this year it seems!

1 Attachment

Love these! Think I have a purple lomo film in the freezer…looks a great film for
Summer.

Thanks, Im pleased with how they came out, every review I had read was that this film loves light! I would use it again which is surprising, would be good to see how it compares on an SLR.

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/395786/

Cameras for sale

..one for the mattress fans 🙂

Portra 400 shot at 200..

1 Attachment

I'm glad that enjoying a knee trembler in a doorway isn't exclusive to humans. Good on em.

I've got this old XA2 that's remained in it's box for many years. I've noticed the foammy stuff on the back is pretty degraded.

People with more film camera experience, think this is going to be pretty prone to light leak or similar?

2 Attachments

Looks pretty similar to mine which hasn't had any leaks. Could always load it in the dark and tape up the joints if you're worried. Or buy new foam.

2 Attachments

New foam is easy to get and install.

Wouldn't risk nowadays-expensive film!

Yes that's true, tape idea is good though.

What is it, just camera door foam? Will give it a Google.

I just replaced the light seals on an Olympus XA (used to be my moms) very recently. They are very popular so you can get pre-cut sets. It just took a few quid and some patience to do it. I didn't test the camera before but all shots afterwards came out without light leaks so I think it was worth it.

This is super exciting. I got an original 35 which taught me about zone focussing because it doesn't have a viewfinder patch. It's super nice for street photography but I am really struggling with something closer up like a portrait.

ah cool. Yeah I've ordered a set, so will wait for it to arrive and get sorted!

Cross posting from the for sale thread, got some expired film I'm selling

I don't shoot film anymore, and this has all sat in the freezer since I bought it. Various 120 and 35mm stocks, and some ECN2 stuff too. All expired.

120 B&W
3 x Ilford Delta 400, exp Oct 2006 - £5 each
5 x Ilford Delta 100, exp Mar 2007 - £5 each
5 x Ilford FP4 Plus 125, exp Jun 2023 - £5 each

120 Colour
1 x Fuji Reala 100, exp Sept 2007 - £10
3 x Fuji Velvia 100F, exp Feb 2010 - £10 each
3 x Fuji Provia 100F, exp Jul 2017 - £10 each
1 x Kodak E100VS, exp Apr 2010 - £10
1 x Kodak Ektar 100, exp 2011 - £10
1 x Portra 160, exp Feb 2021 - £10
1 x Portra 800, exp Jan 2010 - £10
6 x Portra 400, exp Nov 2021 - £10 each
1 x Portra 400VC, exp Aug 2012 - £10

35mm C41 Colour ALL SOLD
3 x Fuji C200, exp Mar 2021 - £5 each
1 x Kodak Vision3 500T (no expiry listed) - £5
1 x Cinestill 800, (no expiry listed) - £5
1 x Fuji Eterna 500T (no expiry listed) - £5
1 x Kodak Vision3 250D (no expiry listed) - £5

Collection preferred from SE9, otherwise postage will be based on number of rolls bought. I'd also accept £250 for the whole lot.

Another cross post, am also selling a Bronica SQ-A and a Fuji GW690ii

https://www.lfgss.com/comments/17371909/

I just got the scans back from what must be the worst roll of film I ever shot. It seems like all the photos are underexposed. I am quite new to shooting analogue but was very happy with most of my results so far. I used my Olympus XA point and shoot and I never had any trouble with its metering.
This was on a Lomography Metropolis, a film I never used before. I continued to shoot the next day, same scenery and light conditions, with the same technique and camera on a Kodak UltraMax 400 and the results came out as expected.
Do you guys think the film was just shit? Did I underexpose?
Looking up the Metropolis online it is listed as iso 100-400. I am pretty sure mine just had 200 printed on it.

Left Metropolis Right comparisons from iPhone, digital camera or different film.

3 Attachments

Olympus XA

I only have the XA2, and I've not used it yet, but it has a custom ISO setting on the front. Does the XA have this? Could have been nudged to something else?

Definitely look underexposed. I used Metropolis recently and shot at 400. Can't remember what it had printed on the roll - but think it must have been 400.
Shame 'cos I think it's a great film if you like its effect.
These are some I shot in Shanghai.

4 Attachments

Do you guys think the film was just shit? Did I underexpose?

If the UltraMax you shot the next day came out fine then it seems there's nothing wrong with the camera - so either the Lomography film was dodgy somehow or you accidentally set the XA to ISO 800 (but you would have noticed that when setting it to 400 for the UltraMax I guess)?

Hard to see from what you posted but could it be that the ISO / ASA is actually set at 800, and the UltraMax was slightly underexposed as well (but could handle it better than the Lomo film)?

1 Attachment

@RonnieOatmilk Yes, the XA does have it too but it's very hard to accidentally change it.

@nankatsu Yeah, that's the look I expected to get from it based on the sample photos on their website.

@salad I definitely did not set it to 800. I might have set it to 400 instead of 200 which should still be in the range they advertise but maybe too high then for in the forest. Should have been fine on the coast in the sun I guess?

My last guess is that I picked this film up in the MoMA gift shop in New York. It was the cheapest film I was able to find that day. Maybe it wasn't adequately stored?
I am now just wondering if I should just steer away from Lomography films if shooting on something like Kodak Gold is so effortlessly good (I am mostly a good weather photographer).

Not really sure what's going on there then 🤷

It basically doesn't matter whether you're shooting in the forest or on the coast, or indoors - the camera should just use an appropriate shutter speed and expose the frame correctly.. and it probably did, alas the whole roll is too dark while you say the roll of Ultra Max is fine, so my guess is there's been something wrong with the Lomo film.

If film has been stored badly (as in: too long / in too warm a place / on a sunny shelf etc.) that might cause problems, although usually the colours just get a bit dull and there's loss of contrast.. still that would be my best guess as well as to where things went wrong here, apart from some manufacturing defect.

Can't really speak to the Lomo films in general as I've never shot any but I actually looked at examples of the Metropolis one on the lomography website yesterday, and while some shots look really cool there's also quite a few dodgy results.
To me it's very much in the "experimental film" category.

If I were you I'd get a fresh roll of "proper" film from a decent store next, and see how that goes.
Try some Portra 160 if it's going to be a good weather situation again.

Yeah, I guess I just have to write it off as an unlucky shit roll of film and might steer clear from that brand. I got another one of their films, a Color '92 in another camera. I'll see how that turns out.
The Olympus XA usually performed great with other films even in tricky or more dynamic light situations.
Below are each sample shot with Kodak Gold 200, Agfa APX 400 (b&w), and Kodak UltraMax 400

3 Attachments

Did anyone try this "KING FILM 5294 100D" I see on the Foto Impex website, and can share some details / some images?

1 Attachment

On a more positive note. I picked up this Minolta Hi-Matic F(P) at a flea market the other day, cleaned it inside out, removed some corrosion from the internal wires and hacked together a battery. The original mercury based 1.35v batteries are banned and not produced anymore.
I just got my scans back on a test roll (AGFA APX 100) and I am quite happy. Some came out a bit greyish. I played around with the ISO a bit to compensate for the wrong battery. Not 100% sure yet what the best procedure is here but I'll definitely keep playing with it.

6 Attachments

Two examples of the greyish images.

2 Attachments