File :-(, x, )
The mystery Revue 800 gives results! Lawra
I bought a cheap roll of film, 3 in fact for under 5 euros.
200 ISO/ASA, 24 exposures, but I managed to fit 26 on one roll...
But in all my excitedness, when I popped the roll in, I forgot to change the ISO settings on the camera, which are at the front, but when the camera is on, the slide goes over those settings...
So I had it on 100 ISO all the time...
So I dont know what the actual results would be if taken 'properly', but... I really like it this way!

Photos below!
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>156656
looked better in thumbnail. framing is really awkward. i thought the picture randomly stopped loading, but that was it. that was the bottom. but my brain wants to see further down.
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
You tricked your camera into overexposing which looks like a good thing judging from 156656 which is still underexposed.
>> Anonymous
Gotta say, your pictures aren't that great, but the camera is certainly good.

Learn some of your basic photography and then shoot it again. You'll have some nice results.
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
oh yeah, sorry, I use this uber crap negative scanner we're borrowing from an old lady who bought it but can't handle computers, so gave us the job to scan all her negatives, 64 maps with each 24 or 36 photos on the negatives...

also, this was just a total test shot, I tried to shoot various angles and lights.
Also I somehow felt bad taking pictures of random people... anyway... :x
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
Randomness and traffic lights.
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
Also, I wanted a random,... artsy approach and thought up to going to empty playyards as it was Sunday anyway.
Nice colours and all there, ok ish way to test camera.
I'm really used to using a digital camera.
I do have way better photos then this, made with my Minolta AF65zoom, 100ISO film that expired probebly a few years,... thing is,... the negatives are at the lab for reprinting for the friend I took 'm with.
I'll scan and upload a few of those some time later.
>> Anonymous
These are shitty scans. They don't need to be 2mb pngs.
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
ChooChoo!
>> Anonymous
>>156671
Even if they're shitty, the quality is great.

What kind of scanner you got there, OP?
>> Lawra
     File :-(, x)
>>156687
... it's a flatbed.
HP Scanjet 4850.
It just has some slide that can hold film and such with a backlit thingy.
What this means is, your photos are full of dust when you don't clean of the scanbed,... really well!

But I guess it's pretty budget, dunno how much actually, as it's not even mine.
Also, last picture to finish it off,...
Ready for heavy critizism and basic photography.
>> Anonymous
protip: dont use png for photographs. png works best where gif would normally, ie small pictures with lots of solid colors and lineart.
jpg at quality 9 or something wont look bad at all
>> Anonymous
The camera might actually be better than the scans look..

My scanner gives very soft and grainy scans with lots of CA and purple fringing. With real film scanner there are none and the photos are a lot sharper :)
>> Lawra
>>156711
you mean filesize wise?
as i thought png was lossless o.o; am i wrong?
also jpg 9? i normally safe at 12. the pics are scanned to tif files anyway.
just sized 'm down to upload

>>156717
I can't tell by looking at the photo negatives...
I should just get the photos printed, just for the heck of it.
more photography help advice would be cool too :P
>> Anonymous
>>156722
You don't need to post lossless files here, nobody is printing them out or editing them. jpg 9 is good enough quality for photos on the web, anymore than that is just a waste of space.
>> Anonymous
>>156722
png isnt good for web sharing of photos because of the huge filesize when you can use a jpeg saved at quality 10-12 and see minute to no difference and have the file be a fraction of the size.
>> Lawra
>>156723
>>156724
note taken
>> Anonymous
What's so mystery about this camera?
Anyhow.. Dutch? Belgian? O:
Pictures aren't great, but it's a start. I love using film compacts like these, they're nice and unobtrusive.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>156655
always overexpose colour print film upto 1stop.
>> Anonymous
>>156669
Amazing color on this one, really feels like fuckawesome film shining through.
>> Lawra
>>156836
Dutch :)
It's a mystery cam to because I was unable to find any information on it, at all.

>>156840
always??

>>156854
thnx
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>156922
yes, always. (1/3 to 1 full stop)