All photos were taken on a Kiev 4 rangefinder. I remember one of the rolls were Dubble Film black and white, and I dont remember what the other roll was.

So whenever you buy film locally, 9 times out of 10, especially if its a small shop, they’ll tell you “make sure not to leave it in your hot car”. Ive been told this dozens of time so I wanted to put it to the test. So The two stocks used were Portra 400 and Illford XP2. So I left one roll each in my car for 10 days, with the average temperature being 60-80 outside and the car being in constant sunlight. Out of the two photos, the one on the left is the new fresh roll and the on the right is the one left in the car and was “cooked”

So there really wasn’t a big difference, especially not one worth worrying about. The cooked Portra is a little bit darker, duller, and colder overall. It no more grainy than the standard Portra. The cooked photo really looks like the standard if you threw it into lightroom and lowered the vibrance and exposure, and if you made the white balance cooler. The cooked XP2 is a even smaller difference. It is a tiny little bit darker, and is the tiniest bit more contrasty, adding something like a red filter or even darkening the image by half a stop in lightroom would make the photos seem more different.

So long story short. If you accidentally leave a roll of black and white film in your car you wont even really notice a difference or have to worry about it. If you do the same with color film, you may notice a small bit of color shift and the tiniest bit less sensitive to light. So if you do leave your color film in a car, possibly overexpose by 1/2 to a full stop and you’ll be more than set, or just boost your colors and exposure a bit in lightroom and you’ll be fine.

All of these photos were shot on a kiev 4a or a Minolta XD11. The soft photos are the kiev and the sharper ones with the halations are the minolta.

All of these black and white photos were shot on a minolta XD11 using a 45mm lens. The film stock is Illford XP2.

I did a small mini project in an afternoon and made a video on it. and here is the link for it! https://youtu.be/Q5VJ9W68kG4

So I have finally shot lomo purple for the first time, I shot it on a Kiev 4. I also had a Nikon F2 with a 35mm lens and took a few photos comparing the two. They are a little off but thats because the Kiev is a 50mm, and I wasnt planning on taking some comparison photos but ended up doing it anyway. The standard color shots were on Cinestill 400D.

These are all of the photos shot on Lomography purple. All of these photos were taken on a Kiev 4.

So I recently bought a Kiev 4 (complete in box) for a steal of a deal, These are all from the test roll. Theyre not too special, these are all of the keepers and there are a few really good ones. The lens, a jupiter 8 is surprisngly sharp and looks better than expected.

These were all shot using Arista 400 EDU, a pretty non contrasty bw film, but you go :oh there are some photos that are pretty contrasty” Yes, those photos I used a Tiffen 25A red filter, to add contrast. If it doesnt have a good amount of snow in the photo it has the red filter.

I don’t really have a whole lot to say here. I learned 3 things though.

#1 shooting in the redwoods a day after it rained while it was a little warm gives your camera a free pro mist filter that you dont even notice until after you get your photos back

#2 I was too harsh on Cinestill 400D a little awhile ago and I do want to shoot it again soon.

#3 My Minolta XD-11 needs its seals replaced.

All of these photos were shot on Motion picture stock film. Most of these photos were shot on Kodak Vision 3 50D (most of the photos), and Kodak Vision 3 500T (the photos that were shot in the gloomy weather and inside locations. Motion picture film is interesting especially because it has an extra layer, the remjet layer which standard 35mm film does not have and is used in only motion picture stocks. Some films like the Cinestill lines are motion picture film with the remjet layer already removed before shooting, while the Kodak Vision 3 film has the remjet layer removed after the photos are taken during the developing process. These photos were taken with either a Minolta XD11 or a Nikon F2 (I didnt bother separating the photos between the cameras or film stocks because I am lazy).

Nothing too fancy here, this is from My Minolta XD-11. This is the first roll I used with My new 45mm pancake lens, it seems quite sharp, but also soft at the same time? I do think it has very nice glass. This was shot using Kodak Gold 200, and im not sure why I dont like it a whole lot, but I really like it in 120/medium format? Doesnt make sense in my brain either.

So this roll was a triple test among many things. First things first, this is Illford HP5 pushed to 1600 ISO, I have never pushed film before, it doesnt really do it for me and I don’t think Ill do it again anytime soon. The next test was a new lens, The Helios 44-4M. Its an odd lens that I had to slightly modify so I could use it on my Nikon F2. It was definitely different than when I had a Helios 44-2 but it was still good. I missed focus a few times because I had a to use a M42 to F mount which had a extra piece of glass to make it so the lens could go to infinity focus. The third test was for the Pentax spot meter I recently bought which did surprisingly well.

So In late December I bought a Olympus Infinity Stylus Zoom. I so far have shot two rolls on it and I accidentally didnt send in the other roll that I shot. I bought this camera for $35 with 7 rolls of expired Fuji 400 (sadly its 24 exposure rolls, but Ill get over it when I eventually shoot it). I honestly didnt know what to expect because it was not tested. The guy I bought it from said he has never used it, and the last time that it was used was by his parents before they bought a digital camera, so I’m assuming this camera hasn’t been shot since probably the mid to late 90s. The camera was super clean and Im glad that it works