Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > photography discussion forum

Film Corner - JUST film, not digital.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 951-975 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 23:41:19 BDT
amazon are superb. Ebay is ok too if you can find a bargain. Firstcallphotographic are good too. Try west end cameras they do some superb films at good prices. I've noticed rollei and efke from westendcameras are great value.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 Mar 2012 06:32:51 BDT
M killer says:
Surprisingly Boots seem to have a semi-permanent 3 for two on this product.

Posted on 30 Mar 2012 11:16:44 BDT
Any Rodinal users here? And agfa apx 100 users?
Lovely combo. Agfa apx100@64asa rodinal 68'F 1:50 gentle inversions for 30s and 3 gentle ones every min for 10 min.

Is rollei retro 100s same as apx100?

Finally how does one dry fibre based paper flat with a clothes iron?

Oh. Any Pen F users? Love that cam, such a pleasure to use

Posted on 30 Mar 2012 16:12:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 Mar 2012 16:22:09 BDT
Hi Ibraar,
Well if you use half frame you need something like Rodinal I suppose. I use 120 so can expose at full speed with ID11/D76.
What other film cameras do you use?

Posted on 30 Mar 2012 17:00:28 BDT
X says:
H A-J: Doc is right. Also try Discount Films Direct:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/browse.html?ie=UTF8&marketplaceID=A1F83G8C2ARO7P&me=A1Q3J2SGTSZ6OW

Posted on 3 Apr 2012 08:16:13 BDT
Graham H says:
Ha ha!!! Absolutely spot-on. Any of us old-timers remember my "Sick of digital now" thread?

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/02/if-carpenters-talked-like-camera-geeks/

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 09:32:13 BDT
Good parody.

Posted on 3 Apr 2012 11:18:25 BDT
X says:
Hi, Grahams: Indeed a very funny, very skilful piece of writing.

Posted on 3 Apr 2012 12:32:33 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hi, everyone. Hope all is well with you guys.

Graham, I went and had a look, and what the guy said is truer than one may imagine. You know that I have moved on to digital for convenience but I like coming to this site, and Roll film only, for some nostalgia and friendly posts. For the past 2 weeks or so I have been logging into huffduff's (name changed to protect the guilty and innocent) site, and I am amazed at the vitriol that can appear there. I've fallen foul of some barbed comments, simply by expressing an opinion.

For the nervous among you, you need to know that this is a digital only domain. And there are two golden rules I've learnt: don't ever say anything negative about his approach to reviewing or say anything nasty about Leica, performance or price, especially the M9, or his disciples will jump on you from a great height. And despite it being a digital site, never admit that you pixel peep to see what a sensor is really doing. He freely admits that he carries out non-technical user reviews only, nothing more, nothing less, of cameras and posts pictures. Nothing wrong with this per se, one may glean some useful info about how a camera handles, but pixel peeping is analogous to the technical tests AP and others used to carry out on lenses and films. Remember AP's shots of the warship? If you wanted to know which was the best lens to buy within your budget, or how did a particular film fare, would we have done so without reference to AP's or similar tests? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong. There are genuine guys who post images/articles and don't get upset if they get negative feedback, as long as it is given in a constructive way and that doesn't cause offence. And some of the articles/images get by without any of the nastiness that imbues others, but sometimes things can go completely off the rails.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Apr 2012 12:47:02 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Hello, Ibraar.

Re your enquiry about flattening fibre based paper. The answer is not easily, especially if it is double weight. As you have discovered it curls, with the emulsion on the inside. When I did my own enlarging I had a print dryer for the larger sizes up to 12x10. This was a sheet of slightly curved metal over which was stretched a canvas sheet. The print was placed emulsion side down and the canvas pulled taught. It was then switched on and the heat from the electric element gently warmed and dried out the print.

Failing this, a trick was to place a pile of heavy books on top of the print and leave it for several days. Not very practical!. Smaller prints up to 7x5 could be flattened by gently pulling them over a curved surface with one hand whilst applying slight pressure to the print with the other where it runs over the curved edge. Rather like running it through rollers. In this case the emulsion side is uppermost with the back of the print riding over the edge. This way the print will end up with a slight outwards curve that will soon end up being flat. Needless to say, you do this with dry prints.

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 16:20:15 BDT
Graham H says:
I really need to get some Fuji Acros 100:

http://www.andyhearnphotography.com/index.php/photos/photos-35mm-film

Posted on 17 Apr 2012 18:03:09 BDT
Hi Graham,
Your Bros' shots with Acros were very fine - in stark contrast to some of that grainy old Tri X.
I've been wondering about Diafine for a while now.
This is quite a good article:
http://blog.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/01/diafine/
Intersting that he rates the Delta/Tmax type films (and Acros?) at less than box speed but trad emulsions at least a stop higher.
Nick used to push process a lot; I wonder if he ever tried Diafine?

Posted on 20 Apr 2012 09:51:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Apr 2012 03:52:29 BDT
Graham H says:
Ha ha! very true:

http://newsthump.com/2012/04/11/facebooks-instagram-purchase-to-help-convince-morons-they-are-actually-artists/

Back to B&W again... Yes, Diafine looks like the product for me. I've been chatting with my brother about it and will soon order myself the relevant chemicals and give Acros a try. Fingers crossed!

Update: Just bought Diafine developer, AG Plus fixer and WAC Wetting Agent. Along with three rolls of Fuji Acros 100 for a total of 41 euros delivered. From Maco Direct in Germany. Not a bad deal I think.

