REDRUM EditionPlease post film photos, talk about film photography, film gear like cameras, film stocks, news, and tips/tricks in this thread.Also talk about darkroom practices, enlargers, photo paper, techniques like dodging/burning, tools, and equipment related to enlarging, developing, and printing.Thread Question: RC or fiber?Previous thread: >>4516071
Shamelessly copying my 800T question from last thread>>4520871>Speaking of shooting expensive film, I got a noob question.>I kinda like the look of CineStil 800T, that iconic blue/red with the halation on the lights, I would like to get myself a roll as a treat. How much of that is actually achieved in post when scanning? Because I've seen a very wide range of looks all supposedly from this film, so I'm assuming it depends a lot on how you scan it, right?>Should I speak with my labtech about it?
>>4520924maybe, though I'd assume total newbies would submit their film for development at the drugstore (it's what I did at the beginning). The lab is pretty damn expensive compared to that and I only do it because it's way faster and I like supporting local businesses. Or at least it's my cope for spending so much money on this hobby, I really should learn to develop myself soon-ish
>>4520926>The lab is pretty damn expensive compared to that and I only do it because it's way faster and I like supporting local businesses.my local lab is way cheaper than drugstores, especially considering you can actually get your negatives back which isn't an option for the drugstore/walmart option
>>4520925It is how you expose it as well as how you edit it. Less exposure = more contrast, more exposure = less contrast.The film is rebranded vision3 500T with the remjet coating removed.
>>4520928Drugstore here is like 15 Eurobucks for development, scanning and prints and they give you your negatives back.I always forget the lab prices but I think it's in the ballpark of 15 for just the development and if I'm being completely honest, I'm not sure I see the difference in quality. So the only advantage is that you get your scans per e-mail after a couple of days vs the drugstore that can take up to a month and the order tracking on their website doesn't always work so sometimes you don't even know when you can come and pick them up.
>>4520925>CineStil 800TSome people still process it as ECN-2 even though it doesn't have the remjet which is part of why you probably get the differing range of looks. You can get similar films from other companies as well.
>>4520925Halation is on film, color balance is (mostly) on film. You'll get the dramatic effect you're after (like in your screenshot) mostly when shooting dark contrasty scenes in artificial light. When exposed well, you'll need little more than a slight luminance S-curve.It's an all right film, I shot some concerts on it at 6400 and it was.. interesting. Acquired taste and very gritty look. When shot at 800 (or 500 which it really is) you'll get normal looking shots.I just don't like giving money to Cineshill, they are full of shit, hot air, trademark trolling and lawfare, and have tried (dunno if still trying) to bully smaller respoolers of Vision3 because they are in bed with Kodak.
>>4520928I have two local labs>dev only$7 to $10>dev and scan, 5mp up to 28mp$17 to $28Your pricing was like 10 years ago for my area
>>4520934I have about 6 local labs. Dev only is $5-10 and standard scanning is $10-$15.
>>4520928You don't get negs back?? What the actual fuck.
>>4520937At CVS/Walgreens you don't typically get negs, just prints.
>>4520938Literal theft and possibly destruction of property. How have they not been sued into oblivion?
>>4520939Because that's what you agree to when you use their service?
>>4520940The only reason why anyone would agree to throw away their negatives is either deception or ignorance. The only reason to do it is to ensure you can't get them scanned somewhere else, which reeks of anti-trust. I believe Kodak (or some other film mfr) got sued for something similar when they tried to make it so that only they could develop your film.
>>4520941When film was actually popular people only cared about getting the prints or slides back. People in 1960 didn't have a PC to edit their negatives.
>>4520925That's just how the film is. I convert mine manually on Lightroom using the curves/histogram
>>4520942Funny. Back in 80-00s UK we never gave our negs up you always got them and images in either colour or B&W. Never scanned or edited digitally. Only later. Much later with flatbeds in the home and they were crap.I still have all my negs. Not getting them back is a weird aberration, possibly a weird American thing.
>>4520948I think they stopped giving negs back when they started developing at a central lab as opposed to in store and the logistics made it more difficult. Normies have never ever cared about the negs anyway, they would get the prints and move on.
