Here we can chat about the non-digital world - films, formats, developing, processing, scanning, whatever.
Saucy darkroom revelations welcome.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 26 March 2009 11:30 (ten years ago) Permalink
Shall I kick things off?
I must admit, I may never have gone back to film had it not been for the following two amazing Freecycle scores about a year ago:
We'd unearthed the FTb from the shed a few months prior to this but hadn't been tremendously inspired to re-enter that world. The EOS 10/41 rolls of expired slide film made it easy and led to Pam's medium-format investigations.
It's kind of a special treat. I don't take the film bodies out very often (waiting for a good day if I've got Ekta 100GX loaded or something) and I can't afford to process that often (I use a good, cheap lab in Birmingham for E6 and Jessops for C41), but the results are generally fab and require barely any further processing for web viewing (aside from deepening the blacks on the histogram - all scans seem to need this).
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 26 March 2009 13:08 (ten years ago) Permalink
The darkroom at college was rampant, frankly. There was more liasoning than printing going on at times.
I still marvel at the dynamic range of good c41; I've got pictures taken with bright white clouds and deep black shadows and it captures the lot of them. But every time the faff of developing and scanning loses out to the USB card-reader. I still keep a range of Ilford in the fridge, just in case, but it mostly just taunts me these days.
― stet, Thursday, 26 March 2009 15:30 (ten years ago) Permalink
I have Ilford in the fridge!
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Thursday, 26 March 2009 15:46 (ten years ago) Permalink
I did tiny bits of work with film at university, nearly ten years ago. I found it fiddly, but quite cool. Developing I enjoyed a bit, but I much prefer digital for convenience sake, and I can't imagine myself ever going back to film. Em fancies it, though.
― Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Thursday, 2 April 2009 08:25 (ten years ago) Permalink
Let's talk about scanning experiences, good and bad.
I borrowed Porkpie's CanoScan 4400F last night and, after a bit of a nightmare with drivers and USB cables, finally got it working. The colours are pretty wack on the negative scan and the slide scans just aren't very sharp. I know this is about the cheapest flatbed scanner on the market which can actually handle 35mm film, and there are probably calibration settings to be attended to, but I'm curious to know if there's anything that does a good job below the world of the Nikon CoolScan.
I can certainly do without waiting six minutes per frame for 2400dpi scans of 35mm slides (and dust/scratches are a nightmare) but I was tempted by Jessops' entirely reasonable £4.00 for 36-exp E6 processing/mounting (their scanning costs - cos they don't do E6 in-house - are extortionate, so wondered if I could do it myself).
So far I've been using Metro in Birmingham for E6 (£3.70 processing/mounting + £3.50 full-roll scan + P&P; 120-format is a little more). Best to leave it to the pro labs, I guess?
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 5 May 2009 10:14 (ten years ago) Permalink
I had a Konica Minolta film scanner once, and while the quality was very good, scanning was a nightmare - dust/hair is the biggest problem, followed by the dismal and deadening prospect of scanning thousands of negatives/positives, 4-6 frames at a time - one roll could easily take half an hour to an hour, depending on how thorough you were being. If someone offered me the option to scan all my film for, say, a sum of $1000 - I'd be very tempted.
― DJ Khaled El-Amin (dyao), Wednesday, 6 May 2009 16:16 (ten years ago) Permalink
My Diana F+ just arrived. Now I need to locate 120 film. Any ideas? I have some in the post but... I want some NOW.
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Thursday, 7 May 2009 11:21 (ten years ago) Permalink
Where are you, g-kit?
Dyao - yeah, the difference between lab scans (pristine, sharp, just need a little more at the left-hand of the histogram and they're done) and my scans (dirty, colour temp all wrong, out of focus) is startling. If I wasn't scanning things I already have on a lab-sourced CD-R (just to test the 4400F), I may not have been so discouraged, but the quality gulf is kinda unignorable.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 7 May 2009 11:32 (ten years ago) Permalink
another request for scanning experts to weigh in with tips. i've just cracked open my new epson v500 which has been lying around for a while and ran the first bit of film through it. not terrible for someone who doesn't know what he's doing, but not great either: i've seen other people get pristine results from this thing though.
please don't say get the pros to do it - it's xpan film and they charge through the nose because they have to do it by hand rather than running it through the fuji minilab.
― joe, Monday, 18 May 2009 21:33 (ten years ago) Permalink
I'm back from ATP with 8 films that need processing. I filled up my memory card in the 20D halfway through the Breeders set. This is gonna be expensive...
