Old 05-22-2018   #41
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
For instance, the recent Netflix film "Kodachrome" was shot using 35mm Kodachrome film. The optimist will see this as a good sign for film while the pessimist will point out this is the last film in history shot using Kodachrome.
And the realist will know that "Kodachrome" was shot on 35mm Kodak Vision3 film
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #42
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 43
Posts: 3,975
Yeah, I read that article. Nothing about it being shot on Kodachrome film. As was already mentioned, the movie was certainly shot on Vision3.
So, the last movie to be shot on Kodachrome has already been made. It was someone's home movie, most likely made with a Super 8 camera. Almost a decade ago.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #43
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
The consensus seems to be "What, me worry?"

I hope that is the case, however, with the economy due for a recession and the continuing uncertainty with Kodak, I am not yet convinced enough to order a Leica a la carte MP. (I wish!...LOL...)

Maybe the best plan for us all is middle ground, shoot like crazy (like Cal has been doing) and the purchase of extra film used will help Kodak and Ilford, and... stock up as much as possible with bulk film in the freezer. In others, fully commit to shooting a lot of film, with some in storage, just in case we are all wrong.

Sounds good to me.
Dave,

As older men we should exploit as an asset being stubborn.

For the longer term B&W is a safe place, and then I have to ask is how many different types of film do I really needed to keep me happy and busy the rest of my life? In my case I only need two films: one for 135 and another for 120.

Currently for 135 it is 5222, and this film is required for Kodak to support their color MP products. My logic is that 5222 is needed to support film schools to keep their color MP viable.

If I had to pick a 120 film it would be Tri-X, and if that went away I would be happy with HP5.

The middle ground long term for higher resolution, color, and for printing huge there is digital. Pick your flavor.

You know how I thoughtfully obsess over things. Meanwhile there are new films being added and scaled up. Panchro 400 is available in 4x5, Ilford has an ULF program, and eventually Ferrania will be scaling up also.

I'm not so concerned about not having B&W film available in my (our) lifetimes, but the costs may increase. Tri-X in bulk is no bargain, and 5222 in bulk saves about $2.00 a roll over Tri-X. Really evident to me the writing is on the wall already. I believe 5222 will outlast Tri-X. The pricing suggests that.

Also I embrace the creative challenge and problem solving. I think it adds strength and character. The idea of stockpiling is just about cost savings and locking down the cost of a commodity. At this point I cant see film prices dropping, and the only liabilities are storage and the expiration date.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #44
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
The idea of stockpiling is just about cost savings and locking down the cost of a commodity. At this point I cant see film prices dropping, and the only liabilities are storage and the expiration date.
And the cost of money: would you rather invest in film in your freezer or the stock market. I guess the amounts involved are so minimal it doesn't really matter.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Film at the zoo
Old 05-22-2018   #45
KenR
Registered User
 
KenR is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 694
Film at the zoo

I was at the Bronx Zoo yesterday and saw a young couple (30ish?) using film cameras. He had a Nikon F? and she had a Rolleiflex. I was gladdened by the sight of them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #46
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
And the cost of money: would you rather invest in film in your freezer or the stock market. I guess the amounts involved are so minimal it doesn't really matter.
PTP,

I'm hedged because I do both. Part of my diversification stratagy.

Film as a hard asset has been good for me. Like a futures contract one has to be aware of the expiration date, but the trends of upward pricing and more limited supply and demand encourage me that this trend can make me lots of money through savings.

Past performance of loading up on Arista Premium from Freestyle purchased at $2.89 a roll verses the current price of about $6.00 suggests as a pure commodity it doubled in value. Know that I still have a few dozen rolls of Arista Premium That I will likely shoot over the holiday weekend.

Don't forget that the images created are a secondary commodity that have potential unlimited value and earning power.

I say stockpiling film as a commodity/hard asset and personal resource is a very-very wise thing to do.

