Film recommendations?

stevebrot · 07-21-2010, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Amancio

Any worldwide ebay film seller to recommend?

Amancio...

For film? There are are a couple of Koreans with eBay stores that deal in film, though I don't have any personal experience with them.

I would deal locally (Brazil?) if you can to avoid shipping charges and customs duty. If nothing is available locally, Freestyle ships international as does Adorama. Maco Direct in Germany has a good selection of film and will also ship international if you prefer a European vendor.

Steve

Amancio · 07-21-2010, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

For film? There are are a couple of Koreans with eBay stores that deal in film, though I don't have any personal experience with them.

I would deal locally (Brazil?) if you can to avoid shipping charges and customs duty. If nothing is available locally, Freestyle ships international as does Adorama. Maco Direct in Germany has a good selection of film and will also ship international if you prefer a European vendor.

Steve

Thanks Steve!

It may not be easy to imagine but, lately, at least my experience buying good quality films, it is cheaper to buy outside Brazil, including shipping charges.

Or not? I've just bought Fujifilm NEOPAN 400 135-36 B&W and paid R$30. This is almost US$17.

Sorry for my English.

GeneV · 07-21-2010, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Wow! When did Bluemoon start doing E6? The $10 figure is pretty much the standard, but $3 uncut is outrageously cheap. )

It also happens to be exactly what their web site gives as the charge for 135 C41. That's the first time I've heard of a lab that charges the same for C41 and E6. The going rate online for unmounted E6 135 seems to be $6.35-8.50 US.

drewdlephone · 07-21-2010, 09:12 PM

Were it me, I would shoot a combination of films. Ektar 100 (or Gold 100 if you can find it) for the bright sunny days, and Kodak UltraMax 400 for fast moving or indoor/outdoor shots. I love shooting Ektar, but sometimes it's hard to freeze something in motion unless you have full, unbridled sunlight pouring down on you. The results are fantastic though. Also, the Portra was a good suggestion, but I'd say go with 400VC. This still give your grain and sharpness that is orders of magnitude better than dollar store stuff, gives you vibrant (but more balanced) color when compared to UltraMax, and still has the speed to stop time should the need arise and the sun ain't shining.

Have fun on your trip! I've yet to travel to the House of Mouse myself.

Aegon · 07-22-2010, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Adorama still has a screaming deal on it at $2.25/$2.49 for 100/200 135 36exp. I bought a bunch a while back, and it now lives in my XA2 and/or Stylus. (I really need to see if my beat up XA can be saved). I'm now down to $0.15 per click on those cameras including processing.

Oh GeneV, I followed your tip and wound up with a small boatload of Gold 100*. And I've never shot the stuff before. And I'm trying to pretend I'm on a budget right now. D'oh!

Thanks for the tip.

*I needed to buy a small boatload to justify the shipping price.

**wedge** · 07-24-2010, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Adorama still has a screaming deal on it at $2.25/$2.49 for 100/200 135 36exp. I bought a bunch a while back, and it now lives in my XA2 and/or Stylus. (I really need to see if my beat up XA can be saved). I'm now down to $0.15 per click on those cameras including processing.

FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes.

tibbitts · 07-24-2010, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by wedge

Also, as kind of a side tangent, what do you all see as the future of film? By that, I mean do you see film production decreasing to the point that it will become prohibitively expensive? Or, like the end of VHS, might all of the manufacturers just call it quits? I know it's not a direct comparison since the quality of VHS compared to other mediums was horrifically bad and film cameras can produce products of the same quality as digital. I'm just curious what you guys/gals think.
-Chad

I think film and VHS tape are different in that the basic functionality of VHS tape, for the typical consumer, has - amazingly - never been replaced. Lots of people can still record a tv program on VHS tape using a device that used to cost about $50-$100, with no recurring fees. Relatively few people I know are capable of recording a tv program today, and certainly not without recurring fees. Yes, you can hack together recording solutions using PCs and tuner cards and hard drives, but there is no trivial solution. As for the quality issue, the difference between the best available broadcast or cable or fiber signal is still indistinguishable from VHS tape output on all of the devices most people I know have access to. Obviously hdtv signals and devices are superior, but most people I know don't have access to them.

