[Vertex Ninja]

C-41 home process appeals to me but the price is no better than the mini lab for 35mm (2.99 develop and scan) so it really only makes sense for 120 or push processing 35mm from what I see

Yeah you'd have to buy in bulk and replenish to get major savings, but on the other hand I have to use close to 1 gallon in gas and time to drive the film to the lab, so it's a wash. Sheet film will show a bigger savings, because no one does it locally here and I could see it being a no-brainer for those that live in rural areas.

Cost aside, I haven't been happy with the consistency from my lab either. I don't think they are running regular control strips, so I often get color casts that shouldn't be there. They also have a clean room to hang the film, but then they always leave the door open leading to more dust than I'd like. For me it is more about control then any savings, but there are many pros and cons to weigh.

[tuco]

C-41 home process appeals to me but the price is no better than the mini lab for 35mm (2.99 develop and scan) so it really only makes sense for 120 or push processing 35mm from what I see

Yeah, that's about right. I'd send my 135 off in a heart beat. There are plenty of places close by to process it. But 120 is another story for me. Also, DIY means you can go out that day, take your shots and develop the negatives that evening. I suppose if I shot up a lot of rolls, I'd send it out for that. But for the one and two rolls here and there, DIY is not too big a deal.

My biggest gripe is that I mix a new batch after 3 months of storage even if I haven't reached roll capacity to be safe. And that happens frequently. I'm now starting to carrying a color back with me always and plan on more color shots.

[Makten]

Thanks Makten & Tuco for the descriptions. Sounds interesting, although I'll probably keep my focus on developing b&w (I work with a 67II) and on shooting color with the 645D.

That's a good start. I'm really glad that I tried C-41, because now I have sort of no reasons for shooting digital at all anymore. Perhaps I'll get rid of my Nikon & Zeiss gear and just get a Fuji X100 for whenever the P67 is too heavy to lug around. I actually take it with me every day now.

I LOVE the bokeh of the 105 in your pictures, Makten. Such a great lens.

Yeah, it's fantastic! But since I shoot mostly 400 film and at daytime, I can't use the wide aperture much so I've found myself grabbing the 90/2.8 instead, most of the time. The 90 has a little bit harsher bokeh but is sharper for closer work, and I like the angle of view better. In fact, it's perfect.

Btw, did you do anything with the saturation or is this the result of the expired Fuji Reala?

No, the colors are straight out of the scanner if we're talking about the balance. But I did apply a curve to slightly increase contrast on some pics, which also brought the saturation up. But not by much.

I just developed the first roll of Portra 400 ("new"), and MY GOD it looks awesome! Much, much better negatives than the Reala, with a very transparent base with just a light orange cast. Nothing like the brownish expired films. I'll get back with some scans tomorrow.

The V700 sounds like an interesting alternative to the Flextight I use (but rent at high prices). Can you scan negatives at 3200 dpi with the v700? Is there a way for you to show the original scan you made of one of the pictures?

The V700 goes up to 6400 DPI, but that's not really true resolution. In reality you don't gain anything above 2400 or so. At least not with the stock filmholder and/or without wetmounting. But that still means ~30 megapixels of quite nice quality. Perhaps equivalent to 15-20 on a digital sensor. I'll show some crops next time.

One problem with the scanner is that the color channels come out with a tiny bit of offset in one direction. So you get something that looks like chromatic aberration, but linearly from left to right or vice versa. This should be pretty simple to correct by moving the layers, but I haven't bothered with it yet.

Edit: And about cost, over here it's much cheaper to develop C-41 at home than to send the film away. I think I'm winning at just 7-8 rolls with the Tetenal kit. And as tuco said, you can have the roll developed the same day you shot it.
By the way, over at the APUG forum there's a guy that developed more than 20 rolls over 6 months with his kit. But perhaps he's only using slow film, which doesn't exhaust the chemicals as fast.

[GeneV]

C-41 home process appeals to me but the price is no better than the mini lab for 35mm (2.99 develop and scan) so it really only makes sense for 120 or push processing 35mm from what I see

Actually, if you don't really blow through the chemicals and get their full capacity, the price to do your own 135 can be much worse than the minilab. That is the main reason I haven't gone back to doing my own like I did in the 80s--that and the fact that there is not all that much creativity that goes into it. The only thing that tempts me back is, as Tuco notes, getting the 120 back sooner.