>>4520933cinestill is an under-the-table kodak subsidiary to get around alarisnow that’s not a problem anymore, cinestill will probably go away>>4520926idk I started out developing my own film
>>4520948>Not getting them back is a weird aberration, possibly a weird American thing.Not really. It's just that for many places, you drop off and they ship the film to an actual lab who scans and emails the photos back to the store to print out. Getting negs back means that outlab would have to ship the negs back to the store, and they just opt not to instead.Also, as someone that works at a film lab (and devolops in house and gives negs back), you'd be surprised how many people don't give a shit about the negs and just want us to toss them. For a lot of people they drop off, we scan and email them the digital scans, and then just toss. Even people that say they want to keep the negs just never come back for them.>>4520941Most people shooting film are just doing snapshots and don't actually really give a shit, they just want some "film looking" photos
>>4521032>cinestill is an under-the-table kodak subsidiary to get around alarisI don't know if that's true, and even if it is I don't think they started that way. But once Kodak started coating Vision3 without ECN backing (as opposed to them washing it off) and with custom rebate markings for them, it was obvious they were something more than just any other bulk purchaser and respooler.
Is this guy's YouTube channel some elaborate troll?
>>4521081idk who he is but most YouTubers are not trustworthy. Being a YouTuber kind of implies a certain level of vanity, it's not a hard requirement but it's attractive to that kind of person. Vain people are inherently untrustworthy because they care more about their own image than the camera's images. They'll just say whatever they think makes them look or sound cool regardless of whether it's true or not, that's just the kind of personality they have.
>>4521041That blows my mind. In my head: Negs == original. Prints == just some shit you end up with.
>>4521090The print is the final result of photography and what's to be displayed. The negs are only valuable for further printing or for archival purposes. Normalfags don't plan on re-printing their family snaps and don't see them as archival-worthy so they don't care about getting the negs.
>>4521090That's the digital era talking. People used to really give a shit about their print quality. Rip to the dye transfer method of printmaking and saturation without rockwellianism
>>4521099>>4521091This. Negative only has value if you intend to print it, otherwise it's just unfinished photo.
Check out this lovely example of orthochromatic film's spectral sensitivity. Small egg is dark brown and the cracked egg is light blue. Pan film would have rendered the two eggs much closer in value. Taken on ektavision G dental xray film. Not a great film if you don't have a deep tank. It is a double-sided emulsion that is by far the most fragile emulsion I have ever come across. Looking at it wrong scratches the film. I used super gentle agitation while tray developing to avoid scratching, and got very uneven development in return.>>4520917Fiber paper all day, but RC is great for making contact sheets because it is faster to wash and dry. It's also a good choice for a beginner to learn on because it is much cheaper than fiber paper.
>>4521135I like RC for proof printing and postcard sized prints that I just hand out to friends or use as actual postcard. Fiber is best for something you want to frame and put on wall but I don't feel like washing, drying and ironing every print for hour.
I accidentally r/analog.God it's shit-tier.
>>4521148I love how they don't allow comment anymore kekany subreddit you can post boobs on ends up as a porn sub
>I just tried to get back into digital. >Last digital I shot on was Nikon D70. It was okay. Baby photos, interiors, family stuff. >previously shot exclusively on Minolta STR101B.>Time passes and we go through crappy phone cams.>look into digital. EVF... Screen.... Histogram... ISO a bajillion... Bells, whistles everything!!1! >try an Olympus>inb4 first mistake>Nope dot jay peg>fucking all my whatI just want a thing, that does TTL, has a basic light metre I can see, I can pick up and fire.Oh... A film camera then!>inb4 not a gear thread>inb4 go be oldfag somewhere elseIt's like I'm on another planet!
>>4521261Incomprehensible. May God have mercy on your soul.
>>4521272The slut that I am
>>4521261Anon we're sentient here, you don't need to greentext and redditspace everything. I had D600 that did everything I needed in digital, even though in the last decade I shoot 9 in 10 in favor of film. However I scraped up and bought a D780 last year when it was beyond obvious that it was all ogre. The peak of DSLR technology and ergonomy. There will not be a better one, or another one for that matter.I will sooner coat my own paper and shoot with shoebox pinhole than buy and use mirrorless.The D780 is fantastic and it feels seamless when I switch between it and my F100 (especially when using the same lens), though it spends most of the time mounted to a copy stand as a dedicated scanning machine for the weird stuff that throws the Coolscan off too much.
>>4521261u wot m8?>>4520917i got fiber when i switched to at&t but i don't think it really matters since i still use a relatively low speed
>>4520856Put my first roll of film through this bad boy, gonna get them to the lab tomorrow and hope that the camera works, would be great if it does.Also holy shit the 70-200mm lens I have for it is so much fun, especially since it can function as a macro lens at 70mm. I think I managed to get some decent shots of a few insects.
