First roll of film in 10 years...

[ShivaYash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To clarify for you, my comment wasn't a dig. Neither was it meant to be helpful. Work it out.

 

Personally, I couldn't give a stuff what film you or anyone else uses as long it gets used and something of it is posted on this forum to back all the hot air up.

No hot air from me. Mainly from a minority of users who consider non professional films pointless. Your comment however would seem to indicate otherwise; you do give a stuff. Anyway, having had a quick scan of the few photos you have posted, I like what I see.

 

Now I ask to be left in peace.

[indergaard]

I never would have expected people to feel so bitter and twisted about the film someone else uses. I guess I learned something new over the last few days.

 

Anybody else here actually enjoy taking photo's with whatever equipment and consumables they happen to have?

 

Yup. Everything from Portra 400, Fuji Pro 400h, Acros 100 to Kodak Gold 400 (I love this one actually), Fuji Superia 200 (love this one too!). Not a big fan of Superia 400 X-Tra though. Portra and Pro 400h are great (expensive) films, and they produce clinical results. Gold 400 and Superia 200 gives a more pleasing "film look" direct from the scanner. I especially like Gold 400 (GC/UltraMax 400)!

[RicD]

Ok...got it. Sorry for coming across defensive I appreciate the help.

 

Lol...I've been printing!

 

I finally got my darkroom going so I'm doing printing every chance I get and so haven't been on that thread much.

Please, it is spelled okay, not OK as in the abbreviation of Oklahoma. Before you go off "oh, OK is acceptable", truly it is not. 

[rpavich]

Please, it is spelled okay, not OK as in the abbreviation of Oklahoma. Before you go off "oh, OK is acceptable", truly it is not. 

 

You're joking right? You aren't seriously posting to correct my grammar....but if it's good enough for Webster's dictionary...I guess it's OK with me...

 

 

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!

[Ambro51]

Well there certainly is a difference between film stocks, personally I prefer Ektar. Maybe I'm behind the times, but I don't own a film scanner. I drop my film off at RiteAid drugstore, and their lab has managed to get every roll of Ektar done (what my 20-18 vision sees) , perfectly. They hit color dead on and the CD gives results I find wholly acceptable. ••••••• Photographers tend to forget, their most important piece of equipment is their Brain. I do know for a fact my very finest photograph was taken with a gnarly Kodak Autographic and way outdated Kodak 116 color film.

[rpavich]

Well there certainly is a difference between film stocks, personally I prefer Ektar. Maybe I'm behind the times, but I don't own a film scanner. I drop my film off at RiteAid drugstore, and their lab has managed to get every roll of Ektar done (what my 20-18 vision sees) , perfectly. They hit color dead on and the CD gives results I find wholly acceptable. ••••••• Photographers tend to forget, their most important piece of equipment is their Brain. I do know for a fact my very finest photograph was taken with a gnarly Kodak Autographic and way outdated Kodak 116 color film.

 

Does your Rite Aid do their film in house or do they send it out?

[Matlock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do know for a fact my very finest photograph was taken with a gnarly Kodak Autographic and way outdated Kodak 116 color film.

 

I still have my Kodak Autographic and one roll of 116 Verichrome Pan with an expiry date of 1966. Must use it and develop it with my Paterson Universal II. (or maybe I'll wait until it has fully matured  .)​