ShortScale.org

I'm happy with the results. I think I like the film too. Light looks more solid and tangible or something, and I think details easier to see and make sense of. I suspect the same shots with colour film would have looked messier somehow. That's it being pushed a stop too, which I understand the film responds well to.

The only thing is that looking through the full set, my focusing is all over the place. I suppose this is poor technique, but I don't think it's made any easier by the fact that I think the prescription on my glasses is a wee bit out now. That's probably just an excuse, mind.

I have a question about focusing: does anyone know if a skylight filter effects the rangefinder? it seems like it offsets it a bit.

Mages wrote:I have a question about focusing: does anyone know if a skylight filter effects the rangefinder? it seems like it offsets it a bit.

I can't see why it would. Haven't heard of anything like that.


LOOOOOOev hp5.

A couple of photos taken today around Hope Mill in Manchester:

Nice, I like the perspective on that second one a lot.

I've been going through old photos and found a couple taken with a little Olympus XZ-1 last year. The first one is heavily edited of course, but I felt the color-saturated look suited it well. Almost like an oil painting.

I've used a bit of this Kodak 200 film now, for those who may be interested in more info on different available film, here is my review.

This stuff is $2 for a 36 roll at B&H. that's the cheapest film I've found anywhere. it's listed as "Kodak 200" at B&H and that is indeed what it says on the can. on the box however, it is labeled Kodak Gold. Some reviews on the site seem to claim that this is not Gold but the same stuff as the european market Kodak Color Plus. they must be referring to an older product B&H sold because I see no reason not to think this is Kodak Gold.

now about the film itself. it's not really that great but can be good enough for some situations. fairly poor color saturation, it's not particularly sharp, doesn't have much latitude for over-exposure, most of the time it will look patchy and grainy. some have compared it to looking like a cheap 80s film. when I've gotten it to look best is when I can do a longer exposure. basically anything 1/30 of a second or longer, and the longer the better. this is probably a general rule but when the exposure is this long I think it allows the silver halides to be more evenly exposed giving you deeper color saturation and a sharper picture with less patchy-ness in broad expanses. for long exposure night shots I think it could perform quite decently.

Is that the same thing as Kodak Ultramax? I posted some pictures a few pages back that were shot with Ultramax 200. Got a 4-pack of it from a grocery store for something like $10. I would agree that it definitely has an "80s" look to it; colors aren't faithfully recreated by any means. But I kind of like that, myself. It's perfect for "old" things like buildings, vintage guitars, classic cars, etc. I found the sharpness and level of detail to be better than any digital cameras I've owned. The main downside was that it's a very high contrast film...shadows are pretty much entirely black. Actually, that might just be my camera as all the film I've used so far has been like that. I really want to try shooting some consumer 400 films (either the Gold / Ultramax or Fuji Superia) at ISO 200, supposedly that gives great results.

Did you guys (in the U.S.) know that Goodwill has an online auction site now? I won a Canon T70 plus a 35-105 f/3.5 lens and a speed light for $26. My FD collection is growing Sold my 7D as well. Think I'm ordering a used X-Pro1 from Amazon Warehouse tonight.

And wow, is that picture of the Volvo ever blown out. That's the trouble with doing editing on a poor quality monitor.

it might be the same yeah. also the scanner make a big big difference when it comes to color negative film. those walgreens scans are just immaculate, they have to be using some kind of $5000 commercial film scanner. and I believe they are pushing the color saturation in post processing.

do you still have any canisters of that kodak ultramax film? does it look like this?



except it probably says 24exp. because it came in a 4 pack.

Well, at $8-10 for 24 exposures, I would hope so But yeah, that's the main reason I haven't looked more into developing my own film. I don't even have a scanner right now, and I could never afford one that would look as good as the Walgreens stuff.

I do still have some of the Ultramax, not with me, I'll check later but out of memory they look almost exactly like that.