>>4521082I think another problem is the perceived legitimacy of people with YouTube channels. Because at the end of the day they're still just some dudes with opinions like you and me. There's nothing wrong with that of course, but I suppose if some guy on YoTube tells you a camera, film or whatever else is good or bad it's basically the same as if some rando like me told you the same thing.I guess the only difference is that you can at least check out their work, to see if they know their shit.
Kodak Gold 200 is the best film for your money.
>>4521448I don't like how Kodak and Fuji are making non conflict agreements for 35mm and Instax insta, driving up prices with less competion
>>4521480Only buy secondhand/expired film.
>>4521448It's what a friend recommended when I just got into film photography and it's my go to since.
>>4521480Because they don't really have any competition in colour 35mm. Lucky only offers ISO200 and it's very limited availability outside Asia, Phoenix is not even worth mentioning and everything else is just repackaged shit at hipster markup.
>>4521448or OPTIK OLDSCHOOL OptiColour 200new Wolfen NC200 emulsion
>>4521448For me, it's pro image 100
There's slightly expired Velvia in 4x5 available from my local store for cheap and I'm super tempted to get it but my concern is what do I do with large format colour slides? With negatives I just contact print them but I don't have scanner that could take 4x5 and I don't think there are any readily available slide projectors for large format.
>>4521528You convert your 4x5 camera into a projector if you want to project them. The other option is to get high quality scans and have them digitally printed. You can also make a light box and mount them for display, but 4x5 is kinda small for that.
>>4521544I guess getting some strong bulb and extra fresnel lens in the back behind the slide would work, just not sure if normal lens won't vignette too much. If I had 5x7 or 8x10 slides I would definitely go with the lightbox.
>>4520917FB for framing, looks better and tones better. RC for test prints, or large amount of prints for an album or postcards>>4521140>don't feel like washing, drying and ironing every print for hour.I either use alkaline fixer or hypo clear (sodium sulfite) so it's 30minutes tops, or agitation in water for 20minutes with water change every 2min (more eco way, to safe water). Then I just throw it on cheap sweater dryer rack, after a day I put it for another day in a press I made from 2 mdf boards with woodworking clamps, voilà.I think many boomers in the internet really complicate this shit with insane washing times like 2 or 4 fucking hours for no reason, using hot presses, weird drying techniques or other expensive rare equipment, while you can achieve archival level prints with methods I described. Anyway, I have so much frames I want to print and no time at all to do it fuck me
>>4521564I used to have this exact dryer ages ago, the fabric is on a spring loaded clamp and presses the print down to the polished plate, and the whole thing is heated. I think it could fit up to two 11x14 prints (it was two sided).This was long before I started printing so I ended up donating it. I wish I had it now, though it would have not made sense for me to lug it around through the many house moves I had in the last 20 years.
>>4520925What do you mean? If you scan your film you'll always adjust the colours of it digitally. And you should do if you get it developed and scanned at a lab as well. Don't fall for the "don't edit your scans" meme.The halation on the lights comes from the remjet layer of the film having been washed off. The remjet layer is a backing layer on motion picture film that prevents halation. Motion picture film is developed in ECN-2 instead of C-41 and the ECN-2 process starts with a remjet layer removal liquid. After that you can use the C-41 process just as well, so what Cinestill and a lot of other companies do is that they remove the remjet layer and then sell the film as C-41 colour negative film.
>>4521516i'm told pro image is the same as kodacolor 100. i love pro image and i've shot a lot of kodacolor 100. but it doesn't come in 120>>4521505i'll mention it anyways. phoenix is cool
>>4521990It's cool that they're trying to do a thing. But it's not great emulsion by any means.
>>4521990Original Phoenix is dead. Phoenix II is very mid - not a good mainstream color film yet, and not a good fuck you to everything the mankind has learned about color science film like the original Phoenix any more.Red is a meme from Phoenix QA rejects that would be a waste not to sell.Azure is Phoenix II run that an intern coated incorrectly that would also be a waste not to sell.I'm ok with that though, I still love Ilford/Harman and wish them well, and I hope all their color R&D won't bring them under but actually result in a decent everyday color stock to have a real alternative to Kodak, more Kodak, and some rebranded Kodak.
does /p/ no longer have an /sqt/ or is it just down?