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:32 (ten years ago) Permalink
Wish I had some tips for Joe but I'm in a similar place; is it just not focusing well? Can you adjust that in the v500?
G-kit: what sort of film? Metro Colour Lab in B'ham still the best value I've found for 120 and/or E6 (if you're after scans too).
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 20 May 2009 18:59 (ten years ago) Permalink
4 rolls of 120 C411 roll of 35mm ilford super 400 C413 rolls of 35mm slide film to be xprocessed
i ended up sending them to peak imaging in sheffield on tuesday. hoping to get them back tomorrow.
― #/.'#/'@ilikecats (g-kit), Thursday, 21 May 2009 10:29 (ten years ago) Permalink
is it just not focusing well? Can you adjust that in the v500?
i think the focus was OK, there's a problem with dust etc, but i should experiment with ICE settings i suppose. main problem is it doesn't seem to be consistent with colour temp at all - which is a real problem when i'm scanning a double width exposure in two parts.
guess i was just hoping someone had a magic bullet that meant i didn't have to read the manual and learn how to use this thing properly.
― joe, Thursday, 21 May 2009 10:45 (ten years ago) Permalink
Fixing up colour temp should be something you can do in post fairly easily (though, having said that, I couldn't get the 4400F scans to look anything like the pro-lab versions in Lightroom - never mind the dust/scratches/focus issues, the colours were way off).
G-kit: good work! Like the 20D stuff too. Peak are very good by reputation - I should check them out again (I think I was put off by the prices last time).
― Michael Jones, Saturday, 23 May 2009 10:30 (ten years ago) Permalink
Freestyle Photo has rebadged Tri-X at $2.19/36 exposures (Arista Premium 400). That's an insane price.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Friday, 14 January 2011 03:58 (eight years ago) Permalink
does this look like too much hassle to be worth it?
― plax (ico), Friday, 11 February 2011 10:26 (eight years ago) Permalink
It's free, so well worth the hassle.
― not_goodwin, Sunday, 13 February 2011 11:02 (eight years ago) Permalink
yeah it definitely works well enough to make scans to show online
people have made dedicated setups with DSLRs dedicated to shooting negatives/slides
― dayo, Sunday, 13 February 2011 11:10 (eight years ago) Permalink
You can probably locate an old copy stand cheap, which should make the process even easier (camera is locked down, you'll have lights coming in at 45-degrees each way, it would either have a built in lightbox or you could use one.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 13 February 2011 19:00 (eight years ago) Permalink
yeah also for web shots, you don't even need a DSLR - a cheap digicam with good macro focus would also work
― dayo, Monday, 14 February 2011 00:39 (eight years ago) Permalink
so last week i got some photos developed at boots in the one hour one but when i picked them up they had only developed half of them and i could see from the negatives that the other half were fine and i noticed as i was leaving so i turned around and said it to the manager but the guy who did photos was gone so i was like yeah fine ill come back tomorrow and i did and they were still not done and he was gona again so i had work all day the next day and i came back the day after that and i had to like argue w/ the guy for like fifteen minutes to get the diff. in price back b/w one hour and two day photos even tho really they should have maybe just given them to me for free and then in the end he gave me a voucher for free digital printing. today i dropped off a couple rolls in asda for one hour and when i went to pick them up they told me the machine had broken down and they were ringing the guy. ugh.
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:07 (eight years ago) Permalink
that sucks dude. are there mail order places in the UK
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:14 (eight years ago) Permalink
i think im just having bad luck, guy i work w/ said that partic. asda is p good and its like 5 mins by bus from me.
i was gonna splash out on a lightmeter but i took a chance on a lightmeter app for my ipod and now im only getting one or two smudgy blurs per roll instead of smudgy blurs being p much the main category of photo im getting. its good, im getting a better feel for diff type of light i think. i like it. also ordering some 1600iso
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:23 (eight years ago) Permalink
yah the iphone light meter app works really well, matches up with my light meter pretty accurately
only downside is that it doesn't work too well in darker situations
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:35 (eight years ago) Permalink
got one of these - http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/128898468_fcbf47174c.jpg
and im liking it so far
― just sayin, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:44 (eight years ago) Permalink
that's a pretty classic camera - great choice
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:52 (eight years ago) Permalink
cool! yeah it's p easy to use which is my main concern at the moment
― just sayin, Wednesday, 23 February 2011 16:53 (eight years ago) Permalink
yeah, don't work so well on dark situations but i think it helps narrow things down a hell of a lot more than the ltl-3 built in one which frankly is totally suckass
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:03 (eight years ago) Permalink
also it cuts out on the need to make confusing calculations
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:08 (eight years ago) Permalink
btw also they fucked up the negatives in boots i think because there's a dark strip running along the entire negative and i dont think its light leak bc i've never head it before.
