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.
We used to be able to buy a glass of draft for 10 cents (canadian)
You don't see too many terrycloth table covers any more, do you?
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!
When? 90 years ago?
1970s - slightly before it became legal for me to order one
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.
Vision3 is absolutely splendid for stills, especially when optically printed onto color paper.
I prefer it over Portra.
But you are doing a proper ECN-2 development, right?
Yes.Over which one? All three?
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.
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.
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.
If you print color yourself you still have to compensate for the mask.
@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.
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.
greedy companies
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
Hmmm. Yes. Greed must be their motivation for continuing to make film and paper when almost everyone in the world has abandoned it.
Yes, greedy.
Digital is artificial as much as film is. It's all manipulation in the end.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?