According to Andy, Fuji's ACROS 100 needs to be shot at ISO200 for the developing times he's given me (5mins + 5mins).

www.macodirect.de

Posted on 21 Apr 2012 17:33:38 BDT
I just fell upon this forum whilst looking for some lighting and wow! Its already flared my interest.
Although I have pro digital cameras now. I started my photography in the 60s using film. First camera's, Praktica, Pentax sia, Minolta Autocord 120, Olympus OM2. Luckily for me my following career step, selling commercial graphics processes and commercial cameras to the Ad studios and Print trade, meant lot's of demo's that included using photo's that I had taken as samples. This led me into professional work as I had a growing family to support and needed extra income.
I take out my film cameras from time to time and shoot some film. Just the smell of the acetone like emulsion gets me going and as for the chance to get into a darkroom and develop and print! O happy day's. I tried I think absolutely everything in my time, experiments like shooting 5 ASA commercial lith film in a pin hole camera and in my 120 roll film cameras loaded myself of course in the Patterson film loader and changing bag, then rushing to develop it to see just what had happened. Yes, when you had to use a light meter and understand how light hit and reflected off your subject, what stops to use, what depth of field is and all the other things that mattered and finally, always had to wait a while to see the results, well that was fantastic, frustrating sometimes, but what an education in terms of photography. I still love it 50 years on, viva la Film! And this forum.

Posted on 21 Apr 2012 17:40:36 BDT
Graham H says:
Thanks Twenty Twenty! Hope you stick around. Feel free to chip in whenever you wish. The more experience and knowledge we can accumulate here the better.

Graham.

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 14:39:32 BDT
Graham H says:
Today's interesting read:

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/04/why-digital-is-dead-for-me-in-street-photography/

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 15:33:18 BDT
X says:
Graham: It's a shame he sat on the fence like that...

You need to find a way to isolate that link and bump it up regularly. Great piece of journalism.

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 15:40:53 BDT
Graham H says:
Yes, I agree with his sentiments entirely. Although I don't think I'll be following him into the realm of Leica rangefinders. RF's just have too many variables for me to be comfortable with. I'll stick with SLRs I think. Especially given the horrific costs associated with Leicas. Eek!

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2012 16:19:49 BDT
Hi Graham,
As you say the expense of Leica gear is a big disincentive - especially when so much great gear is cheap.

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 16:32:24 BDT
C. J. Calver says:
Nice article, bit fawning over Leicas though. as Graham says, I too prefer SLRs. A FM2n with a full complement of 2nd hand but still current Nikon AIS lenses from 28mm to 105mm would set you back less than the Leica M6 body alone. It is still manual with batteries only for the meter, and as I am getting a bit deaf in my old age, I am not over worried about the sound of the mirror flicking about, in fact, I find it somehow re-assuring!

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 16:47:23 BDT
Graham H says:
I like the mirror sound too. Best I've heard yet has been my brother's Nikon F3 with the motordrive. It was apparently this setup that was sampled for the intro to Duran Duran's "Girls On Film" :-)

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 17:47:08 BDT
T.J.Byford says:
Yes, I'm afraid this is yet another example of stick a Leica in someone's hands and they think they automatically become a photographer. There are many Leica fanboys posting on the net. The myth/legend surrounding Leica is, historically, well deserved, and one shouldn't overlook how special the cameras were years ago amidst a lot of mediocrity. Serious photographers who chose Leicas did so because it was the tool for them and, yes, even then they were expensive, but they were a true precision camera, in fact this term was, I understand, first applied to the Leica in the early 1930's and had, along with Zeiss, some of the best optics of their day.

Regrettable as it is, it is collectors who mainly dictate Leica prices, plus limited supplies. In the recent past, with a few exceptional items, collectors had little impact on prices. But, odd is it may seem, it is also thanks to digital that Leitz optics have rocketed in price over just a couple of years, putting them way out of range for most, even those with deep pockets. Not for use on digital M's but on other digital cameras by the use of a cheap adaptor.

And the point has already been made, there is so much other excellent gear to be had that is inexpensive.

Posted on 23 Apr 2012 18:03:03 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Apr 2012 18:09:09 BDT
Graham H says:
I'm glad it wasn't just me that found the guy's pictures mediocre. I must admit that although I like what he's written and espouse his promotion of film wholeheartedly, I was less than impressed by the snaps. Just because it was shot with a Leica doesn't automatically make it art.

In the short time I've been looking at people's websites, I've learned to steer away from any pages where the author describes his images as a "Project". It's usually a prelude to a load of pretentious arty or sociological twaddle.
When you look at the website of someone really good, like Joe McNally, he doesn't even bother with captions. He just lets his pictures do the talking. That's the way to do it.

http://portfolio.joemcnally.com

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 01:04:56 BDT
That guys photos were pretty crap. So what if he gas a leica? I think SLR's are far more practical to use. Leica glass cant make a crap photo decent. Somebody should tell him that light subject and composition are more important than camera. He also should start printing in a darkroom as its fair enough posting online and on flickr but the print should be the final exhibition piece, its nothing but a game if no print is made. Others show their work to clients on an ipad or laptop, i dont think camera and lens matter much in this case

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Apr 2012 08:21:30 BDT
Reading a bit more, maybe I misjudged him a bit. I see his recommendations include Leica with Leitz or Voigtlander lenses, Contax point and shoots and the Ricoh GR1 (all expensive and trendy). So maybe his headline eulogy of the Leica has been modified somewhat in practice.
Some of the comments are interesting though. Some are decrying the scanning of negs for instance. I'd love a nice darkroom but in the real world I can't aford the alimony, which would surely be the outcome. Maybe I won't win any prizes but I enjoy what I do. Also, if you are investing in expensive camera gear you need expensive darkroom gear too, surely?
Others do point out that the image is more important than whether it is wet processed or scanned.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the photography discussion forum (778 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  84
Total posts:  2834
Initial post:  17 Jan 2011
Latest post:  21 hours ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 18 customers

Search Customer Discussions