Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-11-2011, 08:32 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
none of the freestyle films are Ilford

Arista is Kodak plu-x and tri-x
Legacy Pro is neopan and Across
and they have a new one that i believe is a foma film i haven't tried
most of what i am sitting on is the legacy pro right now
Toronto is a pretty big film city but the pricing up here is way out of line. in the US even your brick and mortar stores are far cheaper than ours

What i like about freestyle is the selection. to get the same selection here i'd have to visit at minimum 4 different stores

02-11-2011, 08:46 AM   #17
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
none of the freestyle films are Ilford

Arista is Kodak plu-x and tri-x
Legacy Pro is neopan and Across
and they have a new one that i believe is a foma film i haven't tried
most of what i am sitting on is the legacy pro right now
Toronto is a pretty big film city but the pricing up here is way out of line. in the US even your brick and mortar stores are far cheaper than ours

What i like about freestyle is the selection. to get the same selection here i'd have to visit at minimum 4 different stores
oh I know they arent ILFORD. the reason I use ilford is because 1: they are pretty dedicated to quality film, processing and printing. and I like to supprt that. it helps insure the continued manufacture and dedication to the medium the way knock off films being sold as more of a 'vintage' and 'hipster' ideal, dont really contribute to long term stability of the medium. however, I dont have anything against using them!


2: Ilford is the main choice used by all the shops here, as Kodak despite recent talk of the revival of film in a lot of ways, continues to decline in its offerings for film, development and printing materials and equipment. and Fuji isnt as available outside of Japan as most would like. (I know I would)


at the end of the day though I really like Ilford and its great that they offer pretty much everything from all the paper, chemicals, film, developing equipment and a range of choices from very exensive high resolution film to (relatively) cheap colour removed 'B&W' film ala kodak c41 B&W. although I have a love for kodak its history and of course Tri-X, its just not as available as it used to be. what I would really love is the same availability of Fuji as it is in Japan. Japan it seems, is the land of film photography and im jealous.
02-11-2011, 08:50 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
fuji killed a bunch of their filnms recently. i was really sorry to see neopan 1600 go, i though of all the high speed b/w it was the best. neopan 400 pushes to 1600 quite well, but the neopan 1600 could push to 3200 quite well and even was reasonable at 6400. delta pro 3200 at 6400 is really bad IMHO,
I used Ilford mostly when i bulk loaded and still like the old emulsions from them. and Pan F is an absolutely stellar film. I use the Ilford and Rollei films in my medium format.
02-11-2011, 08:53 AM   #19
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
fuji killed a bunch of their filnms recently. i was really sorry to see neopan 1600 go, i though of all the high speed b/w it was the best. neopan 400 pushes to 1600 quite well, but the neopan 1600 could push to 3200 quite well and even was reasonable at 6400. delta pro 3200 at 6400 is really bad IMHO,
I used Ilford mostly when i bulk loaded and still like the old emulsions from them. and Pan F is an absolutely stellar film. I use the Ilford and Rollei films in my medium format.
yes, that was a big letdown with Fuji, especially in Japan. but its understandable, even if I don’t like it.

02-11-2011, 09:05 AM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,739
IN the old days, you had to love the darkroom, or know somebody who did. I fail to see how sending your pictures off to someone else, sometimes for as long as a week to get the good rate, when I had 10 rolls of film, made me more involved. I've been a darkroom rat since I went in with my father at age 6. While the whole process is somewhat magical, I was never going to be a darkroom technician. For me, I put up with the darkroom to get the images. Now I don't have to.

It's great you guys love the darkroom. But for me it "been there, done that". If I need paper to feel attached to a print I'll print myself a copy and hold it in my hand.

Now then there is Dr. Andrija Puharich's notion that the light from the subject rotated the quarks in the emulsion to a certain vibration characteristic of the objects in the photograph and that those vibrations were transferred to the print when light passed through the emulsion. Giving a psychic resonance with the person or place strong enough to be used in psychic weaponry or to be read by a psychic healer or other sensitive.

No way the same thing happens in digital. Although some might argue it never happened in film either. Maybe you're a sensitive clinging to the extra information, missing the voyeuristic information fix you got from film images.

