I'm starting to panic

[MattKing]

We used to be able to buy a glass of draft for 10 cents (canadian)....since we're waxing nostalgic...& we'd always buy the complete tray the waiter was carrying, or order a tabletop full.

You don't see too many terrycloth table covers any more, do you?

 

[Don_ih]

We used to be able to buy a glass of draft for 10 cents (canadian)

When? 90 years ago?

 

[GregY]

You don't see too many terrycloth table covers any more, do you?

Not a one!

 

[GregY]

I used to be able to go to my local pub and get beer at a pound a pint. !!
Wow I remember being annoyed when it went to two bob!

Melvin..... how much is a bob.....

 

[MattKing]

When? 90 years ago?

1970s - slightly before it became legal for me to order one

 

[GregY]

1970s - slightly before it became legal for me to order one

Yes indeed.... mid 70s in Banff.... when the (career) waiter could buy a home in Banff & send his kids to university on his wages.

 

[Don_ih]

All I can find is Manitoba, stating an increase in 1976:

 

[Agulliver]

I recall when a free film came back with your prints. I left a pharmacy one day with an armful of Kodak, having dropped in about 15 rolls for development.

Would have been the basic Kodacolor, produced by the billion in those days and factored into the cost of the D&P. The pharmacy was probably outsourcing to one of the big labs too.

Sure, I used to do the same and for 25 years my staple bog standard 100 or 200 ISO C41 film was Ferrania because that's what the local ginormous lab and later Truprint offered "free with D&P"...at the end it was Kodacolor which is now known as Color Plus.

Economy of scale. At least I can still walk to a lab and get dev & scan for £5 any format (135, 120, 110, 127, 126, 220).

 

[Film-Niko]

Vision3 is absolutely splendid for stills, especially when optically printed onto color paper.

But you are doing a proper ECN-2 development, right?

Honestly I've never been really satiesfied with the results of Kodak movie film with Remjet removed and developed in C-41 (CineStill films + Co.).
Besides the strong halation issue and reduced sharpness and resolution because of the lacking Remjet, I've never been fully satiesfied with the color rendition, too.

I think ECN-2 is really the way to go here for best results. And Ron Mowrey (R.I.P.) was certainly right with his recommendation to stay with ECN-2 for the movie film types.

I prefer it over Portra.

Over which one? All three?

Used a lot of all Portras over the years. I am not a big fan of Portra 400, but Portra 160 is excellent: Best detail rendition of all three, and the most natural colors.

 

[koraks]

But you are doing a proper ECN-2 development, right?

Yes, certainly. The color balance with C41 developer is different, and there's some crossover that's difficult or impossible to filter out entirely. I've not done a whole lot of C41 processing of this film, but every time I tried it, I was dissatisfied with the results.

Over which one? All three?

Yes.
All three Portra's are excellent films of course, but today's higher-end photo paper (Fuji DPII etc.) is relatively high in contrast and saturation. The Kodak Vision3 films with their more mellow characteristics are an excellent match for this, I find, when true-to-life, natural color and contrast are desired. I find even the different Portra's to print relatively rich on these premium papers; most of the time a little too rich to my taste. I prefer more subtle hues most of the time. It's nice to have options.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, certainly. The color balance with C41 developer is different, and there's some crossover that's difficult or impossible to filter out entirely. I've not done a whole lot of C41 processing of this film, but every time I tried it, I was dissatisfied with the results.


Yes.
All three Portra's are excellent films of course, but today's higher-end photo paper (Fuji DPII etc.) is relatively high in contrast and saturation. The Kodak Vision3 films with their more mellow characteristics are an excellent match for this, I find, when true-to-life, natural color and contrast are desired. I find even the different Portra's to print relatively rich on these premium papers; most of the time a little too rich to my taste. I prefer more subtle hues most of the time. It's nice to have options.

From recall, the aim gradient for ECN-2 is about the equivalent of a B&W grade lower than the aim gradient for C-41. At the risk of crossover, 2:45 development time on C-41 might be worth an experiment - or possibly a temperature adjustment.

 

[koraks]

From recall, the aim gradient for ECN-2 is about the equivalent of a B&W grade lower than the aim gradient for C-41. At the risk of crossover, 2:45 development time on C-41 might be worth an experiment - or possibly a temperature adjustment.

Yeah, something like that, but the crossover is a problem. In practice, ECN2 developer for 3:30 to 3:45 at 41C works well for wet printing on today's papers.

 

[Cholentpot]

But you are doing a proper ECN-2 development, right?

Honestly I've never been really satiesfied with the results of Kodak movie film with Remjet removed and developed in C-41 (CineStill films + Co.).
Besides the strong halation issue and reduced sharpness and resolution because of the lacking Remjet, I've never been fully satiesfied with the color rendition, too.

I think ECN-2 is really the way to go here for best results. And Ron Mowrey (R.I.P.) was certainly right with his recommendation to stay with ECN-2 for the movie film types.



