tatetate Posted February 16, 2016 Share #41 Posted February 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thats amazing. What Film is this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2016 Posted February 16, 2016 Hi tatetate, Take a look here First roll of film in 10 years.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ShivaYash Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share #42 Posted February 16, 2016 Thats amazing. What Film is this.I only shoot cheap films. I think this is Kodak colour plus 200 rated at 100. Nice heh? I see shots of Portra but the price is just too high for me. I want to shot and shot lots. Agfa Vista is nice too when over exposed by a stop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share #43 Posted February 16, 2016 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted February 16, 2016 Share #44 Posted February 16, 2016 Nice, Shiva. Glad to see you enjoying your return to film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tatetate Posted February 16, 2016 Share #45 Posted February 16, 2016 Indeed very nice, Wonder if Poundland is still doing those agfa 200? Where do you buy yours? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 16, 2016 Share #46 Posted February 16, 2016 Indeed very nice, Wonder if Poundland is still doing those agfa 200? Where do you buy yours? Still out of stock, at most branches, some still about we are told but none around here, there is a thread on this forum about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tatetate Posted February 16, 2016 Share #47 Posted February 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Still out of stock, at most branches, some still about we are told but none around here, there is a thread on this forum about it. Read somewhere that they are going to stop selling them as prices have gone up! not sure how true is that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 17, 2016 Share #48 Posted February 17, 2016 Poundland responded to a Twiiter campaign, mounted after they stated discontinuance, by saying they would source an alternative, the World waits. Well a minuscule part of it does on, dare I say, further developments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share #49 Posted February 17, 2016 I'm currently in Melbourne but have my father buying stock for me at his local store. A shame its only 24 but still a good price. I personally prefer colour plus 200 by Kodak. West End Camera stocks it for £2.50 per roll. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted February 17, 2016 Share #50 Posted February 17, 2016 I'm currently in Melbourne but have my father buying stock for me at his local store. A shame its only 24 but still a good price. I personally prefer colour plus 200 by Kodak. West End Camera stocks it for £2.50 per roll. why cheap film? you are selling your film photography short by doing this? If you can afford an M-E, why not pay the extra few bucks and get first rate film? It really makes a difference... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share #51 Posted February 17, 2016 why cheap film? you are selling your film photography short by doing this? If you can afford an M-E, why not pay the extra few bucks and get first rate film? It really makes a difference... Perhaps but at the moment I'm delighted with the results I'm getting. In August I'll shoot my sister's wedding for which I'll use Portra I'd imagine, but for family snaps, and general day to day stuff I feel the cheap emulsions are just spot on. I think often many think quality film will yield better photos. I think it's practice that makes one perfect. It's shocking to see highly celebrated photographers portfolios. Their iconic images are generally speaking slim in number! Imagine how many shots were taken to achieve this. Whilst composition is vital, as is waiting for that moment, so is clicking the shutter. Fuji Superia 200, my first Fuji roll in many years. What more could I want? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted February 18, 2016 Share #52 Posted February 18, 2016 Perhaps but at the moment I'm delighted with the results I'm getting. In August I'll shoot my sister's wedding for which I'll use Portra I'd imagine, but for family snaps, and general day to day stuff I feel the cheap emulsions are just spot on. I think often many think quality film will yield better photos. I think it's practice that makes one perfect. It's shocking to see highly celebrated photographers portfolios. Their iconic images are generally speaking slim in number! Imagine how many shots were taken to achieve this. Whilst composition is vital, as is waiting for that moment, so is clicking the shutter. Fuji Superia 200, my first Fuji roll in many years. What more could I want? I wouldn't shoot superia. Life is too short. I would have shot this in Kodak Ektar or Portra 160. The mantra in my blood is "if you're going to do it, do it right" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share #53 Posted February 18, 2016 Perhaps but usually when I eat somewhere, I don't ask what pan it was cooked in ;-) whilst film stock is good you should really shoot to suit your pocket. I'm shooting around a roll a week and have invested in lenses. Portra is well over double, nearly three times the price, I just don't get it. We all do what is right for us. However I end with this, I dislike silly comments like, life is too short to shoot with Superia. What utter nonsense, (said with respect of course ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted February 18, 2016 Share #54 Posted February 18, 2016 I don't think the "pan" analogy is apt here. I think it is more like having a sandwich on a handmade french baguette (from Paris) vs store-bought packaged sliced bread. The film is like the camera sensor in digital speak. To me, many (not all, particularly the ones of the lovely children) of the results you have shared (e.g.. nearly all of the outdoor scenes) are not optimum and you could do a lot better with premium film stocks and a little more work at your exposure. I continue to be a little puzzled at how you don't recognize the premium quality of premium film stocks and how you could boast your rekindling with film for the entire world to hear all the while using cheap drug store film stocks. Sure, I could leave you alone on this one; but then again you did stick your chin out by starting a number of threads on this forum boasting your return to film and use of cheap film stocks. I have to think that someday as you ascend the learning curve you will come around to the real truth of the matter... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShivaYash Posted February 18, 2016 Author Share #55 Posted February 18, 2016 Yes I'd be obliged if you did in fact leave me alone. I don't belong to this forum for such passive aggression. Thanks. Ps. Post photos and not shit about film stock. Apparently having a different opinion here makes you the back one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted February 18, 2016 Share #56 Posted February 18, 2016 Yes I'd be obliged if you did in fact leave me alone. I don't belong to this forum for such passive aggression. Thanks. Ps. Post photos and not shit about film stock. Apparently having a different opinion here makes you the back one. I was simply stating my opinion about relative quality of film stocks and then made one observation about the many photos that you have shared. Fair game in my view for a public discussion forum regarding film. I intended no personal attack but constructive commentary, which is clearly within the forum's boundaries. And I have no idea what you "PS" was intended to say. Perhaps you were too angry to to able to think clearly about making your point? Perhaps you should take some deep breaths and try to be more clear? Before you curse me even more in a public setting I would ask you to recall all of those encouraging posts that I made to you in your other threads, including the thoughtful responses to the numerous newbie-type questions that you asked and the many encouraging and flattering comments that I made about the photos that you posted. Please don't be so quick to get frustrated with regarding to what is intended to be a healthy and spirited discussion regarding why if one is going to invest the extra time to make film photos (vs the immediate gratification of the digital workflow) there is sound logic (not necessarily always to be followed, but the recognition nevertheless) to wanting to use the premium film stocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpavich Posted February 18, 2016 Share #57 Posted February 18, 2016 Yes I'd be obliged if you did in fact leave me alone. I don't belong to this forum for such passive aggression. Thanks. Ps. Post photos and not shit about film stock. Apparently having a different opinion here makes you the back one. You posted some really nice images, shoot what you like and what you can afford. We all do. id be very happy if my images came out like yours. mr Miller meant no harm, I've also misunderstood his direct style of communication before and took it as offensive when he didn't mean it to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted February 18, 2016 Share #58 Posted February 18, 2016 There is rarely a need to shoot to the "optimum" level or indeed post process to it. I too have been accused of this "crime", not by present company, for not spotting scans. I don't always (actually never because I don't own one) shoot with that amazing new Summicron, often with a Summar,I don't scan every frame with a drum scanner, I don't spend time spotting, ( note in "The Decisive Moment" many spots and print blemishes are present, digitally removed in the facsimile reprint BTW) I shoot 35mm a lot, obviously for optimum film time invested I should be looking at at least 21/4, and where is that tripod anyway,sorry, was this about which film stock? There is much pleasure to be had in using talent and skill to wring out results that are "good enough", or for personal pleasure, from sub optimal equipment and materials. The results from standard "drug store" film as good as posted should IMHO be praised, could they be better, of course: change lens, stock, scanning, use a tripod etc incremental "improvements" but to what end; technical perfection with no heart? Would Brunelli have "improved" his results using another camera instead of a 1960s Miranda Sensomat ? http://www.port-magazine.com/art-photography/giacomo-brunelli-shooting-eternal-london/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted February 18, 2016 Share #59 Posted February 18, 2016 Adam, with great respect, I think you've been a bit harsh here. As an omnivorous film shooter, using inexpensive films like Kentmere, Foma, Agfa Vista and Gold and premium stock like Portra, Provia, Velvia and Acros in equal measure, I think that there's nothing "wrong" with shooting Superia. It's a very good film. Sure, the Portras are supposed to be "better", and there is a big hype to that effect, being based on even more modern film technology and influenced by motion picture stock. But Fuji Superia is a perfectly good film with good film technology built in, like the fourth layer etc. In any event, ultimately the results and one's preferences count. I'm certainly not trying to speak for Shiva, but looking at the images he posted I think they look good film-quality-wise and I can't see that they would be "better" if he had used, for instance, Ektar (sorry). It's just my humble observation and not aimed at anyone in particular, but I find it unfortunate when threads in - to use Steve Walton's phrase from the I love film thread - an enthusiast forum, turn sour. It seems the frequency with which this occurs in this forum has increased over the last several months. I am sometimes amazed by what people write to each other on the internet and often wonder if they would express themselves in the same way if they met in person. I mean we're here to help each other and share our knowledge and experience. br Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted February 18, 2016 Share #60 Posted February 18, 2016 Adam, with great respect, I think you've been a bit harsh here. As an omnivorous film shooter, using inexpensive films like Kentmere, Foma, Agfa Vista and Gold and premium stock like Portra, Provia, Velvia and Acros in equal measure, I think that there's nothing "wrong" with shooting Superia. It's a very good film. Sure, the Portras are supposed to be "better", and there is a big hype to that effect, being based on even more modern film technology and influenced by motion picture stock. But Fuji Superia is a perfectly good film with good film technology built in, like the fourth layer etc. In any event, ultimately the results and one's preferences count. I'm certainly not trying to speak for Shiva, but looking at the images he posted I think they look good film-quality-wise and I can't see that they would be "better" if he had used, for instance, Ektar (sorry). It's just my humble observation and not aimed at anyone in particular, but I find it unfortunate when threads in - to use Steve Walton's phrase from the I love film thread - an enthusiast forum, turn sour. It seems the frequency with which this occurs in this forum has increased over the last several months. I am sometimes amazed by what people write to each other on the internet and often wonder if they would express themselves in the same way if they met in person. I mean we're here to help each other and share our knowledge and experience. br Philip Philip - I appreciate what you have said. And I recognize the superia (which is one of a number of film stocks that Shiva has posted photos of on this forum over the past few months) very much arguably not "cheap drug store" film; so no disrespect to you and your photography, or anyone else for that matter. And my views on film stocks and the use thereof should obviously not in any way be translated into any kind of personal offense on anyone. I will emphasize again, though, that my comments above should really be taken by the OP in the larger context of the great many very positive and encouraging comments that I have made to him on his ascending glide path back to film. It is not worth the time to dig them up and post them here, but they are there. It is a shame that broader communication flows are not pieced together more often. And no need to apologize for the comment about Ektar. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am most certainly not offended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.