Or then again, maybe not.
02-11-2011, 09:19 AM   #21
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN the old days, you had to love the darkroom, or know somebody who did. I fail to see how sending your pictures off to someone else, sometimes for as long as a week to get the good rate, when I had 10 rolls of film, made me more involved. I've been a darkroom rat since I went in with my father at age 6. While the whole process is somewhat magical, I was never going to be a darkroom technician. For me, I put up with the darkroom to get the images. Now I don't have to.

It's great you guys love the darkroom. But for me it "been there, done that". If I need paper to feel attached to a print I'll print myself a copy and hold it in my hand.

Now then there is Dr. Andrija Puharich's notion that the light from the subject rotated the quarks in the emulsion to a certain vibration characteristic of the objects in the photograph and that those vibrations were transferred to the print when light passed through the emulsion. Giving a psychic resonance with the person or place strong enough to be used in psychic weaponry or to be read by a psychic healer or other sensitive.

No way the same thing happens in digital. Although some might argue it never happened in film either. Maybe you're a sensitive clinging to the extra information, missing the voyeuristic information fix you got from film images.

Or then again, maybe not.
nice insight and a neat story there! I however do not much care for the darkroom. my earlier posts in this thread will show you exactly why. in fact I don’t have one. what I love is taking a photograph. I love capturing a moment, and I love involvement and you could say ‘intimacy’ involved in using film, particularly in a completely mechanical and manual camera. (my two favorites to use are the Pentax SV and the Leica M3) the process of getting the taken photos is not my favorite, and in all honesty if it was cheap enough id have my photos processed by the very talented guys in my favorite local shop. my family and friends say that what I do now will one day be some sort of ‘discovery’ where my undeveloped film will be found, developed and an unknown photographer gets recognition long after his departure. sounds neat, even if I know is a bunch of nonsense.
02-11-2011, 09:19 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN the old days, you had to love the darkroom, or know somebody who did. I fail to see how sending your pictures off to someone else, sometimes for as long as a week to get the good rate, when I had 10 rolls of film, made me more involved. I've been a darkroom rat since I went in with my father at age 6. While the whole process is somewhat magical, I was never going to be a darkroom technician. For me, I put up with the darkroom to get the images. Now I don't have to.

It's great you guys love the darkroom. But for me it "been there, done that". If I need paper to feel attached to a print I'll print myself a copy and hold it in my hand.

Now then there is Dr. Andrija Puharich's notion that the light from the subject rotated the quarks in the emulsion to a certain vibration characteristic of the objects in the photograph and that those vibrations were transferred to the print when light passed through the emulsion. Giving a psychic resonance with the person or place strong enough to be used in psychic weaponry or to be read by a psychic healer or other sensitive.

No way the same thing happens in digital. Although some might argue it never happened in film either. Maybe you're a sensitive clinging to the extra information, missing the voyeuristic information fix you got from film images.

Or then again, maybe not.
I like the darkroom mostly for sentimental reasons it takes me back to my youth. Truly if i want the best result from the print process i will go to a good pro lab with an expert printer (like toronto black and white on river when you are in town norm)
Also i don't have any interest in doing my own colour work. learned how in the 70's and decided it was just a huge PITA. We have some excellent colour labs in town so I just send colour out (mostly if i want colour i just shoot digital, but a big e6 medium format transparency is a wonderful site on a light table. and if it's good enough to print there are a couple of places still doing a variant on Cibachrome, I've not seen a scanned print that rivals a good Ciba IMHO
02-11-2011, 09:23 AM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 202
What makes film more real is the fact you don't completely know how your photographs have turned out until development. And that's even with a fixed-focus or a point-and-shoot. And the more manual control, the greater the thrill in the end.

I'm sure no professional photographer thinks that way. But I'm just a weekend shooter.

02-11-2011, 09:38 AM   #24
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by asaru Quote
What makes film more real is the fact you don't completely know how your photographs have turned out until development. And that's even with a fixed-focus or a point-and-shoot. And the more manual control, the greater the thrill in the end.