BTW, here are a couple photos taken with Kodak Ultramax / Gold 400, also developed at Walgreens. Pentax ZX-30 with a cheap-o kit lens that I found at my family's house last Christmas. Nothing special, just for example. The second one is a long exposure on a tripod.

Pretty sure that Kodak 200 is what Tescos sell for £7-8 for a three pack. I shot two rolls with it and they both came out completely underexposed, so I'm not sure what happened. I'm 95% certain it was my fault, I was just a wee bit surprised to see that I'd got it wrong on every single shot across two rolls.

Not a problem now that I've got the high-end, modern features like TTL metering working on my camera, I suppose. I think I might have a roll of it in the fridge which I'll try to shoot this weekend.

I think probably what dillon is describing as shadows being pretty much entirely black, and possibly the cause of Bpaul's underexposure problems, is what I'm describing as a lack of exposure latitude.

I just scanned this at the highest resolution and bit depth I could to try to get something out of it.



you can see there's just no definition in the dark areas of the exposure. I think this is a point where fujifilm superia probably outperforms the kodak/gold/ultramax/whatever.

Just had a look. The film my local Tesco sells at the minute is some cheap Fuji film, cheaper than Superia which can usually be had for the same price on line. I'm certain that I've shot that Kodak before though. I know that my local Tesco didn't have any film at all for about two months. I think that before this gap they sold teh Kodak and now it's Fuji.

don't buy your film at tesco. buy in bulk online.

For cheap film, in the US at least, it seems to be only a $3 to $5 price difference between buying online and buying in a grocery / convenience store. So unless shipping is free it ends up being the same. Good film is way cheaper to buy online, though...it's like $10-15 per 24 exposure roll for Ilford, Kodak Portra, Fuji Velvia, etc. at my local lab. BTW, double checked last night and the canister is exactly the same.

Ordering the X-Pro1 today! Planning on getting a B-stock item from Amazon Warehouse. Saves me $400.

I've mentioned this before but when Jessops was still going I used to get one roll of film free with every roll I got developed. It was "Fujicolor C200". Probably the cheapest fuji film you can get and maybe what you have seen in Tesco Paul? I'm no expert with film and haven't tried many but it worked fine for me and I liked the results.

From what I've read online it's a budget film aimed at amateurs lol. More grainy than standard 200 film.

Tescos do that Fuji colour, and for around the same price you can usually get Superia online.

To be honest, the pricey bit for me is getting it developed. I've yet to find anywhere in Belfast that costs less than a tenner for develop and scan. There aren't many places around anymore either.

My da's out in NZ at the minute so I got him to develop a roll of film I'd left in my brother's fridge out there. Pretty pleased.


Tom Parker Fountain Red by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Napier Port in Rain by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Ships by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Containers by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Ship by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Crane and Ship by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Containers and Ship by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Tom Parker Fountain Magenta by P Rodgers, on Flickr

Cool shots there, especially the fountain. I wish I lived closer to water!

I went to a da Vinci machines exhibit this weekend. Conclusion: da Vinci was a time traveler. Or the bastard child of an alien race. He was born out of wedlock, after all.

Would you believe that I didn't know how useful AE lock is until I started using film cameras? I used it a ton in this lighting. This isn't film, though. Here are some of the better ones; full album is here for anyone interested.









And then this one just for fun.

so I have this Nikon FE and I've taken some promising photos with it. I have this Tokina 35-70 AF lens (no "AF" ability with the FE), it's ugly as sin, but seems to take really nice pictures.

however, halfway through the roll though it appears the film only advanced part way for each frame. I figured I just didn't load the film into the take-up reel properly and so the next roll I really jammed the film as far as I could into the take-up reel. I had a nice weekend of taking pictures all about the city only to discover on rewinding the film that the camera hadn't advanced more than 3 frames into the roll!!!!! D: so saddening.

what is wrong with my FE? when I turn the film advance lever with the back open everything appears to work perfectly. is there some trick to loading the film in the FE or nikon cameras in general? I've read the FE manual and I seem to be doing everything correctly.