Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Walgreens 800 speed film report ... :(
Old 05-05-2005   #1
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 3,550
Walgreens 800 speed film report ... :(

While I was shooting the night scenes of Las Vegas a couple nights ago, I ran short of film. I stopped in a Walgreens on the Strip to see if they had any 800. Yes. they did, two choices. Fuji for $8 and change per roll, and the store brand Agfa for $3.99.

I figured what the heck and got a couple rolls. I resumed shooting and took all rolls to Wally World in the morning. The difference between Fuji (what I usually shoot) and the Walgreens was like night and day, and I was very disappointed with the Walgreens film.

In short, quite grainy and contrasty, with green spotted "dirt" in the dark solids.

The left shot below was typical of the Walgreens ones, and the right one is what I usually get from Fuji. Notice the difference? Yeah, I thought you could.

You get what ya pay for! (For those following the other thread, I shoulda left it with the leader stuck in the cartridge.)

Oh well ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2005   #2
siverta
Registered User
 
siverta is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Age: 32
Posts: 39
Looks like a film from a cheap single-use camera. Iīve seen many single-use cameras with "German film inside" or "italian film inside". They are all the same: Horrible colours, old, brittle, and made in China (and probably with illegal child labour). And the film housing (donīt know a better English word for it) is from Fuji.

Sivert
__________________
Bessa L/R/T/R2
CV Ultron 35/1.7, Nokton 50/1.5, Color-Skopar 50/2.5, Super-Wide Heliar 15/4.5
Hasselblad 503CM
Hasselblad Distagon 60/3.5, Hasselblad Sonnar 150/4
Canon EOS 30
EF 50/1.4 USM, EF 28-70/2.8L USM
Adoxar Golf (75/F6.3)

<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1869'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-05-2005   #3
Flow
Registered User
 
Flow is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 112
I hope at least you had a good casino trip though...


I think the problem with disposables is not just in the film, and those brand name disposable are often the same film as those in retail canisters. It is also the lens (aka piece of plastic) that makes the pictures horrible. Ironically, have anyone read the package of Kodak MAX disposable camera? It says on the package "best lens"... Heh Heh...
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1790'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2005   #4
Jon Goodman
Registered User
 
Jon Goodman is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 280
I don't mind using cheap film as long as I'm careful to use a good processor (not 1 hour--I never use those). In fact, I've had excellent results with Ritz house brand, Ferrania, Walgreen's, Eckerd's, others. Many times I honestly see no difference between those and Fuji, Kodak, etc...particularly in ASA100 and 200 speeds, and I've had other people tell me they couldn't differentiate between them, either.
Jon
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2005   #5
pshinkaw
Trying to get it right
 
pshinkaw's Avatar
 
pshinkaw is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,345
For some reason, Ferrania, from ISO 200 up looks unacceptably grainy to me. I find Walgreen's/Agfa to be acceptable from ISO 100 to ISO 400 although I have pretty much standardized on Fuji as my color negative film of choice. When I go faster than ISO 400, I really like Fuji 1600. I use it throughout the high school sports season.

I would use Kodak amatuer films more but for the cost and their constant changing of names and supposedly, color characteristics. From year to year I just can't keep up with their so-called improvements. The name changes also make it much harder to comparison shop based on price differences.

If I'm testing out a camera repair job I just use Walgreen/Agfa ISO 100 in 12 exposure rolls.

-Paul
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=117'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2005   #6
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
 
Stephanie Brim's Avatar
 
Stephanie Brim is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Iowa
Age: 30
Posts: 2,881
I may have to try out that film for myself...interesting coloring. The Agfa shot looks really neat in my opinion. Then again, I have been called strange once or twice.
__________________

I had a baby girl on December 6, 2007. Yay motherhood!


One camera. Two lenses. Three shots per week.

2008 Street Photography Project
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2005   #7
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 3,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie Brim
I may have to try out that film for myself...interesting coloring. The Agfa shot looks really neat in my opinion. Then again, I have been called strange once or twice.
Oh, I've been called strange very recently, like for carrying a 30 year old camera when all the others had these digitals.

I've got much better shots of the Bellagio from the last trip with Fuji 800 film.

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/...dmr1-017-7.jpg is an example. Much cleaner.

In comparing the rolls, it's VERY obvious which are Fuji and which are Popeil.

When I take night shots I wanna see deep black solids. The night sky is supposed to be dark. Yeah, there's a glow in a city, but it's not made up of dirty green specks.

I also want to see reasonable highlight detail. Yeah I know that a bright bulb will saturate the film, but there should be detail in what's illuminated by that bulb.

The Ronco 800 film is too contrasty, too grainy, and too dirty in the shadows for my taste.

I did try the Polaroid 200 from Wally World and it worked fine for casual stuff.

Live and learn!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-06-2005   #8
Flow
Registered User
 
Flow is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 112
Why would people call you strange for carrying a 30 years old camera?I find nothing wrong with that. Lots of people are going into digital mainly due to the convenience and the instant gratification. But I find film cameras a lot more reliable than digital cameras. Even when I go out with full digital gear I will still bring at least a film P&S just in case the digital one fails. And plus I think carrying a few extra rolls of film is a lot lighter than a few extra lithium-ion battery packs.


Flowen
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1790'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forsaking all film for digital bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 59 01-24-2006 12:13
Film, Processing, and Scanners bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 26 12-06-2005 18:48
film speed FrankS RFF Polls 56 06-02-2005 05:51
Bessa-R film speed selection daveozzz Cosina Voigtlander Bessa 8 03-07-2005 12:36
Film speed and Xpan MP Guy Xpan & Other Panoramics 8 07-01-2004 03:29



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 17:39.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.