Another example is I bought 25 packs of Fuji FP-100 for $20.00 a pack (bought 25 packs for $500) This film I could "flip" easily for over $30.00 per pack. Purchased less than a year ago. This purchase I wish I could of added many zero's because these are serious gains.

I am also sitting on 30 rolls of Acros in 120...

Sorry for the Bankster rant. LOL. Are we not speculating on film? "I'm bullish," I tell you.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #47
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,904
Cal,

Perfect sense and classic Calzone... thanks for your input!

With two rolls of 127 HP5+ ordered through the Ilford program, I only need to split a roll of 5222 with someone and look for some film bargains. I am seriously considering Provia along with the usual suspects.

Then, I am set to shoot with abandon! A little planning, a little active investing and I can enjoy my film experience. Meanwhile, my pro bono work is still alive with the hospital and paid gigs not far off.

It is an awesome time to enjoy Photography. Still wish I had that a la carte Leica though.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #48
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 8,904
"Quote:

As older men we should exploit as an asset being stubborn."

Cal,

You know me well.
__________________


Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #49
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
"Quote:

As older men we should exploit as an asset being stubborn."

Cal,

You know me well.
Dave,

Stubborn is good. LOL.

I had a black paint MP with the hard to find 0.85 VF'er so basically I found a used version of the camera I would of ordered. To make it a new camera a sent it off to sherry for an overhaul.

Sadly I traded it in to raise funds to buy a new SL.

I ended up keeping my old M6 that I tried to upgrade to be like a MP with the upgraded MP VF'er, but the Wetzlar version M6 has a mucho crude meter when compared to the MP. Honestly the MP was a more advanced camera (the metering goes -2EV) and the 0.85 VF'er made it great for 35mm and 50.

The M6 was the keeper because of sentimental value. It was my first Leica, and knowing how you are I know you are like me a romantic, and those old cameras have a deeper meaning.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #50
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,302
I'm bullish on film, as you may know. I looked in the deep freeze last night and was delighted to see thirty more 120 rolls of Acros. Plus what I have upstairs. No real need to get any more at this point.

Five 400' rolls of Eastman XX, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of sheets of 4x5, 9x12, 6x9, 2x3, 5x7, and some 8x10. I'm set for a while.
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #51
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
I'm bullish on film, as you may know. I looked in the deep freeze last night and was delighted to see thirty more 120 rolls of Acros. Plus what I have upstairs. No real need to get any more at this point.

Five 400' rolls of Eastman XX, and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of sheets of 4x5, 9x12, 6x9, 2x3, 5x7, and some 8x10. I'm set for a while.
Dan,

I with you.

Meanwhile I see mucho opportunities to buy cameras that are true treasures for no money and all this other unheard of rare gear that I think is treasure.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #52
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,584
I guess I’m a semi-professional. I take portraits and the like for money (or barter), do the rest for fun. About 90% of my color work is digital, with the remaining 10% primarily Kodak Ektar.

B&W though, is about 90% film. Mostly 4x5 and medium format, which is almost entirely on Tri-X. For 35mm, I use a variety of stuff, Tri-X, Eastman -XX 5222, and Ferrania P30. P30 is the one that excites me, I love its very unique look.

And of course, I shoot instant film too, entirely Polaroid Original.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #53
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,302
The most interesting film just coming out, in my opinion, is the Foma 120 Retro Soft 320. I have been shooting some of that in 9x12. It's just about to be released in 120.

I am really going to dig using it in 120.

It's really not a miniature format film IMO.

Also Ilford is not going away and outdated film is underrated for image making in my experience.
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #54
ACullen
Registered User
 
ACullen is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 159
Are there any dos and don’ts regarding storing film in a fridge or freezer. I’ve started putting my 120 and 35mm rolls in the fridge. I’m uncertain about the wisdom of sticking it in the freezer

I’d be grateful for any pointers

Thanks in advance

Last edited by ACullen : 05-22-2018 at 13:31. Reason: Typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #55
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,297
Just keep the film in airtight packaging, like it comes from the manufacturer. I put film into ziplock bags just to keep stuff organized, but have used boxes in the past, before I was kicked out of the regular freezers and had to get my own.

