oh damn. i have to recheck the negs but i think i shot some E100 recently and loved it, i was meaning to order some more online :/
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Friday, 2 March 2012 12:15 (twelve years ago) link
no more Astiaschlump, if you have to check the negs, it's probably not Ektachrome!
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 13:54 (twelve years ago) link
lol
outside of kodachrome have rarely if ever shot slides. according to TOP, slides have always comprised single digit percentages of color film sales. :/
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 13:57 (twelve years ago) link
oh ha right, thanks, yes. i should look it up & find out what it was though. i took this w/it.
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Friday, 2 March 2012 13:58 (twelve years ago) link
wow. like a stained glass window!
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:05 (twelve years ago) link
feels weird -I thought all the lomographers loved kodak slide films for x-processing. didn't think they were too hot on the fuji stuff.
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:06 (twelve years ago) link
not surprising about the rarity of slide film use. kind of a pain to use, more difficult to manufacture, more expensive to buy etc.but the vivid and saturated colors can be a revelation. high saturation negative films don't really achieve the same effect, and it's hard to 'fake it' in the computer too.if anything I think it's maaayyybe even easier to fake digital for chrome than it is to fake negative for chrome? exposing for the highlights with each etc.
xpost
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:09 (twelve years ago) link
fake digital for chrome?
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:10 (twelve years ago) link
lomography in not saving the film manufacture industry shocker?
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:10 (twelve years ago) link
salty dog photographers always said digital was like shooting chrome - because of the decreased exposure latitude, the ease with which highlights are blown. it's not strictly true - clipped highlights look like ass in digital, blown highlights look more pleasing (to me) in slides
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:12 (twelve years ago) link
haha. feel like hipstamatic + instagram killed lomography
I mean that I think it might be easier to take a digital picture and try to achieve the "chrome look" than it would be with negative film. The "chrome look" being the exposed for the highlights deepened shadows thing.
xpost again
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:13 (twelve years ago) link
ie. salty dog theory
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:14 (twelve years ago) link
MJ's stash at the top of the thread is looking better and better each day!
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:15 (twelve years ago) link
I shot some fuji 64 tungsten balanced slide film last year. now there's a film that you probably won't see on the market for long!
― flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:18 (twelve years ago) link
so i am going to drop off films today (tri-x 400), and am gonna have them scan it---any rec'd instructions i should give? or should i just see what comes out? (this was all p much 'how do i shot film' rolls, so i'm not worried that they'll turn out weird or anything)
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 17:16 (twelve years ago) link
just check on the available scanning resolutions I guess? (usually there's a low and high res option) if you feel that you consistently over- or under-exposed you could ask them to push/pull, but I'd probably just let loose and see what you get. Everyone does it differently. Some labs are def. better than others for scanning, and the price seems to vary pretty wildly.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 5 March 2012 17:45 (twelve years ago) link
gbx send the rolls to me
― flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:29 (twelve years ago) link
...if you want to wait three months to get them back. but hey!
actually, I'd probably just ask what their standard B&W development process is - what developer they use being p important
see the problem is that I wouldn't know how to follow up on that question
and ty for yr offer!
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:40 (twelve years ago) link
haha well let me know what they tell you the answer is, and then I'd tell you my ~informed opinion~ about it
― flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:42 (twelve years ago) link
"excuse me a moment I need to consult a message board"
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:49 (twelve years ago) link
hey it's the year two thousand and twelve, get with the times
― flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:53 (twelve years ago) link
good lord
asked to get the stuff scanned (2 rolls, 1 horrible broken roll that i pulled from the camera in my darkened bathroom and threw into a stuff sack), and they said that hi-rez scanning would be $2.50. PER FRAME.
six rolls and i've got a neg scanner of my own at that price, holy shit!
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:04 (twelve years ago) link
that prob means they are using a really high quality scanner like a drum scanner or a noritsu? prob overkill if you just want to get a general feel of what each neg looks like
― flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:06 (twelve years ago) link
yeah, i just asked for negs. i've got a loup and can jerry rig some way of checking em out
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:07 (twelve years ago) link
yeah if you have a digital camera you can make an ad hoc film scanning setup pretty easily
did you ask what developer they used?
― flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:09 (twelve years ago) link
i was too scared
― catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:10 (twelve years ago) link
oh i even just meant eyeballing em, not even scanning---most of these are going to be shit, it's just the first few rolls from the m6
$2.50 per frame is probably some kind of Nikon Coolscan setup.
Drum scans are more like $50-100/frame.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 5 March 2012 23:11 (twelve years ago) link
if it's drum scan it's too cheap. if it's anything else it's too expensive. $2.50/frame makes exactly no sense.you can probably take it to just about any other place instead and get something normal (normal = probably between $12-$17 for a roll to be developed and scanned. scanning resolution and format will vary).
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:00 (twelve years ago) link
honestly that is really crazy. I feel like most people get scans and never see prints these days. it's pretty automated for just about any photo lab to do developing and scanning all from one machine.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 01:02 (twelve years ago) link
$2.50 is about right for 'pro' scanning w/ TIFF files. Noritsu/Fuji Frontier scans should be $12-15 for a roll of 36. That's ballpark for all the pro labs I've used (BWC, Precision Camera, North Coast Photo)Saw a Imacon Precision on EBay for the price of a 5D Mark III - that would be pretty awesome, if you can keep it running.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 02:16 (twelve years ago) link
Ha! I need to do a stock check sometime. I received quite a bit of Velvia as stocking filler the Xmas before last but I've barely used that. In danger of even newly-bought film being past expiry by the time I use it, never mind the 2008 Freecycle haul upthread.
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 12:59 (twelve years ago) link
there is a maybe similar bind with getting reprints, sometimes, which is that individual prints are expensive but getting a roll done from negatives is just however much they charge for developing & printing a roll, hopefully minus processing.
1 horrible broken roll that i pulled from the camera in my darkened bathroom and threw into a stuff sack
wanna see how this came out!
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 13:09 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i'm curious too
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 6 March 2012 14:46 (twelve years ago) link
...developing...
also somehow only recently learned about this place: mplsphotocenter.com
soooo u think it's worth 150 bucks for a six month memberships? darkroom! Free scanning!
might be a good way to learn stuff I dunno
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 15:02 (twelve years ago) link
Worth it to develop film and make contact sheets if nothing else, IMO.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 15:43 (twelve years ago) link
would definitely be good if you had time to make use of it! do you have to supply your own paper or not?
otoh, basic equipment to develop B&W film at home: $50-100. epson v500 - $110 from amazon. ~shrug~
― flagp∞st (dayo), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:11 (twelve years ago) link
yeah i am intrigued by contact sheets-as-editorial-process tbh, something about the tactility
xp wait the epson is that cheap? thought it was $500 or something
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:12 (twelve years ago) link
huh, looks like a plustek 7600 is only 360 on ebay, which is temptingly affordable
― catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago) link
er, amazon
If I get a place of my own when this lease is up, I think I'm going to start developing my own film at home. Too hard to time it right for drying over the tub with a roommate.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 19:17 (twelve years ago) link
so my local cvs only had Kodak bw400cn, what is this stuff I bought
― catbus otm (gbx), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:52 (twelve years ago) link
B&W film that you can drop off at the CVS (cheapest place is wal-mart actually)
― flagp∞st (dayo), Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:53 (twelve years ago) link
gr8080 posted a p alluring set shot on 400cn in the other thread a couple of days ago:, what do you see like: 2012
i had kinda mixed results on the roll i shot, some shot in really-low-light coming out nicely & daylight stuff looking really boring
― john-claude van donne (schlump), Thursday, 15 March 2012 12:42 (twelve years ago) link
huh well whaddya know, thx dude
― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 15 March 2012 15:26 (twelve years ago) link
This was Fuji Neopan 400CN, which is their equivalent of that Kodak C-41 B&W stuff (sorry if I've posted this before):
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6150/5944030099_e958159755.jpg
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 15 March 2012 16:47 (twelve years ago) link
so with this c41 stuff is the idea that Walmart developing/scanning will be adequate?
― catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:10 (twelve years ago) link
Well, more that it's C-41 chemistry so it can be run through the usual Fuji Minilab (or similar) machine that high-street processing stores tend to own. Exactly like colour negative film. If it wasn't C-41, you'd have to go to a "proper" lab. So, it's cheap.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 15 March 2012 17:23 (twelve years ago) link