Is the Sonar Autofocus 5000 an SX-70 model? Or something different? The SX-70s are amazing for close up focus, but other models weren't as good. You should be able to get a close up filter that will allow you to get closer - though these only work if you have a viewfinder that sees through the lens.

@@LearnFilmPhotography Yes it's a SX-70 from 1978. The viewfinder is placed on the left of the lens so I always have to adjust a little bit to get my pictures centred. I don't have envi flters, do you thing they wouldn't work with this type of viewfinder/lens setup? The maximun I can manual focus is 0.9m, which I feel is still a little to far away to get nice closeup pictures of flowers, and if I try to get closer the pictures just get blurry.

What did I miss?

@@LearnFilmPhotography your video is excellent. It’s the work to get there that discourages me.

That's really frustrating since that's literally the whole promise of their service! I don't get it either - I'd think with how long they've been around, they must have had a system for solving this.

Buying a Polariod just because of Lis

Always wanted one but lis made me take the jump recently 😅

Who is Lis? Also, that photo was taken at Jericho Beach :)

@@LearnFilmPhotography it's a game called Life is Strange the main character Max takes Polaroid and that image looks like the location from the game. I love the shot by the way :)

@icraigg sounds cool! I'll check that out. And thanks for that!

Awesome! That's better than I did!

That is very expensive! It's similar in Canada for the 35mn film - the 120 is getting very cheap, though.

Does it cost more there than Kodak Portra 800?

@@LearnFilmPhotography here in the US Lomo 800 for me is more expensive than portra 800 in 35. Portra runs me $17.75 and Lomo is $19.30.

@eguanzon17 that's really strange! Is that from a site like B&H? Or a local store?

@@LearnFilmPhotography i was using a local store for reference but B&H has the same price

Aurora 800 is the cheapest of the bunch

That's why I reached out to the founder of negative lab pro. He was able to guide me on a process that ensured the conversion curves were inverted exactly the same across the different images. Dmitri at Analog Cafe also did a test using his own inversion program that he custom coded. You should check out his analysis as well!

@@LearnFilmPhotography Yeah I did notice you pointed that out. But that is the only variable left, right? Same camera body, same lens, same exposure settings during shooting and scanning. If the post processing is also identical, why do the stocks look so different if, like you say, they are the same film stocks? Surely if this is the case and there are no variables they should look identical. If Negative Lab Pro is indeed making the exact same adjustments, AND the film stocks are actually the same, they should come out the same. This obviously isn't the case so the only explination remaining is that they are indeed different film stocks. Which I also find hard to believe, but surely the evidence presented proves they're different. What other possible answer is there to why they all look so different?

@RoryChapman my understanding is that a different film will have different sensitivity to different parts on the spectrum. Meaning if they're truly different films, one color, like the reds, will be darker on one film stock than they would on another. What I noticed in the films is that the spectral sensitivity was the same between images (except the Fuji 400) - shadows were just as bright, the grains looked nearly identical. The only difference was a little bit of white balancing, which likely has to do more with the thickness of the film base rather than a difference in the emulsion. That's just my view though. Dmitri and Yvonne and others come to different conclusions when looking at these images, which I'm actually quite happy to see!

@@LearnFilmPhotography I've watched Yvonne's video, which brought me to yours and I've read what's freely available on Dimitri's website. I'm really fascinated by this whole thing, and actually interested in all the investigations into what films are what when they're repackaged. Partly because I just want to know and partly because i'm always trying to get the cost down. This one is particularly grabbing my attention though. i absolutely agree that sensitivity to light is one difference, but colour rendition, at least from my experience, also plays a big part. Original Fuji C200 was different in colour rendition than other films from that time. Fuji in general is famous for its green tones being different from other stocks. Agfa Vista 200 produces very different reds than other stocks, like Kodak for instance. and it goes on. Dimitri's article seems to suggest that NLP settings were as controlled as possible, but there was still some automatic changes going on that couldn't be changed. This could account for colour changes, but without seeing a fully manual conversion, it's impossible to know. If NLP is the only variable here, I would want to see a conversion without it. Manual conversion in Darktable maybe where you can input the numbers yourself. Or some form of manual photoshop conversion. Really it's the only way to know becasue they look different to my eyes, even with the adjustments you made, they look like different stocks. But like you, i find that hard to believe.