My bulk loads go into reused plastic film cans and then a bag.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #56
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,331
Anyone know the best way to store Fuji FP-100C for longevity, and its lifespan? I’ve several packs that have been sitting in the fridge (not freezer - worried about the liquid chemicals) for a couple of years...
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-22-2018   #57
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 396
I've been a film lover all my life. Have a mountain of film cameras. That said, the last year or so, I've concentrated on street photo projects locally, Hong Kong and Tokyo. The latest software tools combined with my digital Fuji gear and other digital bodies has given me the look I want. I may settle on one 4x5 for wetplate, and my Nikon F5 for film...and leave it at that. Digital has been making up 80% of my shooting as of late. That, for reasons of nostalgia, makes me sad. I still love film...but it has been fleeting.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #58
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
That is wonderful news if it prevents or at least delays their discontinuance of other, "regular" emulsions. But Fuji being Fuji, I haven't really seen that happening.
And you won't see it happen either. That's not the point. The point is a lot of people use INSTAX film to immediately share non-virtual images. That aspect of film photography is growing globally.

If Dave's this thread had the words Non-INSTAX Film Photography I would not have mentioned INSTAX film.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #59
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
People buy the Instax because it is instant. The technology is irrelevant to the typical buyer.
Wait, I thought the technology made the instant results possible?
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #60
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichC View Post
Anyone know the best way to store Fuji FP-100C for longevity, and its lifespan? I’ve several packs that have been sitting in the fridge (not freezer - worried about the liquid chemicals) for a couple of years...
Rich,

From Fuji: do not freeze; store in a refrigerator.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #61
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Yeah, I read that article. Nothing about it being shot on Kodachrome film. As was already mentioned, the movie was certainly shot on Vision3.
So, the last movie to be shot on Kodachrome has already been made. It was someone's home movie, most likely made with a Super 8 camera. Almost a decade ago.

Phil Forrest
If you watch the film, the credit-line rolled is - "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film in large fonts." I just now confirmed this on Netflix.

Perhaps whoever wrote that credit line lied.

A slightly less vile possibility is the "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film" only refers to all the still photographs depicted in the film and especially in the set of still photographs shown during the first section of closing credits. In this case, not including the words – still photography – in the credit line Shot on 35mm Kodak Film is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #62
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
The most interesting film just coming out, in my opinion, is the Foma 120 Retro Soft 320. I have been shooting some of that in 9x12. It's just about to be released in 120.

I am really going to dig using it in 120.

It's really not a miniature format film IMO.

Also Ilford is not going away and outdated film is underrated for image making in my experience.
Dan,

Thanks for the film smut. Is this like Tri-X 320 Professional?

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #63
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
The most interesting film just coming out, in my opinion, is the Foma 120 Retro Soft 320. I have been shooting some of that in 9x12. It's just about to be released in 120.

I am really going to dig using it in 120.

It's really not a miniature format film IMO.

Also Ilford is not going away and outdated film is underrated for image making in my experience.
Dan,

The Foma Retro Soft 320 looks to be a promising film.

I have not tried any Foma films. A while back I read a thread about poor QC, and someone here on RFF said he loved the film, but the bad QC prevented him from using it.

Much time has passed. How is the QC at Foma today?

Foma is an interesting company because of costs and because they offer sheet films.

On an aside I think film is becoming more important to me in the larger formats. In the past 135 was more important, but I think 120 now has become more important, and even sheet films like 2x3 and 4x5.

Really encouraging is the commitment of new films and also sheet sizes. Like a surfer I'm riding the wave.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #64
brbo
Registered User
 
brbo's Avatar
 
brbo is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
If you watch the film, the credit-line rolled is - "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film in large fonts." I just now confirmed this on Netflix.