[Makten]

I thought Flickr was supposed to be good, but for some reason I couldn't upload the new pix. Just like "FAIL, you are stupid" and no expanation of what was wrong. So here are three shots from my latest Portra 400 roll on Photobucket instead.










I have very little experience with color film, but these negatives look really, really good! The film base is very clear; just a light orange cast like from your ski goggles or so.

Edit: #1 is with the 105/2.4 @ f/4, #2 is with 90/2.8 @ f/2.8 and #3 is with 90/2.8 @ f/8.

[tuco]

I thought Flickr was supposed to be good, but for some reason I couldn't upload the new pix. Just like "FAIL, you are stupid" and no expanation of what was wrong. So here are three shots from my latest Portra 400 roll on Photobucket instead.


I have very little experience with color film, but these negatives look really, really good! The film base is very clear; just a light orange cast like from your ski goggles or so.

Edit: #1 is with the 105/2.4 @ f/4, #2 is with 90/2.8 @ f/2.8 and #3 is with 90/2.8 @ f/8.

The out of focus background on the first shot is just a wonderful compliment to the subject. Nice reds too.

[Rense]

Yashica-D, Yashikor 80/3.5, Ilford Delta 100

[lbenac]

Hand held 6x9. That is a nice touch of the Fuji GW/GSW 690 you can just carry them around on your shoulder the day you do not feel like taking a tripod.


GW690 90mm/3.5 TriX@ 320 in Pyrocat 1+ 1+100 30' agitation cycle 5'









GSW690 Across @ 100 in Pyrocat 1+1+100 15' agitation cycle 4'/7'/11'











Cheers,

Luc

[lbenac]

Yashica-D, Yashikor 80/3.5, Ilford Delta 100

Nice shot but definitely not Zeeland

Cheers,

Luc

[Makten]

The out of focus background on the first shot is just a wonderful compliment to the subject. Nice reds too.

Thanks! Unfortunately, the shot is a tiny bit front focused, but the end of the car is still within DOF. I've found that you cannot rely on the micro prisms when shooting at these distances, but rather the plain matte of the screen itself.

Three more homecooked Portra 400 shots...

[flaneur]

Hi all,

I've just received a 645N and found out about this forum as I was looking for info about using 120 film in a 220 insert, as I've got two rolls of 120 in the fridge. Based on my research, it's doable though maybe not recommended.

However, I saw some of you mention folding cameras and that made me feel like using the old voigtländer I've got, waiting in my closet. And that takes 120. Problem solved

Still glad I've found out about this forum, which looks like a lot of fun. I won't be shooting a lot of film, but I'll try and bring something to the thread. Based on what I've seen while reading the few last pages, I think I'll be shooting Portra. I've seen some beautiful colours with that stuff, including those shots by Martin.

Anyway, that's all for now and my next post will be a bit more constructive.

Cheers, Thomas

[tuco]

Hand held 6x9. That is a nice touch of the Fuji GW/GSW 690 you can just carry them around on your shoulder the day you do not feel like taking a tripod.

Cheers,

Luc

Nice series and looks like a good camera to have. So, what lens was used? It also looks like you've tamed that uneven development unless you're using something else.

[lbenac]

And a couple on Ilford HP5+ at 400
My wife's grandfather:


The happy couple!

That is nice, I will take the HP5+, the bride and of course the watch of the gentleman - all in good fun - sláinte

Luc

[lbenac]

Nice series and looks like a good camera to have. So, what lens was used? It also looks like you've tamed that uneven development unless you're using something else.

Thanks.
It is camera(s) one is never enough

• Fujica GW690 90/3.5 equivalent 40mm
• Fujica GSW690 65/5.6 equivalent 28mm

Fixed lens, simple and rugged stays perfectly on the shoulder with a nice leather strap and of course 8 nice 6x9 negatives.
The wimp between the LXs. This is my alternative to the Kodak Medalist still with Ken Ruth for conversion and major CLA.

I have had really good success with 1+1+100 and Pyrocat and it is now my standard go to developer except if I want to do some stand and I use Rodinal.
I am awaiting some TMAX400 to try out as I am looking for a 400 ASA film (leaving Trix for @1250 and Diafine).

Cheers,

Luc

[Nesster]

WOW, I've been away from here for a couple of days: and MAN WHAT PICS! Love that Portra 400, it's modern vintage = instant classic.

I'm behind on trying out my folders - here's a HAPO 10 6x9 that I cured of a light leak before putting film in it - but it developed a new leak that got worse as time went on... ACROS 100 in D-76; carefully estimated exposure and focus distance