Dmitri has some comparisons with Aurora 800 on his blog post that was part of this experiment - I didn't have access to the negatives, so I wasn't able to compare them for this process. But it seems to be VERY similar to the Portra 800. Definitely it isn't a remjet-removed cinema film.

It's interesting how the differences between the images kind of melt away when you zoom in like that! I hope the KZfaq compression doesn't ruin the fine details too much!

Thanks, Dmitri!! That film curl of Lomo 800 is just something else! Hopefully the Portra stocks come down in price to match the Lomo ones soon so we can start using that more often.

Thank you so much!!

You can change the ISO in the middle of the roll on that camera. That's a very normal thing to do since sometimes you need to change the way the camera meters the scene to get proper exposures when the subject is backlit. The only cameras that can't change the ISO mid roll are some of the low-end point and shoot cameras from the 80s and 90s.

@@LearnFilmPhotography Thanks. Again, that’s great info! Very helpful.

That would make it so much easier! I did some searching and I can't find anything that easily tells you the concentration - only solutions that show you phenols are present.

That was the point, hahah! His hour ling video titled this way didn't actually go into how film works at all!

This video was just designed to help people starting from the very basics - like any topic, it's possible to go a lot deeper, but that can get confusing or overcomplicated fast.

It's such a unique spot! One of my favorites as well.

Hahah! I used to try to put the tape somewhere else in the dark bag, but it always ended up on the film again somehow 😂. This was the best solution I found - and also a nice momento of all the films I've developed. Glad to hear you liked it! I will check out yours as well!

@@LearnFilmPhotography Its a great system. When I bulk load again I can reuse some of the tape, until it disintegrates in the water baths

That's awesome! That's a great way go reuse it, because it is surprisingly durable. How many uses do you get per tape?

@@LearnFilmPhotography idk think they're still going the tanks pretty bare at the moment most of my reuseable cans are loaded

Hey I just put out a new short deving some fuji 400 Its a fun ride if you need a laugh!

Hell yeah, this camera is a vibe! You're going to have a great time. I'd highly recommend trying out developing your own B&W film, too. That's the best way to understand film.

That is a little bit harder to do, but definitely not impossible. The most important thing is to make sure the artist is in good light, and you should be okay even without flash, though you will probably get some motion blur. Fuji Instax film is also a little more sensitive and may work better than Polaroid.

Glad to hear it!! I needed something that was perfect for a project with Soft Grain Books, and had to get everything just right. Glad it was helpful for you!

Where I'm from this term is becoming more common. I'm interested in hearing your point on why it should be avoided?

I think it sounds a little pretentious, and that can distract from the point you’re trying to make. I don’t mean to be rude. I do like the video and the testing.

@Leandro_Montibeler fair enough! The intent was to be actually more inclusive, but I get that doesn't always happen. It's good to have this feedback, I absolutely appreciate it!

I think you hit the nail on the head, but with the caveat that Kodak may also not want them to publish the technical datasheet. That way Kodak can continue to claim they have a superior product, even if it's functionally the same.

That's entirely possible. I think the Epson actually did extremely well. It's not quite as sharp as DSLR, but most certainly it's usably sharp. I find in general DSLR scanning is superior, though. I was never able to get the results I wanted with an Epson scanner.

Polaroid is way harder to shoot than they make you think! I hope this saves you some money!

In most of these older videos I was using window lighting from windows that weren't all that tall (I'm 6'5, or 197cm) So it appears to come from below. More recent and future videos will be using a new light with a soft box from above. This is just one of the realities of being a new KZfaqr.

It might! But based on those results, and the fact that salt water didn't work at all, I doubt it would change enough to make it a good developer.

Glad to hear it! Hope it saved you some money and frustration!

In their yearly filing they have to literally tell investors everything about their business (other than trade secrets that could be used to undermine them) so investors can do their due diligence before buying or selling their stocks. It's really amazing how much info they put in these docs.

Ouch. I respect constructive criticism, but not when given without respect. I don’t think saying “with respect” is enough. You must also show respect through the way you speak. Not by a simple phrase, but by the kindness and empathy shown through the words you choose

same!

yea, they are so moody, pictures are like paintings, they dont always need to be so crystal clear, imo