Shot some Kodacolor 100 and most of the images turned out dark and blue after scanning. I can do PP but it really looks gritty after that.Too underexposed? I tried to shoot only exterior in daylight
>>4522062just make one if you want. or ask here
>>4522079Looks more underdeveloped than underexposed to me. But if you say "most", are there any actually good ones? How do they compare on film, are some significantly denser (darker) than others? Then it would likely be underexposed after all, that's just not what I'm used to seeing with underexposed color film. Maybe it's the scanner compensating for it weirdly.
>>4522079Do you have a pic of the negative with the edge markings included? That's the easiest way to know if the film was developed wrong, if those look fine then you can at least rule out bad processing.
>>4522089Out of the 36 exp maybe 5 turned okay, the rest needed heavy PP color correction and levels adjustment, and they turned out looking faded and grainy despite being ISO100>>4522091
>>4522095>>4522079These were shot with a Pentax ZX-7. I was using a kit lens which metered automatically as well as a manual 80s tele lens which i set to manual settings, the light meter was in the midpoint for all of these shots so If they are under exposed then the light meter didnt read the lens fstop correctly
>>4522095>>4522097Dev looks ok. Frame 7 (the one cut off in >>4522095) is definitely overexposed. But frame 8 (the one you posted earlier) looks generally fine. Did you scan then yourself, and how?
>>4521448I'm thinking that'll be my go-to soon. I started with Ultramax, then I started getting Fuji 400 (then found out it's literally just Ultramax) so I might just go with Kodak Gold since it has a the look I want. Speaking of looks too, anyone able to recommend some film that has a distinct late 90s business vibe? Or would Kodak Gold maybe scratch that itch?
>>4522168Kodak Gold or ProImage would probably scratch that itch
>>4522170Based, I'll pick up some Kodak Gold. I have some expired ProImage but I've no idea how that'll look once I start using it, I think it's about 5 years out of date.
>>4522171>I think it's about 5 years out of date.you probably wouldn't even notice, I shot a bunch of film that was about that age recently and it looked normal
>>4522172I'll see how it goes. I had some Ultramax that was about the same time out of date and the shadows were a dark grainy mess, I couldn't see shit in the details.
>>4522168The vibe is 90% lighting and 10% film.
>>45221745 years expired in freezer is gonna be better than 5 days expired in box behind counter (no store is gonna bother putting cheap consumer shit in freezer once it expires).
>>4522010>>4522014i am fond of phoenix 1 and i'm sad to see it go. it reminds me of polaroid film, which i would surely shoot if it was more convenient. anyways, kodacolor 100 is my go-to for color street and gold 200 is my standard for color 120. for me, these are the best value
Shot 800t at 640 like lots of people say to do. Do I need to have it pulled in dev or just have them dev as standard?
>>4522125I used Vuescan, default settings. It's only this roll that looks weird. I scanned a roll of Ultramax400 (both dev'd from the same shop) using using the same scan settings and they looked fine
Lucky 400
Took a new egg pic. Finally found a piece of some weird plant worthy of an egg photograph.I used my xray film to do a couple test shots. This first one was taken with my macro sironar at f64. Please excuse the scratches, uneven development, and horrific tonality of this film. It's so fragile that it gets scratched from moving around in my dev trays. Overall I think the result is extremely promising for both real pictorial film and contact printing. The soft shadows are going to be stunning with azo+amidol.
>>4522359Second one was taken with my cooke soft portrait lens at roughly f6.5, and set to maximum softness.Which one do you like better? I am leaning towards soft focus, but I think a less restrained effect may serve the image even better. I finally got my local machinist to start working on retaining rings for my eidoscope and perscheid lenses, so I will be doing a third test with the perscheid. It has a much stronger and different effect than the cooke, but unlike the eidoscope it does not have that swirly petzval effect that would add too much chaos to a rather tranquil image.
>>4522352I initially disregarded Lucky as another cheap stock but after shooting it some more I like it quite a lot, better than Foma by orders of magnitude but better price than Ilford.
fiber for gallery or commissioned workrc for literally anything else (including selling at shows or scanning)also, i just hand-rolled an ixmoo and i gotta say that was my worst photography experience ever and i've gassed myself in my darkroom more than once. i need to buy another bulk roller for my kentmere 200 roll that i bought without taking out my kentmere 400 roll i still have in my bulk roll. ill probabably just buy another of the same model (alden 74).
>>4522258What's your scanner tho?
>>4522258>VuescanNever heard of this before, is it pretty good and recommended? I've been wanting something to properly develop my negatives.
>>4522475OpticFilm 8100
Where do you guys send your film into, if you do? I'm between dark room and Memphis lab, Memphis is local to me but slow apparently