Perhaps whoever wrote that credit line lied.
Nobody lied. It WAS shot on Kodak film (Kodak Vision3 negative film). Which is something completely different than Kodak Kodachrome film.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #65
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is online now
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,680
Without searching through the posts, someone mistakenly said the film was shot on Kodachome film which is of course impossible. Subsequent posts meant to correct that misapprehension. It was shot on film, presumably Vision3, for all that it matters. It just goes to show that just because something was shot on film doesn't make it good. I found the film barely watchable.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #66
freeranger
Registered User
 
freeranger's Avatar
 
freeranger is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bratislava
Posts: 424
I started a film-photography club for kids this year. I've taught them how to use fully manual cameras and how to develop film. The children love it and the educational benefits are huge....but my real motive: keep film going for as long as I do
__________________
Faith - making a virtue of not thinking
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #67
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is online now
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeranger View Post
I started a film-photography club for kids this year. I've taught them how to use fully manual cameras and how to develop film. The children love it and the educational benefits are huge....but my real motive: keep film going for as long as I do

AWESOME!!!
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #68
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
AWESOME!!!
Plus one.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #69
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is online now
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACullen View Post
Are there any dos and don’ts regarding storing film in a fridge or freezer. I’ve started putting my 120 and 35mm rolls in the fridge. I’m uncertain about the wisdom of sticking it in the freezer

I’d be grateful for any pointers

Thanks in advance

Good to ask.

I can provide my strategy, which is probably like 99% of others here:

Long-term storage is in freezer. As mentioned, keep film in their airtight original packaging. I also have a hierarchy of bags that I use: It all depends on the film and my usage patterns, but for example I will put 5 rolls of FP4 120 in a small ziplock bag and squeeze out the air and seal it. then put that in a larger ziplock bag with some other 5-roll bags of 120 film. Seal that up and put it in my 120 box (airtight?) in the freezer. Why? A couple reasons and one of them is important. I feel that the extra level of airtight storage (ziplock bags) is redundant security just in case the factory package is leaky. The other reason is how I pull film for use-- I place small quantities in the small bags because they need to fully thaw to room temperature before I open them (the film package, not necessarily the ziplock bag). So, for me 5 rolls is a practical quantity.

For short-term storage, I do pretty much the same thing, but in the refrigerator instead of the freezer. Pulling film from the fridge means less time before it reaches room temp. Also, Polaroid film is fridge only storage.

I've heard there are some who prioritize freezer over fridge storage depending on the film type and speed. I have no idea if there is any merit to this, but the idea is to store faster film in the freezer. I also heard somewhere that slide film might store longer and better in the freezer too. Again, I have absolutely no idea if this is valid thinking or not.

Film storage is easy. Just remember airtight packing and let film reach room temp before opening. Easy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #70
GarageBoy
Registered User
 
GarageBoy is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
If you watch the film, the credit-line rolled is - "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film in large fonts." I just now confirmed this on Netflix.

Perhaps whoever wrote that credit line lied.

A slightly less vile possibility is the "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film" only refers to all the still photographs depicted in the film and especially in the set of still photographs shown during the first section of closing credits. In this case, not including the words – still photography – in the credit line Shot on 35mm Kodak Film is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.
Kodak makes more film than just Kodachrome you know.... Vision 3 is their latest ecn2 color negative film, available in 50 daylight and 800 tungsten flavors.

Kodacolor was their name for still negative film, and ektachrome is their e 6 slide
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #71
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACullen View Post
Are there any dos and don’ts regarding storing film in a fridge or freezer. I’ve started putting my 120 and 35mm rolls in the fridge. I’m uncertain about the wisdom of sticking it in the freezer

I’d be grateful for any pointers

Thanks in advance

1, Other users of the fridge have strange ideas about what they are for (not film it seems) and so it's best to keep on the right side of them (only store a few dozen films) or buy you own fridge.


2, Do not store film anywhere near Worcester sauce...


Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #72
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Dan,

The Foma Retro Soft 320 looks to be a promising film. I have not tried any Foma films. A while back I read a thread about poor QC, and someone here on RFF said he loved the film, but the bad QC prevented him from using it. Much time has passed. How is the QC at Foma today?
Foma is an interesting company because of costs and because they offer sheet films. On an aside I think film is becoming more important to me in the larger formats. In the past 135 was more important, but I think 120 now has become more important, and even sheet films like 2x3 and 4x5. Really encouraging is the commitment of new films and also sheet sizes. Like a surfer I'm riding the wave. Cal


Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr


Cal,

Here is a test image I shot (9x9cm image on 9x12film) Foma Retro Soft 320. Processed in Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. My replenished soup is FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong. Kinda like Diafine in that respect. Replenish it regularly or it will oxidize and need to be replaced. No QC problems ever with Foma. But they did make some bad batches. Plaubel Makiflex, 9x9cm neg shot on 9x12 sheet film, Kern-Arau 360mm F11 process lens at F16. A cold and dismal day at our local downtown Victorian park. Cal, this should give you a good idea about 120 size Soft Retro. I scanned a 6x9cm size neg from the original 9x9cm image. I like this Retro Soft 320 in Microdol-X replenished (available from Freestyle). -Dan
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #73
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is online now
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,302
Like Rollei 400s, Foma Retro Soft 320 has a unique tonality. Wish they made it in 70mm!
__________________
“The secret of getting ahead is getting started.”
― Mark Twain
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #74
rf_smitten
Registered User
 
rf_smitten is offline
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 13
I have just ordered a few rolls of Agfa CT Precisa, before it disappears from the market, so I've been thinking a little bit about the future of analogue photography and my attitude about it as well. It was the last affordable slide film here in Europe, all others cost more than 10 euros or so. I really like the aesthetic of slide film, maybe because of the famous photographs of the "New Colour Photography" movement, and also that it is actually easier to scan. Maybe Fuji will continue to sell off their stock for another few years, but the prices are already high and won't go down. I really hope that Kodak can bring back the Ektachrome film, but the delay of the project and the missing updates don't look very good. At least I have still hope, while I'm not so optimistic for Ferrania that they can make the big step from a small boutique producer to a reliable film manufacturer.

For Black and White film future seems to be brighter, the production process is easier and smaller companies are offering interesting films. At the moment, I think analogue photography is really at a decisive point and the next years will show if it will develop into a small niche market with exclusive prices and limited film choices or it can still be accessible for anyone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-23-2018   #75
gdi
Registered User
 
gdi is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West-Central Connecticut
Posts: 2,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
If you watch the film, the credit-line rolled is - "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film in large fonts." I just now confirmed this on Netflix.

Perhaps whoever wrote that credit line lied.

A slightly less vile possibility is the "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film" only refers to all the still photographs depicted in the film and especially in the set of still photographs shown during the first section of closing credits. In this case, not including the words – still photography – in the credit line Shot on 35mm Kodak Film is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.
My powers of deduction are strong and I concluded that the film about the last day of Kodachrome development, which was filmed 7 years after that date, could not have been filmed on Kodachrome! Obviously it was a different Kodak film and Vision 3 does make a lot of sense, and it is very logical to publicize that fact.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2018   #76
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nokton48 View Post
Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr


Cal,

Here is a test image I shot (9x9cm image on 9x12film) Foma Retro Soft 320. Processed in Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. My replenished soup is FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong. Kinda like Diafine in that respect. Replenish it regularly or it will oxidize and need to be replaced. No QC problems ever with Foma. But they did make some bad batches. Plaubel Makiflex, 9x9cm neg shot on 9x12 sheet film, Kern-Arau 360mm F11 process lens at F16. A cold and dismal day at our local downtown Victorian park. Cal, this should give you a good idea about 120 size Soft Retro. I scanned a 6x9cm size neg from the original 9x9cm image. I like this Retro Soft 320 in Microdol-X replenished (available from Freestyle). -Dan
Dan,

Thanks for the response. This film is encouraging. While not a modern film many like the soft rendering that makes it well suited for larger formats. I probably would not use Retro Soft for 135, but with all this single coated medium format glass it will be mucho good.