I don't understand why the marketplace never produced a VHS replacement - it's a mystery, and probably always will be.

Film is indistinguishable from digital for the typical consumer, and digital offers numerous cost and convenience advantages. But unlike with VHS, some enthusiasts appreciate the "feel" of film, and digital will probably never quite duplicate it.

Paul

drewdlephone · 07-24-2010, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

I think film and VHS tape are different in that the basic functionality of VHS tape, for the typical consumer, has - amazingly - never been replaced. Lots of people can still record a tv program on VHS tape using a device that used to cost about $50-$100, with no recurring fees. Relatively few people I know are capable of recording a tv program today, and certainly not without recurring fees. Yes, you can hack together recording solutions using PCs and tuner cards and hard drives, but there is no trivial solution. As for the quality issue, the difference between the best available broadcast or cable or fiber signal is still indistinguishable from VHS tape output on all of the devices most people I know have access to. Obviously hdtv signals and devices are superior, but most people I know don't have access to them.

I don't understand why the marketplace never produced a VHS replacement - it's a mystery, and probably always will be.

Film is indistinguishable from digital for the typical consumer, and digital offers numerous cost and convenience advantages. But unlike with VHS, some enthusiasts appreciate the "feel" of film, and digital will probably never quite duplicate it.

Paul

They have, but the power that be have been more and more successful at delaying the products' appearance on the market, or worse, limiting it's functionality due to copyright concerns.

VHS was replaced with two different cassette formats, SVHS and DVHS. SVHS was a fantastic upgrade for those with standard VHS, because it actually allowed you to record a resolution beyond 240 horizontal lines. Problem was the machines and cassettes were too expensive to justify the upgrade, and you couldn't record SVHS quality material on regular old VHS cassettes. Try and find an SVHS cassette now. DVHS was Digital VHS, and it was JVC's replacement for VHS. This was an amazing idea; the cassettes recorded and played back HD content, and better still, stored it in raw digital video, as opposed to being compressed. Not only did this yield artifact-free HD playback, but it was virtually impossible to pirate: raw HD digital video weighs in at 3-4Gb of information per minute, which for your average 2 hour movie works out to 480Gb, a fantastic sum even by today's standards. And this was back in 1998! You could record incoming HD content just as you would standard definition on a VHS player, something that is difficult if nigh impossible today without being strapped down by an HD PVR, a monthly fee, and the inability to move the content off the hardware. Unfortunately, for all it's merits, it was atrociously priced at first (think $3500 for a deck), and the media and hype convinced everyone that the ability to have special features and a smaller physical medium far outweighed the potential advantages of recording and playing back high definition content, something that twelve years later, everyone now wants to do.

There have also been lots of hard drive and DVD based recording devices that were meant to replace the functionality of the VHS player, but none of them that I've seen ever replaced that "stick it in and record" simplicity of yore. And I think that's enough history for one post.

GeneV · 07-26-2010, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by wedge

FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes.

That's a good price. Walgreens sells that three-pack for a lot more.

tuco · 07-27-2010, 06:33 AM

Update. I went back to the photography store. I looked at the list again and sure enough Gold 200 XXXX is on the discontinued list. The good news is that the replacement is Gold 200 BXXXX. Apparently, a new formula?

**ChrisPlatt** · 07-27-2010, 05:54 PM

I suspect some tricks Kodak learned creating Ektar will be incorporated as improvements in some/all of their color negative films.

Chris

stevebrot · 07-28-2010, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by wedge

FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes.

Thanks for the heads up! My Target is now OUT of Kodak Gold 200 and my fridge is plush with the stuff.