Over which one? All three?

Used a lot of all Portras over the years. I am not a big fan of Portra 400, but Portra 160 is excellent: Best detail rendition of all three, and the most natural colors.

Some of us don't care, we just want to feed our cameras. If I want perfect I shoot digital.

 

[Film-Niko]

Some of us don't care, we just want to feed our cameras. If I want perfect I shoot digital.

Each to his own.
I do care. I go for the best results film can offer. I love this quality.
For me it looks more natural and much closer to what I see with my eyes. Digital is often a bit too artificial in its look. One of many different reasons why I prefer film for the majority of my photography.

 

[Cholentpot]

Each to his own.
I do care. I go for the best results film can offer. I love this quality.
For me it looks more natural and much closer to what I see with my eyes. Digital is often a bit too artificial in its look. One of many different reasons why I prefer film for the majority of my photography.

Black and white isn't natural. And if you're getting lab scans or scans of any sort that's just a digital representation. If you print color yourself you still have to compensate for the mask.

Digital is artificial as much as film is. It's all manipulation in the end.

 

[cmacd123]

If you print color yourself you still have to compensate for the mask.

the Mask automatically compensates for the dyes in the film. get a grey card to print neutral once and you have the basic filtration to make the Mask a Non issue. they would not bother designing a mask if it dd not make things Better.

 

[Film-Niko]

@Cholentpot .

If your simplification works for you and give you satisfying results, fine. As I said, each to his own. People are very different and have different routes. And that is good.
My approach to film photography is different. I have tested many many different ways to find what is working best for me personally.
And I will keep that way, because it gives me full satisfaction.

 

[Cholentpot]

@Cholentpot .

If your simplification works for you and give you satisfying results, fine. As I said, each to his own. People are very different and have different routes. And that is good.
My approach to film photography is different. I have tested many many different ways to find what is working best for me personally.
And I will keep that way, because it gives me full satisfaction.

Writing calligraphy with a good pen will always be more appreciated than using a word processor but if my job depends on getting 1,000 sheets printed perfectly I'm going with a computer over a pen.

All I want from film photography is a working camera and film to put through it. I've found that looking for perfection from the medium is a chase of diminishing returns. I've embraced the quirks and happy accidents that photography has fought for nearly 200 years of film. Too much grain? Slight color shift? A little burned frame? It's all good to me.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

I looked in my fridge and noticed my B&W rolls are almost gone, 1 roll of Delta 400 ready to go. No problem, I'll roll some more.

I grabbed my loader with FP4+ in it, got two rolls plus one short roll out of it. No problem I'll get my XX out and roll some in the morning. Grabbed my 400 ft loader of XX and it is feeling pretty light, not sure how many rolls I'll get out of it.

As I was moving things around, I notice my 400ft roll of E100D feels pretty light, same with my Vision 3 250D.

Once my 400 foot rolls are gone, I figure I won't be shooting those films anymore. The cost of pre rolled film has gotten so crazy, it will be a rare treat to buy a few rolls. I just looked at what a 100ft roll of FP4+ cost, $137 crazy, I remember when I bough 100ft rolls of E200 for 89 dollars.

I have tried some of the less expensive B&W emulsions but they always see to have emulsion defects, ( Foma and Arista ).

These days with the cost of life in general going crazy I'm feeling the strain. Soon I'll have to be satisfied with grabbing a camera, winding the crank and going click.

Even though film is out there, it is too expensive.

Anyway, rant mode off, think I'll just go sulk the rest of the night.

That's a very heartfelt problem, also for me.
We must, imho, begin to boycot who is greedy, who withour any valid reason pushes their prices up every 6 months. Kodak? Yes. Harman? Yes. Look at their chemistry prices. Out of this world. More than 20$ for a fixer bottle? I'll buy whatever is cheapest.
Same with film. I'll buy only Foma films and call it quits wasting my money on greedy companies...

 

[Don_ih]

greedy companies

Hmmm. Yes. Greed must be their motivation for continuing to make film and paper when almost everyone in the world has abandoned it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Melvin..... how much is a bob.....

It was two tanners worth, Greg

Yes I know it's tempting to say "If only they didn't speak a sort of medieval English

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

It was two tanners worth, Greg

Yes I know it's tempting to say "If only they didn't speak a sort of medieval English

pentaxuser

It's been too many years since i read Chaucer...

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Hmmm. Yes. Greed must be their motivation for continuing to make film and paper when almost everyone in the world has abandoned it.

They fill in a niche of a niche of people who buy whatever film/paper there is, no matter what the price is. Yes, greedy.

 

[Don_ih]

Yes, greedy.

Have it your way, fellow.

 

[George Mann]

Digital is artificial as much as film is. It's all manipulation in the end.

I don't know why people insist on saying this when film is a direct facsimile, and digital is an electronic one.