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 23 February 2011 18:09 (eight years ago) Permalink
so also can i ask, is it any more difficult to develop higher iso negatives or can i just drop them off in my usual place and they do the usual thing?
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:21 (eight years ago) Permalink
if its color film just drop it off
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:23 (eight years ago) Permalink
cool i just got a big box of 1600iso!!!
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:23 (eight years ago) Permalink
my fed might be here by friday!!!
― plax (ico), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:24 (eight years ago) Permalink
toys for me
I need to start hunting for another Canonet. The rangefinder patch in mine is so faint it's hard to use in anything less than direct sunlight.
― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 23:44 (eight years ago) Permalink
photos are kinda meh but I absolutely love that look of washed out yet saturated color - guessing he was scanning prints & not the actual negatives
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 7 March 2011 05:02 (eight years ago) Permalink
lol got my test roll back from the fed, also had 1600iso in it which was the first time i used that and really i didnt get much back that was super great but i get it now i get it. def good for taking pictures at night/in the street. this one of a guy i work w/ made the guy at asda ask me if i had a mad expensive camera and i was like no less than £28 guy.
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:37 (eight years ago) Permalink
totes glad i went w/ the suggestion of whoever said to try out some 1600 bc my underground photos have been semi successful up until now but really you just need smthng higher than 200 right
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:39 (eight years ago) Permalink
but its great bc while i love this high speed film it also makes me realise how much i love 200 and what its good for more, like being able to open up the aperture on sunny days and like shooting into the sun, im mad into lens flare atm:
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:42 (eight years ago) Permalink
anyway taking photos is super fun here are more i got three rolls back today so im in a good mood.
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:44 (eight years ago) Permalink
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 22:52 (eight years ago) Permalink
Hey these look great! Congrats on the camera!I love the blue bars and plants, especially. How are you metering?
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 7 March 2011 23:13 (eight years ago) Permalink
mostly im guessing (whatever it would be w/ 200 plus a three stops/shutter speeds up) but sometimes i use the lightmeter app on my iphone. im trying to guess mostly, i want to get good at guessing. also thankyou!!!
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 23:15 (eight years ago) Permalink
i shot a load of film today and im gonna double expose it w/ flowers from the park tomorrow!
― plax (ico), Monday, 7 March 2011 23:16 (eight years ago) Permalink
nj plax - looks like you got a great camera
― Neu! romancer (dayo), Monday, 7 March 2011 23:31 (eight years ago) Permalink
Nice guessing in that case!
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 7 March 2011 23:40 (eight years ago) Permalink
― just sayin, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 08:48 (eight years ago) Permalink
what film are you using plax
― just sayin, Tuesday, 8 March 2011 09:17 (eight years ago) Permalink
― 乒乓, Tuesday, 20 November 2012 22:51 (six years ago) Permalink
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02:29 (six years ago) Permalink
i know that bluish cast is fucked
― absurdly pro-D (schlump), Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02:57 (six years ago) Permalink
I got super bummed out because I thought I had lost a roll of film because I only had 9 rolls of arista shot instead of 10, and I always shoot in multiples of 5 rolls, but then I ralized I traded a roll for agfa! so all is well
― 乒乓, Thursday, 29 November 2012 18:28 (six years ago) Permalink
got my agfa back from the "lost batch" last weekend, and just uploaded a photo from it:
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Thursday, 29 November 2012 20:06 (six years ago) Permalink
I'm going to shoot more film in 2013, particular medium format. I had such a reaction to this shot on Facebook recently, especially from my film-toting friends, that I should dust the Bronica off and start working through the rolls of 120...
(This is from April 2011; Bronica SQ-A, Zenzanon-S 150mm f/3.5, Fuji Provia 400F)
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:50 (six years ago) Permalink
(Weirdly-framed light leak and all).
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:55 (six years ago) Permalink
(It's just occurred to me that the Provia 400F was depicted in my original post on this thread! Part of my free haul of expired film).
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:56 (six years ago) Permalink
I'm getting frustrated with my terrible film developing technique, but still tempted to get a proper medium format camera (i have a Holga).
