Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)

Doc Henry

By Doc Henry
in Other

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wayne

Wayne

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Buying cheap because I want to play around with it.

Also portra whichever looks too expensive for my crappy production ... 9 euro per roll ...

I do not see significant difference between the results of Fuji and Kodak bargain priced 200 film. I have decided to go with Kodak, even though I sometimes see the fuji available for same price, primarily because the Kodak film finishes my home processing with perfectly flat negatives. It eliminates considerable frustration in scanning. I am not certain if commercial  processing results in a flat  Fuji negative, but I know that home processed Fuji negatives curl pretty severely.

 

I have not had such great luck with the Kodak bargain 400 film. I have not shot enough of that stuff to know if it is the film, or my photography.

 

Best regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doc Henry

    13465

  • A miller

    6032

  • Ernest

    3531

  • philipus

    2956

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Michael Hiles
Michael Hiles

Bonjour Henri,   I still prefer black and white film (I use almost no colour). The advantages of digital don’t mean much to me. Seeing instant results is not so useful, since what comes out of a cam

Cyril Jayant
Cyril Jayant

This photo is from a series from some of my crazy, extreme photo adventures I  had photographing Mountains "Alpinists " and rock climbers. This is Alpes mountain range which is called   "Le Massive du

helged
helged

On a week-long stay at the Faroe Islands, I took the ferry from Torshavn (the 'capital') to the southernmost island, Suduroy, and looked up potential shooting locations on the island. This image was t

Posted Images

Ernest

Ernest

Posted
Posted

Lumahai

M-A Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH Portra 400

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
A miller

A miller

Posted
Posted

Very nice, Mark.  But aren't you too big for those rides by now? ;)

Luna Park, Melbourne
Contax T3, Portra 400

attachicon.gif033205.jpg

 

I don't have any suggestions, but I doubt you'd go wrong with any of them. The Colorplus that I've seen is really nice; on the warm side; whereas the superia is also nice, though on the cool side.  Really depends what you are after.  

I want to buy a brick of cheap color negative film. I was going for Kodak Colorplus but I’ve seen some Fuji C200 at the same price. Any suggestion?

 

Very nice, Brendan.  Love that second one in particular! 

Thanks Steve!

 

M7, 50/1.4 ASPH, HP5:

 

 

Untitled by Brendan | Toews, on Flickr

 

 

Untitled by Brendan | Toews, on Flickr

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
A miller

A miller

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I am already missing those long winter shadows :)

NYC

IIIG, 28 summaron, Portra 400

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 27
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark II

Mark II

Posted
Posted

I do not see significant difference between the results of Fuji and Kodak bargain priced 200 film.

I am beginning to suspect that this is true of most “good” films...

 

I shoot mainly Ilford Delta films, partly because they scan well and partly because they are significantly cheaper than Kodak here.

 

I just ran a brief comparison between Delta 400 and TX400 (very different film technology), and the results at box speed are astonishingly similar if you have a hybrid workflow and can adjust the curves. The Kodak had slightly more latitude and slightly larger grain, but the emphasis has to be on the word slightly. I could easily mix the two films in a series and likely no one would notice.

 

I think that the developing, scanning and post processing have a much larger impact than many people appreciate.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonioF

AntonioF

Posted
Posted

Understood.

 

I too am frugal, and often "buy cheap", but then I can hear some members say don't buy cheap, buy the best.

 

For our next Europe trip in a few months I am Portra and XP2 all the way, same as last year.

I did however buy a brick of Vista, from Australia, for the same purpose as you, experimenting.

 

Maco (closer to you) has this.

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/color-negative-films/1151/agfaphoto-vista-200-35mm-36-exposures

 

and this

 

https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/color-negative-films/1666/kodak-color-plus-200-35mm-36-exposures

 

So, if all you are doing is playing around, then you are correct, decent economy to be had buying the Vista/Colorplus stuff.

Gary

Yes, I'm going to get the film and a C41 kit from them.

 

Thanks. I'll try some not expired film for now. Not sure of the outcome.

 

 

I do not see significant difference between the results of Fuji and Kodak bargain priced 200 film. I have decided to go with Kodak, even though I sometimes see the fuji available for same price, primarily because the Kodak film finishes my home processing with perfectly flat negatives. It eliminates considerable frustration in scanning. I am not certain if commercial  processing results in a flat  Fuji negative, but I know that home processed Fuji negatives curl pretty severely.

 

I have not had such great luck with the Kodak bargain 400 film. I have not shot enough of that stuff to know if it is the film, or my photography.

 

Best regards,

Flatness is important, so I might go with CP. I scan with a light board and a digital camera, so keeping the film flat is a key point. I use some weights at the sides of each frame to mitigate the curls.

 

Very nice, Mark.  But aren't you too big for those rides by now? ;)

 

I don't have any suggestions, but I doubt you'd go wrong with any of them. The Colorplus that I've seen is really nice; on the warm side; whereas the superia is also nice, though on the cool side.  Really depends what you are after.  

 

Very nice, Brendan.  Love that second one in particular! 

I've tried one roll of CP @ 100 last year (developed by a lab) and it did look warm. I guess it's good for summer photos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
edwardkaraa

edwardkaraa

Posted
Posted

Some Delta 3200 shots. The film came out under-developed and grainier than usual. Probably lab's mistake.

 

41467102654_ba3387e05f_o.jpgM7 ZM 35/2.8 Delta 3200 by edward karaa, on Flickr

 

40380897060_e5db0c6ed3_o.jpgM7 ZM 35/2.8 Delta 3200 by edward karaa, on Flickr

 

41467101964_d5f4931c21_o.jpgM7 ZM 35/2.8 Delta 3200 by edward karaa, on Flickr

 

40380896440_24067f9be9_o.jpgM7 ZM 35/2.8 Delta 3200 by edward karaa, on Flickr

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
jip

jip

Posted
Posted

P.S. on the first image there is a strange grid-like patern visible if you watch closely... this has happened to me a few times before when downscaling/upscaling analog scanned images. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
fotomas

fotomas

Posted
Posted

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Noblex 150UX, Agfapan 400

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...