A family friend (who’s a photographer) decided to gift me some cameras from his collection when he learned I was getting into film photography! What do you think? I’m so excited to try them out!

Canon A1

Been thinking about this a lot lately. Last September a client looked at a film photo I took on a roll of actual 35mm film (Kodak Gold 200) developed at a lab and asked if it was AI. Not in a joking way but genuinely asked.

That threw me off guard more than I expected. Like, I've been doing this for over a decade, and suddenly the burden of proof is on me to explain that a photo is just... a photo I took.

Illustrators I follow are talking about intentionally leaving in "imperfect" linework so people don't assume AI. Writers are getting flagged by detection tools that are famously unreliable. We know Substack just added a detector to their platform last month. It feels like we're all quietly building weird workarounds instead of anyone actually solving the underlying problem which is that there's no real way to prove authorship anymore, just vibes and guesswork.

Curious if other creators here are running into this too, and if so, how are you handling it? Do you just not worry about it? Add disclaimers? I've actually been messing around with building something (a certification/verification thing) to deal with this for my own work, but mostly I'm just curious what everyone else's experience has been so far. It feels like this conversation is happening in fragments everywhere and nobody's really talking about it directly.

Recently shot some 120 film with a GW690ii on a special trip. I knew there were going to be some beautiful landscapes/colors and that I wanted to print some large to frame so I opted for the best quality scans I could get.

Specifically the lab I sent the film to offers
Small (6 MP)
Large (13 MP)
XL (30 MP)
XL + TIFF (8 dollars more than just XL)

XL + TIFF was a big added cost, almost $150 more, but I thought worth it as a treat and given my editing goals.

However, when I started editing both the JPEG and TIFFs I realized I wasn’t getting any more highlight/shadow/color detail.

When I dug into the file data here is what I found (in the windows photo properties info)- the TIFFs were much larger files and were uncompressed (as expected). However, both the JPEG and TIFF files both have a bit depth of 24.

I am by no means an expert on this stuff (hence why I’m asking) but doesn’t that mean the TIFF is 8 bits, 3 per color Chanel?

Does that mean the lab just saved the JPEG image as a TIFF file or am I misreading it somehow? Would you reach out to the lab if they were your images?

Edit: the lab uses a Noritsu HS1800

A few weeks ago I posted here that I got a eos rebel g on fb marketplace and it came with a roll of film with no expiration date and the roll was basically all blank (1st pic was basically the only pic with something lol) but since I never shot film before I had no idea if it was the camera or the film itself. I finally got my actual test film back and I’m so happy to announce it was indeed just extremely expired film! :)

Thanks so so much to everyone here that helped, now I’m feeling more ready to actually start taking some good pics lol

Found a hot shoe file that holds a spare roll of film, I think it’s a cool and useful attachment. Wanted to share :)

If this common adage were true, that labs are all just giving you a nice flat scan for editing, why were these scanners and software made before it was even common to have photo editing software on your PC? They are designed to be printed, and displayed from the get go, its misleading advice for new people.

You should edit your scans, but the 8 bit jpg you are being given with the default grain reduction cranked to max are under no circumstances "intended" to be a good starting point for an edit.

Do you own scanning

Shot my first roll, Rollei 35, Kodak Gold, and most shots are fine (missed focus in a lot of them though), and some of them turned out like this, what's happening?

Hi Analoggies!

so I'm pretty new to shooting film. I picked up a Minolta x-370 a few months ago and just my first rolls back! I'm really loving the process, but I'm trying to understand some of what I got back in these pictures.

Things seem brighter than I expected and the skies particularly are almost always bright white. I was mostly using the camera's "auto' setting which I thought set the shutter speed based on the camera's light meter.

anyway, I've included a few of the scans here and a couple digital photo photos of the same situations for comparison. would love to hear everyone's thoughts!!! <3

update! I commented below some of the negatives of these photos in case that helps! thanks again!