So looks like my inspiration is emphasizing 120 and sheet films and 70mm for firepower over 135.

Everybody should understand that I put together a dip and dunk system where I bought a Nikor rack with a dozen 120 reels ($50.00 BIN with free shipping), and along with the 120 and 220 reels I already own shooting a lot of 120 should leave 135 behind.

Also the trend I recognized over the past year is that mucho 120 cameras are being sold for no money. It is almost like when you could buy a user Nikon F3 for $75.00 or a F5 for $250.00, but this time it is 120 cameras.

Bought a Baby Linhof Tech IV kit with a 100/2.8 Zeiss Planar that the seller clearly indicated had lens separation for $800.00 BIN loaded with accessories.

I sent the lens to John at Focal Point and he repaired the lens separation for $250.00. A clean 100/2.8 Planar not only is hard to find, but when you can find one they cost around $2K alone. Bad news is that Focal Point closed shop.

For those that are stubborn like me and Dave now is the time to emphasize 120.

I'm finding good prices on tanks and reels too. $129.00 for a JOBO 3013 for 4x5, but this tank serves double duty for loading three 15 foot reels of 70mm where I can develop almost 200 frames of 6x7 shooting a Linhof like a Leica. Bought a Unicolor Uniroller for $29.00.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2018   #77
DKimg
Registered User
 
DKimg's Avatar
 
DKimg is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: South Florida
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai-san View Post
Film supply is quite important to me as I shoot on average three rolls per week. The B&W supply is very good for the moment so Fuji's pull-out is no worry. Fomapan has been mentioned here, their Fomapan 100 is a very fine grained film that T-max lovers should check out. It really shines in X-tol and it is very cheap. Those who like Acros should check out the Adox CHS 100 II, it's an orthopanchromatic film that resembles Acros, and it's cheaper than Acros. Adox also makes the Silvermax 100 which is really nice.
I'm more worried about colour film for the moment. I think we can forget Fuji, I suspect they have already scrapped their machines and is now selling from freezer stock. They did exactly that with the peel-apart instant films. That leaves Kodak as the only maker of high quality colour film. So for those who would like to still get colour film in the future I think we need to support Kodak, whatever we might otherwise think about this company. At least that is my strategy for the moment.
+1, I agree too. And thanks for the suggestion of fomapan 100. As a tmax100 user, I'll give it a shot and see how it holds up! Another interesting film to use similarly to Acros is Rollei film. Like the retro 400s and rpx100....Not exactly like Acros but it can pull off similar result (imo).

As much as I'll love to see all film stocks be available and thriving well... I don't mind Fujifilm being completely gone with their film stocks. It just amazes me how people go crazy stocking the moment a company releases news about a certain filmstock discontinuing. Maybe film companies should do flash ads of discontinuing film to bring in sales (sarcasm) ha... ha... ha...

Bottomline is I think we shouldn't be so concerned about storing film in freezers (as much as we all do). I think for the sake of shooting, using film, and appreciating the film stock for the time is beautiful. If it's gone, it's gone... nothing lasts forever. As long as there some awesome film available in the future (which there is) in formats up to 11x14, I'll be a happy avid film user.

I'm glad to use Acros 100 for the time I was in working in China. It was so cheap there and much more accessible to order than any other film stock. I'll rather wait for the hype to die down before I can find some expired acros and buy it at a decent price. For now I rather support the companies that still provide film like Kodak, Ilford, etc. etc...
__________________
DK
www.DKimg.com
Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar
Pentax 67ii / Zeiss 110FE F2
Fuji GX680 / EBC 180 F3,2

eBony-cameras RW45
Rodenstock 150mm Apo-Sironar-S
Zeiss Planar 135mm f3,5 T*

Ansco LF 8x10 / Kodak Ektar 203" f6,3
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2018   #78
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by rf_smitten View Post
For Black and White film future seems to be brighter, the production process is easier and smaller companies are offering interesting films. At the moment, I think analogue photography is really at a decisive point and the next years will show if it will develop into a small niche market with exclusive prices and limited film choices or it can still be accessible for anyone.
This sums up my thoughts exactly.

