I Second That Emulsion (a film thread)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (433 of them)

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 Astia
schlump, 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

flagp∞st (dayo), Friday, 2 March 2012 14:12 (twelve years ago) link

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

flagp∞st (dayo), Monday, 5 March 2012 18:29 (twelve years ago) link

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

catbus otm (gbx), Monday, 5 March 2012 22:10 (twelve years ago) link

$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

MJ's stash at the top of the thread is looking better and better each day!

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

catbus otm (gbx), Tuesday, 13 March 2012 18:17 (twelve years ago) link

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


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.