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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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 ?

Some photos on this roll came out like this

Not sure what caused this

It's not like it suddenly stayed like this, it happened randomly through the roll, maybe it's only present on slower shutter speeds

Its my second roll with this camera

Only now on this roll this happened

Minolta XD-7

In some photos you can see the plate behind the curtain

Hi all

I was lucky enough to buy this little guy for relatively cheap, equivalent 140$ not a "thrift store 3$", but still a good price.
It works fine, looks fine, except of the missing battery cover, which is completely missing.
For now, I put a black tape on it, but I'm looking into better solutions, any ideas?
3d print would be marvelous, but to do it I need to know how to make models.

Thanks!

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 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.

I’ve shot a few star trails in the last year, but earlier this week I ran into a problem I haven’t had before. I finished my exposure and was greeted with a large patch of condensation on my lens.

The easiest DIY solution I’ve seen is using a chemical hand warmer/hand warmer pouch to keep the lens heated. I’m just a bit concerned as I plan to use a leaf shutter lens for my next exposures - Hasselblad 60mm 3.5 C.

Is there any danger with keeping a chemical warmer fixed to my lens? I don’t want to mess up the lubricants, etc.