― michaellambert, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 19:56 (six years ago) Permalink
i am still thinking about a membership to the mpls photo center, but i kinda just want these 20+ rolls developed and developed NOW
― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:34 (six years ago) Permalink
are they color or B+W
― 乒乓, Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:37 (six years ago) Permalink
also i lied, it's only about 16 rolls
― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:39 (six years ago) Permalink
let me develop your films
gonna give a shoutout also to my hometown comp http://www.philadelphiaphotographics.com/
they do a really professional job and they take mail order. think returnin shipping is $9 but if it's spread out over so many rolls shouldn't make that much of a diff
― 乒乓, Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:40 (six years ago) Permalink
color is all superia (except for some weird old agfa 200 thing that i extracted from my SL35 and must be 10+ yrs old?), BW is a mix of stuff---ilford, tri-x, kentmere
― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:41 (six years ago) Permalink
i also need to get organized, and start putting these negs in a binder or something---i've got several rolls i haven't scanned/looked at, and i think they're likely to be lost to my desk's horrible clutter if i don't act soon
― well if it isn't old 11 cameras simon (gbx), Saturday, 16 February 2013 17:44 (six years ago) Permalink
trying not to think about organising negs. feel like i'll just wait til i have like a hundred swirled plastic coils of film & then just turn them into some kind of artistic commentary on media redundancy.
― schlump, Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:27 (six years ago) Permalink
i just revived this grousy old thread How has getting photos developed become such a racket? but maybe it's better suited to ILP really - - - in NYC, rolling my eyes at prices and terrible service/confusion from the places I've called so far. How would YOU go about clearing the decks of around 90 rolls of color 35mm stuff? (Short of setting them on fire.) Realistically, what am I looking at $-wise to get them all develop+scanned (in non-bullshit quality) from a place (local, mail order, road trip, pony express) that I can have some confidence isn't going to feed my film to their dog?
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 17:05 (six years ago) Permalink
correction, 88 rolls of film. I wonder what all of this stuff is. 47 are on Kodak Gold, 31 on Fuji, 10 on Kodacolor. Do these correspond to different trips I was on, or was I buying emergency stock-up film while traveling? I actually have a large-ish digital backlog to deal with before I even practically should be worrying about this, but the Christmas present mystery factor is just so alluring. What treasures there might be in these rolls!
― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 17:39 (six years ago) Permalink
gonna give a shoutout also to my hometown comp http://www.philadelphiaphotographics.com/
― 乒乓, Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:40 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark
― 乒乓, Wednesday, 13 March 2013 17:40 (six years ago) Permalink
Hmmmmm, price is a little steep but I believe you that they do good work...what's the size/resolution of the scans? Some places really seem to hem and haw around this and then it boils down to 4x6 at 300dpi which is fine as far as it goes, I guess.
These people http://photoplaceonline.com/film-developing.html claim to do 8x12 300dpi for $10 a roll - and knock 20% off bulk orders which could be a huge deal. But I haven't been able to find much in the way of reviews, and obviously "8x12 300 dpi" means nothing if they're using, like, a flatbed scanner or something.
― Doctor Casino, Friday, 15 March 2013 17:09 (six years ago) Permalink
I never got anything scanned by them, but the processing is 1st rate
you should call htem and ask about their scanning equipment
I've been to the physical location and they've def got some pro equipment at least for printing
― 乒乓, Friday, 15 March 2013 17:22 (six years ago) Permalink
people on RFF have used this (forum sponsor) before and have reported on the results: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98700
― 乒乓, Friday, 15 March 2013 17:24 (six years ago) Permalink
Oh nice! Those are nice looking samples in that thread. Bookmarked! Thanks.
― Doctor Casino, Friday, 15 March 2013 17:34 (six years ago) Permalink
kentmere 400 is nice
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Wednesday, 15 May 2013 04:39 (six years ago) Permalink
I've been using Lucky 100, it's ok. Only developed one roll so far, survived being pushed a couple of stops in D76.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:47 (six years ago) Permalink
pro tip for lucky 100 is to not use an acid stop, rinse with only water between dev and fix
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 21:48 (six years ago) Permalink
Ok. Any reason?