For years I have been hoarding black and white film (35mm and MF) because of the continuous prices increase. As a result I am now using films which are outdated and some of them are very outdated, because my workflow wasn't on par with my quite compulsive hoarding habit eventually. In spite of having freezed my films I now begin to see some veiling, obviously due to aging, on some of my developed negatives (freezing films is good but it doesn't do miracles with fast films now outdated for 10+ years). So, onwards from now, I will use what is in my freezer first and won't buy new stocks the way I have used to since the early 2000's. When done (it will be in about two years) I will see what is available on the market. In the meantime, I won't worry.

Like others here I like Fomapan 100 very much and I don't worry about the demise of Fuji (I still have some freezed Neopan 400 in either 35mm of 120 but they'll be all shot quite soon). Actually the demise of Foma would be more of a problem than what Fuji is doing, and which doesn't take anybody by surprise. It has now been very clear for about, say, 7 years, that Fuji would totally quit with black and white film sooner or later.

As an amateur photographer and low-stocks film buyer you can't always try to fight against windmills and think of what the future will be. Sometimes it's good to live in the present - which is mainly made of the past.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2018   #79
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,942
Just for fun, I recently bought some Shanghai GP3 120 film. I've only shot one roll.... But I like it so far! There's a lot of concerns on the internets about quality control, mostly about the paper backing. It is some weird stuff - the paper is just black construction paper and the masking tape its sealed with at the beginning tends to tear the paper if you're not careful. And there's no gummed sticker to seal the end of the roll when its all exposed. And the "tab" at each end is cut kind of funny. But I have no complaints about the negatives, based on my one roll "sample size n=1" I've finished.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-24-2018   #80
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKimg View Post
+1, I agree too. And thanks for the suggestion of fomapan 100. As a tmax100 user, I'll give it a shot and see how it holds up! Another interesting film to use similarly to Acros is Rollei film. Like the retro 400s and rpx100....Not exactly like Acros but it can pull off similar result (imo).

As much as I'll love to see all film stocks be available and thriving well... I don't mind Fujifilm being completely gone with their film stocks. It just amazes me how people go crazy stocking the moment a company releases news about a certain filmstock discontinuing. Maybe film companies should do flash ads of discontinuing film to bring in sales (sarcasm) ha... ha... ha...

Bottomline is I think we shouldn't be so concerned about storing film in freezers (as much as we all do). I think for the sake of shooting, using film, and appreciating the film stock for the time is beautiful. If it's gone, it's gone... nothing lasts forever. As long as there some awesome film available in the future (which there is) in formats up to 11x14, I'll be a happy avid film user.

I'm glad to use Acros 100 for the time I was in working in China. It was so cheap there and much more accessible to order than any other film stock. I'll rather wait for the hype to die down before I can find some expired acros and buy it at a decent price. For now I rather support the companies that still provide film like Kodak, Ilford, etc. etc...
DK,

If you look at Dan's 70mm thread Rollie 400S is available in bulk in 70mm double perf from MacroDirect for no money. About $3.00 a roll like the good old days per 120 equiv.

Also on Dan's thread lots of info on securing Blad A40 70mm back for $40-$50 so one can shoot medium format like a Leica.

If you like 400S consider visiting Dan's thread. 70mm is considered a "dead format" but I can still buy fresh film in bulk mucho cheap. I did a lot of testing 400S using 120 film as short test rolls. The film speed is exaggerated and is not 400. I found that it was more like 125-160 ISO. Really a slow speed film.

So my goal with 70mm is mucho image capture for low cost and that means exploiting 400S as a $3.00 a roll 120 equiv.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 16:34.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.