I'm sure no professional photographer thinks that way. But I'm just a weekend shooter.
depends won what type of photography the ‘pro’ does and what type of equipment he/she uses. not all ‘pros’ are machine-gunning fast action sports photographers with big DSLR’s and huge telephoto lenses.
02-11-2011, 09:59 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
depends won what type of photography the ‘pro’ does and what type of equipment he/she uses. not all ‘pros’ are machine-gunning fast action sports photographers with big DSLR’s and huge telephoto lenses.
Very true

Peter Lik (the million dollar photo guy) still shoots film on a Fuji Medium format. I'm pretty certain though he knows his gear and film well enough to know what he is going to get. that said i'm pretty sure he still brackets the exposure and focus to be sure
02-11-2011, 10:15 AM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 202
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
...i'm pretty sure he still brackets the exposure and focus to be sure...
My point exactly. Is there any need to bracket if you really KNOW? The frame always holds some surprises. Getting it back immediately is wonderful (actually I've envied it), but the wait is worth the candle in some ways, reality-wise.
02-11-2011, 10:28 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by asaru Quote
My point exactly. Is there any need to bracket if you really KNOW? The frame always holds some surprises. Getting it back immediately is wonderful (actually I've envied it), but the wait is worth the candle in some ways, reality-wise.
when you bring in his dough the film cost isn't an issue, but missing the moment is.
better to be safe by bracketing than sorry, though i must admit i don't often do it myself, and occasionally regret it when shooting transparency. Neg latitude is so huge now that it doesn't make as big a difference
02-11-2011, 10:32 AM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Forest
Posts: 630
QuoteOriginally posted by Snaphappyscottiedog Quote
Over the next couple of years i will be building up a collection of manual lenses so when i get my k5 i shall have the option to use both.
Or whatever the 'k5' is then

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
I have about 350-400 rolls of undeveloped film in my refrigerator.
Unexposed! Wow that would cost a lot to develop at once!

How long for you to use that many rolls?
02-11-2011, 10:43 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
is a recording more REAL if it sat on a LP or a tape or even a CD, than if it sits in a hard drive or memory card?

Digital does represent an advance over film in many ways, and to me it is real photography. Digital tends to be more consistently reliable and of high quality - compare e.g. film era point and shoots to digital ones. Apart from the time delay and 'some surprises' in the positive sense, film can be a royal PITA with its foibles and failures. With film you need to build up experience and knowledge more than with digital.

As much time as Photoshop can eat, it's nothing compared to what a darkroom can swallow.

Though the average quality level of digital is more democratic than that of film, both methods reward and require attention and skill to achieve their best.

So what's left for film? Speaking for amateur hobbyists, and myself in particular: Medium Format has a look, and that look today can be achieved economically only with film. Even what's called 'full frame' 35mm is still more economically bought via film cameras. Films can have character that can be used to advantage. Film equipment can be bought used for very little money. The elaborate back up and safekeep strategies of digital storage are avoided with film - though film does take up space over time and needs some care in its storage.

With film you have the option and temptation to get off the current marketing plan - you're not looking at a new round of cameras each year making yours obsolete, and you may not even have to be tempted by the newest auto everything zoom. Instead, ebay periodically starts to call you...

With all of the above, what it all adds up to is this: with film I have more variety available to me than with digital. I get to use vintage equipment that has a nicer feel and look to me.

But, if doing macro work or trying out lighting schemes or needing fast results or lots of photos, digital is the way to go.


ps. film photography is not to digital photography what real sex is to online sex
02-11-2011, 10:52 AM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 202
Nesster, I agree with everything you say. But the uncertainty of waiting for development, by which time you are off the scene, imposes a totally different head.

Sex or no sex, I'd argue there's a moment of greater reality in seeing how it turned out, after the wait.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is REAL photography? [final] RioRico Photographic Technique 54 06-21-2012 08:24 AM
Has anyone done real estate photography before? jennverr Photographic Technique 19 02-02-2011 07:17 AM
Returning to photography LostAgain Welcomes and Introductions 1 12-29-2010 07:25 PM
Returning to Photography and Pentax after 30years. Touchwood Welcomes and Introductions 3 10-08-2010 04:38 AM
Real Estate Photography spun Photographic Industry and Professionals 16 08-12-2009 09:43 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top