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:11 (six years ago) Permalink
My method, rightly or wrongly, is currently dev > quick rinse in water > stop > quick rinse > fix > full rinse.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:12 (six years ago) Permalink
the emulsion on lucky (or was it shanghai gp3? either wya) is p fragile... acid stop mottled my emulsion and gave me bad results
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:19 (six years ago) Permalink
if youre using stop you prob dont need to rinse w/ water first, stop is p impervious to dev iirc
i can't recall what you can replace the stop bath with, something like 30 seconds of water, or maybe 2 changes of water with a few inversions, or something
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:21 (six years ago) Permalink
May try that. Had thrown in the quick rinses just to try and avoid cross contamination of the solutions i re-use, though it likely makes little difference.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:40 (six years ago) Permalink
you reuse dev?
it's okay to get a lil stop bath into your fixer iirc, i don't think fixer is too ph-sensitive
― 乒乓, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:42 (six years ago) Permalink
i just re-use stop and fix. Though i have re-used dev once or twice when experimenting with developing colour films in b&w chems, though the re-use was straight after initial use.
Like i say, no real reason i do the extra water washes.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 16 May 2013 23:52 (six years ago) Permalink
not really an emulsion thing but a film-specific query i think
i was wonderingas somebody who has always outsourced printing to the labwhat are the options for really printing photographs. i have photographs i like that i have taken, & i wonder sometimes whether if, if i wanted a good quality print of one, something comparable to a lovingly framed silver gelatin- gallery print, what would i do? is that entirely in the realm of people printing their own photographs on good paper, &c, or is it outsourced? i am not exactly keen to live in an apartment cluttered with memorials to my photographic talent or anything but there are some that i would like to nicely print rather than have on matte drugstore paper, or just curled up in a box of negatives.
did you guys ever elevate your photos to this level?
― daft on the causes of punk (schlump), Friday, 7 June 2013 19:40 (six years ago) Permalink
look like a foam seal issue to you guys, or something that happened at the lab? It looks like it's come from the sprockets, right? I've had three or four colour films come out fine, and the tail end of this roll of HP5 is the first I've seen it happen..
― sktsh, Saturday, 26 April 2014 22:22 (five years ago) Permalink
Yeah could definitely be a light leak? Is it on multiple frames? Did you leave that frame in the chamber for a long time?
Way to be sure would be to shine a flashlight around the camera on your next roll, possibly towards the end
― 龜, Saturday, 26 April 2014 23:52 (five years ago) Permalink
Could maybe be due to rushed processing, poorly drying chemicals maybe? I've had some b&w processing come back w splotches. But yeah try the flashlight test.
Xpost: I've gotten pretty nice prints from adorama! I think if you go to a professional lab in your area they can provide nice and large prints that aren't too pricey... You should try!
― chinavision!, Sunday, 27 April 2014 00:25 (five years ago) Permalink
Better than the drugstore
Yep, multiple frames with different patterns but all variations on a theme (ie bands of light coming up from the bottom) - only starts about halfway through the roll. I shot the whole lot in one afternoon, so it wasn't sitting in the camera for a long time. Will try the flashlight tip. Thanks!
― sktsh, Sunday, 27 April 2014 00:50 (five years ago) Permalink
― 乒乓, Friday, March 15, 2013 1:24 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
so i did in fact finally do this, after a lot of false starts and tests. it's not 100% the smoothest procedure in the world, and i imagine if you're willing to go a little more expensive with one of the super-duper professional type places (like the ones hyped by Ken Rockwell here http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/labs.htm) you might get slightly more attentive customer care. Not that anyone's been rude or anything, just that thing where you can perceive that the system isn't really set up to smoothly serve this type of customer or this type of need. In any case, though, and more to the point of the thread, it's thrilling to have the film back and developed and, most of it, looking pretty good. It's also daunting as hell, and of course I'm making it worse for myself since, while I was waiting for the dozens of rolls to come back to me, I finally got the needed adapter for my film scanner and started laying into some developed-and-never-scanned negatives and, oh, lord, I just see the future ratcheting out ahead of me, soundtracked by the whirring of the scanner and the click of the mouse as I futz with stuff in Lightroom.