Steve

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for recommendations for a film camera	RichyX	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	21	10-07-2009 09:23 AM
Film scanner recommendations, anyone?	heatherslightbox	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	51	04-10-2009 05:07 AM
Film recommendations	ryno	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	08-06-2008 11:46 AM
Film Recommendations	jbrowning	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	12-11-2007 12:50 PM
Film Scanner Recommendations	DAP	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	16	08-27-2007 07:09 PM

07-21-2010, 02:19 PM	#31
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Amancio Any worldwide ebay film seller to recommend? Amancio... For film? There are are a couple of Koreans with eBay stores that deal in film, though I don't have any personal experience with them. I would deal locally (Brazil?) if you can to avoid shipping charges and customs duty. If nothing is available locally, Freestyle ships international as does Adorama. Maco Direct in Germany has a good selection of film and will also ship international if you prefer a European vendor. Steve

07-21-2010, 02:43 PM	#32
Amancio New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9	Originally posted by stevebrot For film? There are are a couple of Koreans with eBay stores that deal in film, though I don't have any personal experience with them. I would deal locally (Brazil?) if you can to avoid shipping charges and customs duty. If nothing is available locally, Freestyle ships international as does Adorama. Maco Direct in Germany has a good selection of film and will also ship international if you prefer a European vendor. Steve Thanks Steve! It may not be easy to imagine but, lately, at least my experience buying good quality films, it is cheaper to buy outside Brazil, including shipping charges. Or not? I've just bought Fujifilm NEOPAN 400 135-36 B&W and paid R$30. This is almost US$17. Sorry for my English.

07-21-2010, 02:52 PM	#33
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevebrot Wow! When did Bluemoon start doing E6? The $10 figure is pretty much the standard, but $3 uncut is outrageously cheap. ) It also happens to be exactly what their web site gives as the charge for 135 C41. That's the first time I've heard of a lab that charges the same for C41 and E6. The going rate online for unmounted E6 135 seems to be $6.35-8.50 US.

07-21-2010, 09:12 PM	#34
drewdlephone Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Nanaimo, BC Posts: 261	Were it me, I would shoot a combination of films. Ektar 100 (or Gold 100 if you can find it) for the bright sunny days, and Kodak UltraMax 400 for fast moving or indoor/outdoor shots. I love shooting Ektar, but sometimes it's hard to freeze something in motion unless you have full, unbridled sunlight pouring down on you. The results are fantastic though. Also, the Portra was a good suggestion, but I'd say go with 400VC. This still give your grain and sharpness that is orders of magnitude better than dollar store stuff, gives you vibrant (but more balanced) color when compared to UltraMax, and still has the speed to stop time should the need arise and the sun ain't shining. Have fun on your trip! I've yet to travel to the House of Mouse myself.

07-22-2010, 11:04 AM	#35
Aegon Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,416	Originally posted by GeneV Adorama still has a screaming deal on it at $2.25/$2.49 for 100/200 135 36exp. I bought a bunch a while back, and it now lives in my XA2 and/or Stylus. (I really need to see if my beat up XA can be saved). I'm now down to $0.15 per click on those cameras including processing. Oh GeneV, I followed your tip and wound up with a small boatload of Gold 100. And I've never shot the stuff before. And I'm trying to pretend I'm on a budget right now. D'oh! Thanks for the tip. I needed to buy a small boatload to justify the shipping price.

07-24-2010, 09:03 AM	#36
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154 Original Poster	Originally posted by GeneV Adorama still has a screaming deal on it at $2.25/$2.49 for 100/200 135 36exp. I bought a bunch a while back, and it now lives in my XA2 and/or Stylus. (I really need to see if my beat up XA can be saved). I'm now down to $0.15 per click on those cameras including processing. FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes.

07-24-2010, 10:24 AM	#37
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by wedge Also, as kind of a side tangent, what do you all see as the future of film? By that, I mean do you see film production decreasing to the point that it will become prohibitively expensive? Or, like the end of VHS, might all of the manufacturers just call it quits? I know it's not a direct comparison since the quality of VHS compared to other mediums was horrifically bad and film cameras can produce products of the same quality as digital. I'm just curious what you guys/gals think. -Chad I think film and VHS tape are different in that the basic functionality of VHS tape, for the typical consumer, has - amazingly - never been replaced. Lots of people can still record a tv program on VHS tape using a device that used to cost about $50-$100, with no recurring fees. Relatively few people I know are capable of recording a tv program today, and certainly not without recurring fees. Yes, you can hack together recording solutions using PCs and tuner cards and hard drives, but there is no trivial solution. As for the quality issue, the difference between the best available broadcast or cable or fiber signal is still indistinguishable from VHS tape output on all of the devices most people I know have access to. Obviously hdtv signals and devices are superior, but most people I know don't have access to them. I don't understand why the marketplace never produced a VHS replacement - it's a mystery, and probably always will be. Film is indistinguishable from digital for the typical consumer, and digital offers numerous cost and convenience advantages. But unlike with VHS, some enthusiasts appreciate the "feel" of film, and digital will probably never quite duplicate it. Paul