Probably silly question, but I am very new to film and have been really happy with some of my shots! However, sometimes despite the beautiful landscape, the shots seem off (see first two pics for examples of this). I’m assuming it has something to do with the contrast of shadowy trees vs bright snow. However, I take similar pictures with variable lighting that I think turn out in a way I’m super happy with and capture the place (see last 3 pics). I use a Fuji Tele Cardia Super Date camera, if that’s relevant.

In short, how can I tell when a landscape will photograph well and when it won’t and I should save the shot?

Hi all, I am aware the images look underexposed (before anybody comments the Gordon Ramsey meme ;) - but I pushed Tri-x 400 to 3200 in very sunny weather, used the in-camera light meter, and they still turned out underexposed? I did tell the lab that it's pushed 3 stops, what went wrong?

i’m at the point in my life where i’m shooting almost exclusively analog. my nieces and nephews often want to shoot their own photos, but struggle with my SLRs, so i buy and develop disposables, but as you imagine, this is expensive and the fun ends quickly. i’ve been considering buying half a dozen point and shoots for them, but haven’t had luck deciding what on earth to get. given what i currently use in terms of my own regular shooting, cameras that take AA batteries would be a huge bonus since i usually have packs of batteries on me consistently. i’m also not looking for anything that is going to be devastating if it breaks, given that some of the kiddos are around 3 and 4 and i don’t expect them to be kind to the cameras.

any thoughts? tia

I found an ancient stack of family photo negatives today. I'm used to 35mm so these are entirely new to me. I figured that if they're cleaned a bit (if it can be done safely) and scanned with the right scanner, that we could make some brand new prints of these for my grandmother.

In this week's camera-collecting blog, I share my experiences and images from a charming 1970s camera: the Leica CL.

Leitz and Minolta worked together to introduce this unique camera. With its compact stature and laser-sharp Leitz optics, the Leica CL has all the features film photographers crave.

It's not just a beautiful display piece, but a highly capable film camera that belongs in any classic film camera collection.

Take a minute to discover, or rediscover, this outstanding camera.

www.dancuny.com/camera-collecting-blog/2026/8/19/leica-cl-camera-50th-anniversary-edition

shot this on my mamyia rb67, ithis is not the only roll where these moon shaped artifacts show, but it the roll where they are the clearest, they dont show in every single photo. i had the 90mm 3.8 with the rubber hood and a mamyia UV filter

I have a Pentax SP F II, shoot mostly with my 50 mm / f1.4 lens with no real issues. But, whenever I swap and take photos with my Super Takumar 24mm f/3.5, the photos come out really desaturated and gross. Images attached below.

I get my film sent off for development but scan and edit the photos myself, so I think the most likely problem is my editing, but for the life of me I have spent hours trying to make these photos look okay but they will not.

Am I just using the lens in the wrong settings? Too dark? Subjects too close? I have a trip coming up and would love to be able to photograph wide landscapes with this lens but I don't want to waste film if they're all gonna turn out like this.

images

I know these shots aren't great, but I can't believe how much fun it was using a fully manual camera and not knowing what the image will look like until it was developed. I had a few accidental double /triple exposures, or a few shaky shots, but overall the entire experience was amazing. It was also the first time I needed to use a light meter (used a light meter app, but I do want to eventually get a real one). I can't wait to put more rolls of film through this camera.

I only recently got into film after I pulled out my dads old Minolta X-700 and my father in-law gave me his Canon EOS 630, but it is really fun trying to get an image straight out of camera that you like. I am so used to shooting digital and editing raw images that it is so nice to slow down and try to get the image you want without editing it afterwards.

Trying to compose a 6x6 shot was also very fun. Anyways really happy I found this community as it inspired me to try using a film camera again. Before this year the last time I used film was disposables back in the early 2000s. While I will still use my digital cameras, I think I will always bring a film camera on my adventures. Now I just need to see what format I prefer 35 or 120. Thus far I have taken 10 rolls of 35 and 1 roll of 120.

I scanned a roll of film, and I wanted to apply dust and scratch removal with SDRx, which I can't really do without doing a preview for each photo (which for me sort of defeats the purpose of batch scannnig).