I stopped shooting film at the end of 2011 - god, time flies - so it's kinda just nice to be back in this look-and-feel. Lots of fairly grainy and not that sexy consumer-grade Fuji 400 and stuff. And it turns out some of the stuff I was shooting in early 2010 wasn't that attractive or well-lit in the first place. But still, some of these are making me happy.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 20:59 (three years ago) Permalink
Top one there also an experiment in applying Lightroom's like-magic "vertical" tool, which naturally plays wayyyy better with RAW files from cameras where it knows the lens, to film shots. Wish I could figure out how to get it correct lens profiles for the film lenses I did have. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way those work, but just for it to know what transformation it should apply to fix barrel distortion would be pretty cool; I use those all the time for digital stuff.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 21:01 (three years ago) Permalink
Also, there really should be a word for the nagging, but unprovable, feeling that you must have lost a roll of film in a drawer somewhere. I really can't have taken so little in the way of personal/party candid shots between Fall 2010 and June 2011, I just can't have. Adding further confusion: one roll that I apparently developed at Target (!?!?!) somewhere in that time, where half the roll appears to be replaced with somebody else's pictures. I have no idea why I was getting film developed at Target, but I'm trying to comfort myself with the logic that, at the time, I would have noticed this strange development and taken action, unless I had some reason not to care (like it was a short roll anyway). But why wouldn't I have tried to return the other person's negatives? It makes no sense.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 22 August 2015 21:06 (three years ago) Permalink
that's awesome, dr cthose are happy-making, esp <3 3rd oneincomparable experience to get old rolls developed, to scan old negsyou remind me, have some v v old disposable camera rolls inexplicably never developed; prob ruined by now but obv worth processing anywayalso many negs from middle/high school (!!!), most prints long lost, never scanneddon’t know why i keep postponing likely proustian experience
there really should be a word for the nagging, but unprovable, feeling that you must have lost a roll of film in a drawer somewhereso otm
one roll that I apparently developed at Target (!?!?!) somewhere in that time, where half the roll appears to be replaced with somebody else's picturesthat reminds me of roll i once took to be developed, which lab lost or mixed up with someone else’s roll (b&w, so lab outsourced to another lab)anyway, roll was never foundthis happened like decade ago; i’m still haunted by that lost rollvividly remember when/where i took those pictures— long rambling walk on melancholy overcast late afternoon in place with fraught associations when i was in v particular/inarticulable state of mindmaybe the vividness of the memory is due to (& worth) the loss of the photographs
― drash, Sunday, 23 August 2015 14:37 (three years ago) Permalink
aww, thanks a bunch. much more to come on flickr of course. btw i realized i may have been confusing above - none of these are from the big batch i got developed/scanned through those people (just me with my buddy the coolscan), so don't take them as samples of their work.
do the disposable cameras sooner rather than later! you seriously never know. IMO if there's one precious memory great shot buried in there it's so worth it.
i scanned a big bunch of high school negs the other week, not sure when i'll get around to processing them or what i'll do with them. i think all i had then was disposables. they're none of them "great photos" but definitely the kind of thing that folks on facebook may get a kick out of, might bring a smile to some people's faces, etc. that's a worthy thing. but only so many hours in the day. maybe i'll save them for twenty years out from graduation or something.
my other great "lost roll" - only one that's ever come back blank, crushingly - was from the end of summer 2008, mostly goofing around at coney island with a couple of good pals. i would love, love to see what was on that. sigh. really interesting to think that the memories of the day are heightened by taking but not having the photos. normally i think of photos as memory-prompts, gradually the days that were photographed come to call up (but also to stand in for) many other days and times. but perhaps a day that one THINKS about having photographed can actually work the same way. that's really interesting.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Sunday, 23 August 2015 16:00 (three years ago) Permalink
cool stuff doctor casino
― tender is the late-night daypart (schlump), Sunday, 23 August 2015 16:15 (three years ago) Permalink
Man, that makes me want to get a film camera and shoot. Are they still doing $12 all in plus shipping for the scans?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Monday, 24 August 2015 03:02 (three years ago) Permalink
Yeah! I think you do have to be a registered RFF member and click through from their ad there, otherwise you won't find that item to add to your cart.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Monday, 24 August 2015 15:14 (three years ago) Permalink
i've realized i should probably use a service like precision.
i had some developed negatives and went to a semiserious developing place today and got a price of 99 cents per frame for scanning to cd at "good" resolution, a buck something per exposure for "excellent" resolution ???? it's considerably cheaper if a develop/scan package for whatever reason (maybe there's a good reason that i'm unaware of).
― dylannn, Saturday, 29 August 2015 06:24 (three years ago) Permalink
Well, it's a LOT simpler to feed film into a scanner before it's been cut and sleeved. That's probably the biggest reason, assuming it's not like a drug store deal where the sacns happen (as I understand it) in the same machine as developing (?).
I should revise up my Precision comments a bit - in the end they came through, clearly tried hard to unravel some crossed wires, and insisted on a partial refund even when I was like ahhh, whatever, it's fine.
― Gorefest Frump (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 29 August 2015 12:22 (three years ago) Permalink