07-24-2010, 05:54 PM	#38
drewdlephone Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Nanaimo, BC Posts: 261	Originally posted by tibbitts I think film and VHS tape are different in that the basic functionality of VHS tape, for the typical consumer, has - amazingly - never been replaced. Lots of people can still record a tv program on VHS tape using a device that used to cost about $50-$100, with no recurring fees. Relatively few people I know are capable of recording a tv program today, and certainly not without recurring fees. Yes, you can hack together recording solutions using PCs and tuner cards and hard drives, but there is no trivial solution. As for the quality issue, the difference between the best available broadcast or cable or fiber signal is still indistinguishable from VHS tape output on all of the devices most people I know have access to. Obviously hdtv signals and devices are superior, but most people I know don't have access to them. I don't understand why the marketplace never produced a VHS replacement - it's a mystery, and probably always will be. Film is indistinguishable from digital for the typical consumer, and digital offers numerous cost and convenience advantages. But unlike with VHS, some enthusiasts appreciate the "feel" of film, and digital will probably never quite duplicate it. Paul They have, but the power that be have been more and more successful at delaying the products' appearance on the market, or worse, limiting it's functionality due to copyright concerns. VHS was replaced with two different cassette formats, SVHS and DVHS. SVHS was a fantastic upgrade for those with standard VHS, because it actually allowed you to record a resolution beyond 240 horizontal lines. Problem was the machines and cassettes were too expensive to justify the upgrade, and you couldn't record SVHS quality material on regular old VHS cassettes. Try and find an SVHS cassette now. DVHS was Digital VHS, and it was JVC's replacement for VHS. This was an amazing idea; the cassettes recorded and played back HD content, and better still, stored it in raw digital video, as opposed to being compressed. Not only did this yield artifact-free HD playback, but it was virtually impossible to pirate: raw HD digital video weighs in at 3-4Gb of information per minute, which for your average 2 hour movie works out to 480Gb, a fantastic sum even by today's standards. And this was back in 1998! You could record incoming HD content just as you would standard definition on a VHS player, something that is difficult if nigh impossible today without being strapped down by an HD PVR, a monthly fee, and the inability to move the content off the hardware. Unfortunately, for all it's merits, it was atrociously priced at first (think $3500 for a deck), and the media and hype convinced everyone that the ability to have special features and a smaller physical medium far outweighed the potential advantages of recording and playing back high definition content, something that twelve years later, everyone now wants to do. There have also been lots of hard drive and DVD based recording devices that were meant to replace the functionality of the VHS player, but none of them that I've seen ever replaced that "stick it in and record" simplicity of yore. And I think that's enough history for one post.

07-26-2010, 04:33 PM	#39
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by wedge FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes. That's a good price. Walgreens sells that three-pack for a lot more.

07-27-2010, 06:33 AM	#40
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,025	Update. I went back to the photography store. I looked at the list again and sure enough Gold 200 XXXX is on the discontinued list. The good news is that the replacement is Gold 200 BXXXX. Apparently, a new formula?

07-27-2010, 05:54 PM	#41
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	I suspect some tricks Kodak learned creating Ektar will be incorporated as improvements in some/all of their color negative films. Chris

07-28-2010, 01:23 PM	#42
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by wedge FWIW, I just picked up a 3-pack of Gold 200 (24 exp.) for $5.99 at Target, and no shipping involved. I also grabbed a 3-pack of UltraMax 400 (also 24 exp.) for $7.99, just for comparison purposes. Thanks for the heads up! My Target is now OUT of Kodak Gold 200 and my fridge is plush with the stuff. Steve