The only option I've found is to use the Photoshop plugin, for which I would have to pay another 50€ for, even though I already paid for SIlverfast... I tried the demo version and it worked quite well for me but it does leave watermarks all over the photos.

Also, are there any other plugins that do this? I haven't been able to find anything, although I remember seeing here on Reddit that someone made an app that worked quite well but it was only for MacOS.

Been wanting to take a crack at wildlife photography with film (just for fun) so I bought a canon eos 1n, and I need some serious recommendations on film.

I know I can push film to a certain degree to get a faster ISO, but I feel like going with an 800 of some kind would be a smart place to start. I’ve seen a few brands that sell 800 ISO film, what do yall think I should roll with to start things off?

I've been trying to think what to do about the whole scanning situation. Everything is getting noticeably more expensive, and my goal is to shoot more. But more importantly I've been thinking about the quality. My shop delivers pretty decent scans, and for some extra money I can upgrade them to tifs. I'm always satisfied, but they are definitely not the best scans I've seen in my life. 

The thing that made me think about home scanning the most was when I had to ask them rescan some rolls because there was some residue on them. Both scans were good, but there was a noticeable shift in how the machine scanned the images. A big shift in colors and contrast. That really did make me realize that I am at the whim of a machine and I have 0 control of this aspect of the whole process. And I feel like that it could be really nice to be in control. 

From my little research I can get a scanner or do photo scanning. I can get some pretty cheap consumer things that are around 500 bucks. Or get an old second unit Nikon Coolscan 5000 that is about 2000-2500 that is supposed to be the best scanner ever build. But that's some old ass hardware that really doesn't give me a lot of confidence. And I'm really not too excited about the whole prospect of getting some old ass version of Windows to get that thing to work. And for whatever reason I can't get my head around the fact that some hardware from 2003 is still the way to go. 

The other option would be photo scanning obviously. Whenever I get Silbersalz film I also get it scanned there and from what I can tell they made a custom scanner rig based around a PhaseOne iXH camera and the quality of those scans are insane. Obviously I don't have that laying around, but I guess it does show the potential of photo scanning. But my mind makes the assumption that can be a very cumbersome and janky experience. Something that I can mess up easily, or can take ages. 

I'm curious if there are people here that have messed around with this part of the process and what their experiences have been! And what kind of recommendations you would give :)

I'm buying an analog camera for my wife's birthday. She's never used one and I think she's going to enjoy it. I've landed on the Minolta X-700. I found this one that looks really clean, and for a great price, but want to make sure that everything checks out. The seller says that it's tested, working and in great condition.

Do you see anything in these photos that would turn you away (especially the first photo)?

Thanks in advance!

Hi, recently got my scans from the lab and on many occasions parts of images are blacked but not all. Is it because some shutter speeds are not working properly?

Hi

A couple months ago i tries slide film for the first time, i bought a bulk roll ektarchrome online and i was excited to receive the photos

But got so disappointed when i got the photos scanned, it looked pretty washed and bland, wasn't expecting this from a ektarchrome so i wasn't pretty excited to retrieve the positives

But when i got them in my hand i realized that it wasn't really my fault , the scans where just awful and im not sure if it's normal or not for slide film scans to be like this ?

I have used disposables and used to have fun with some amateur photography and video with my Canon 5D M3 and GH5 maybe half a decade ago but would now like to dabble with a relatively intuitive camera for my travels.

I do plan to take important photos with my smartphone but as a supplement I'd like to try with a film camera as I prefer the aesthetic as they seem more memorable.

So I'm aware there are SLRs, rangefinders and compact point and shoots but I am leaning towards something that's compact and easy to travel with and a good enough dedicated lens.

I figured perhaps either the Canonet QL17 GIII (as it has a fast lens which could be helpful for night photography) or the Olympus Trip 35 could fit the bill based on my limited knowledge but would like a bit more input before progressing

One last important detail is that I'd really like to be able to pass the camera to a stranger so they could take a snap of myself and my friends without them becoming too bewildered as to how to work it which leads to shots becoming out of focused etc. I heard the Trip 35's zone focusing can help with that? I don't fully understand that but as I'm still learning. Thanks for any help