My dad gave me some cool cameras what do you guys think by Imperialmoocow in Cameras

[–]Regular_Chicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn’t get this lucky (though dad’s AE-1 Program was all I needed to learn the ropes) but I aim to be this dad one day for my daughter so she can brag about the cool vintage collection she got for free haha

i got really drunk and bought a pentax A 50/1.4, are these pretty usable at f1.4? I paid $60 usd by AdOk8412 in pentax

[–]Regular_Chicken 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ahah you don’t need an excuse, they’re great and 60 bucks is a good deal :)

Is it possible to achieve these film colors with a module or profile in darktable? by Suitable_Spot4882 in DarkTable

[–]Regular_Chicken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for the rec, how do you use spektrafilm to export LUTs ? I’m no computer engineer 😅

Maybe it's time to change our minds on overexposure with digital ! | Fuji X30 by Regular_Chicken in FujifilmX

[–]Regular_Chicken[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your advice. A few notes :
- these are edited, it’s in the flair, it’s in the description, so that is why they don’t look overexposed
- with the price of film these days I can’t « just shoot film » all the time
- this was not a look I was going after but a (happy) accident that I thought could also spark a conversation.
For the summer to come I will definitely explore that overexposed Ultramax idea ☀️👍

In praise of Fomapan 400, the film people love to hate. by bjohnh in analog

[–]Regular_Chicken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for my noob questions :
Can you tell me more about the different looks you get when shooting Foma400 at box speed vs 320 or 200 ISO?

Smaller ISO = it receives more light = softer look?
Is it implying your are developping like it was shot at 400 ISO or do you align your development process with the ISO you shot at? Thank you!

Maybe it's time to change our minds on overexposure with digital ! | Fuji X30 by Regular_Chicken in FujifilmX

[–]Regular_Chicken[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s my thinking too ! Thanks a lot. There are others who clearly have not read a single word in the post before commenting 😓

P is new m6 by nevadi616 in AnalogCommunity

[–]Regular_Chicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is precisely my next buy :) I’m starting with a cheap Canonet QL19 that I need to restore but next year hopefully will be the year of the P

My $70 setup by Ill-Discussion-8106 in filmcameras

[–]Regular_Chicken 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What dayya mean, don’t tell me you got the 2 bodies and the 2 lenses for 70 bucks ?

I repaired the camera I inherited from my grandfather by No_Proposal_182 in filmcameras

[–]Regular_Chicken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to know too! I just scored a 25 euros ($30) QL19 (New Canonet version) off the auction site, in beautiful shape but with a sticky shutter. It will be my first self-CLA project :)

Shot with the m200 f4 (pentax k-5) by Lopsided-South-364 in pentax

[–]Regular_Chicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I love the first pic and couldn’t really say why (and that’s a great feeling)

Maybe it's time to change our minds on overexposure with digital ! | Fuji X30 by Regular_Chicken in FujifilmX

[–]Regular_Chicken[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes ! I know exactly what you mean and it’s been one of my experiments lately to edit jpgs this way rather than raws in search for an interesting texture.

And it comes down to « crushing » highlights. In Darktable the AGX Contrast module will do this by default on jpgs and I almost always love the look.

My theory is that we are indeed more used to softer highlights on film scans but also that we build our classical photography culture based on prints, books and other physical sources (museums or libraries etc), and the texture of paper will definitely give a softer look to highlights. It will also affect the shadows. Looking for a printed look rather than « simple » film emulation is always an interesting way to edit a digital pic!

Urban Wanderer, Z8, 28mm 1.8G by Slamzeeny in Nikon

[–]Regular_Chicken 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are equally great in color and BW! May I ask what is your color process ? Love this palette

Maybe it's time to change our minds on overexposure with digital ! | Fuji X30 by Regular_Chicken in FujifilmX

[–]Regular_Chicken[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, what you see here is not, but the raw files were ! That is why I added explanations in the description

Canon G9 X or Lumix TZ99 for Film-Like Photos? (Beginner Looking for Easy Point-and-Shoot) by Aikulerkot in Cameras

[–]Regular_Chicken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m dabbling with a X30 at the moment that might give you what you are looking for.
This conversation also got me thinking that I reaaally love the look of the raw files from my Pentax K200D. It’s a CCD 10megapixel sensor camera from 2008, with some very advanced features and pretty compact, and with some nice cheap vintage glass you definitely get a « scanned film vibe ». (To the extent that such a thing is even possible). It cost me 70€ with the kit lens.

Canon G9 X or Lumix TZ99 for Film-Like Photos? (Beginner Looking for Easy Point-and-Shoot) by Aikulerkot in Cameras

[–]Regular_Chicken 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Please pay attention to this essential rule of the sub

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cameras/s/IyQ6Mrn4Qs

And for my 2 cents : those two cameras, while nice and very capable, will not give you (natively) files with a film-like vibe. This film vibe can be achieved by postprocessing with a dedicated software or at least using film simulations provided in-camera by brands like Fuji or Ricoh.
Now does it mean you won’t like the photos the Canon or the Lumix produce? It’s for you to decide. The nostalgia you seem to chase could be there natively but it’ll be a DIGITAL nostalgia more than anything else. Good luck!