Questions from a film rookie

twitch · 12-07-2011, 02:26 PM

Try BW400CN too. In my vast experience (I've shot 1 roll of it

) I really really liked the results, more so than Tri-X (again, 1 whole roll!), and best of all it's super cheap to get processed.

I liked your photos, particularly the portraits. I think B&W film is awesome for portraits, made for it.

joe.penn · 12-07-2011, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by twitch

Try BW400CN too. In my vast experience (I've shot 1 roll of it ) I really really liked the results

That's all I shoot with now for film - only down side is it is quite expensive (here in the states anyways)...

twitch · 12-07-2011, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by joe.penn

That's all I shoot with now for film - only down side is it is quite expensive (here in the states anyways)...

Film is way cheaper in the states than Australia, at my local camera shop its $12 (Tri-X) to $18 (Portra) a roll. Be thankful!! This is why I've just bought a bunch of film from B&H, way cheaper to do that and ship here than buy local. B&W develop + low res scan is $28 for Tri-X a roll, or B&W dev+low-res scan+print is $38 (+ $12 for the roll). So $50 a roll for B&W........insane

So the cheapest way, without developing myself, is import C-41 film from B&H, C41 dev only ($4) from a cheap lab, and scan myself.

**Digitalis** · 12-07-2011, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by womble

second the use of Kodak BW400CN. Excellent all round film that means I can use old cameras like my FED2 without worrying too much about dodgy shutter speeds etc. I only wish they still made it in 120 size.

they did make it in 120 size, they have discontinued that line due to lacking demand. I still have several 220 bricks of it in my freezer It is an excellent film to use in a pentax 67II because of the high shutter speeds you get as a result of using an ISO 400 film you won't have a problem hand holding it.

**gofour3** · 12-07-2011, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by womble

Personally, the lab I use returns perfectly good dust-spot free scans and I'd rather pay them £5 for those than spend an age with my film scanner for lots of images. I, therefore, get the lo-res ones done by the lab (perfectly good enough for posting on fora, Flickr and to the PPG) and only do the high-res scans myself when I have an image I want to submit for a competition or print large (although in the latter case I prefer to get someone to do me a old-fashioned silver gelatin print).
K.

Yep I do the same.

Phil.

twitch · 12-08-2011, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by crrumford

Twitch- I'll be interested in hearing your opinion of the PlusTek.

I like it

Software is difificult to navigate though, about as un-intuitive as any I've used

Here's my almost willing model, one scan is from the cheap lab (Target equivalent), the other scan is from the Plustek. You can make up your own mind, although at this size is hard to see there is a lot more detail in the plustek scan (as there should be, I did it at max resolution vs 2MP from lab) ....

EDIT: scrapped the examples as exposure & WB between the two are too differenet...

crrumford · 12-08-2011, 04:18 PM

Nice. Quite a difference there. I'll have to bump it up the list of photography equipment to purchase.

12-07-2011, 02:42 PM	#18
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by joe.penn That's all I shoot with now for film - only down side is it is quite expensive (here in the states anyways)... Film is way cheaper in the states than Australia, at my local camera shop its $12 (Tri-X) to $18 (Portra) a roll. Be thankful!! This is why I've just bought a bunch of film from B&H, way cheaper to do that and ship here than buy local. B&W develop + low res scan is $28 for Tri-X a roll, or B&W dev+low-res scan+print is $38 (+ $12 for the roll). So $50 a roll for B&W........insane So the cheapest way, without developing myself, is import C-41 film from B&H, C41 dev only ($4) from a cheap lab, and scan myself. Last edited by twitch; 12-07-2011 at 02:47 PM.

12-08-2011, 04:16 PM	#21
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by crrumford Twitch- I'll be interested in hearing your opinion of the PlusTek. I like it Software is difificult to navigate though, about as un-intuitive as any I've used Here's my almost willing model, one scan is from the cheap lab (Target equivalent), the other scan is from the Plustek. You can make up your own mind, although at this size is hard to see there is a lot more detail in the plustek scan (as there should be, I did it at max resolution vs 2MP from lab) .... EDIT: scrapped the examples as exposure & WB between the two are too differenet... Last edited by twitch; 12-08-2011 at 04:58 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Getting back into film (some questions)	Sig M9	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	3	01-07-2011 01:25 PM
K200D Questions from a former Pentax Film SLR User	MiguelATF	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	06-16-2010 04:12 AM
Questions from a new film user	summonbaka	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	02-15-2010 02:57 PM
Questions from a rookie photographer	dannybou	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	05-27-2008 02:46 PM
Rookie Questions	Tex351	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	03-10-2008 06:34 PM

12-07-2011, 02:26 PM	#16
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Try BW400CN too. In my vast experience (I've shot 1 roll of it ) I really really liked the results, more so than Tri-X (again, 1 whole roll!), and best of all it's super cheap to get processed. I liked your photos, particularly the portraits. I think B&W film is awesome for portraits, made for it.

12-07-2011, 02:36 PM	#17
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by twitch Try BW400CN too. In my vast experience (I've shot 1 roll of it ) I really really liked the results That's all I shoot with now for film - only down side is it is quite expensive (here in the states anyways)...

12-07-2011, 05:46 PM	#19
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by womble second the use of Kodak BW400CN. Excellent all round film that means I can use old cameras like my FED2 without worrying too much about dodgy shutter speeds etc. I only wish they still made it in 120 size. they did make it in 120 size, they have discontinued that line due to lacking demand. I still have several 220 bricks of it in my freezer It is an excellent film to use in a pentax 67II because of the high shutter speeds you get as a result of using an ISO 400 film you won't have a problem hand holding it.

12-07-2011, 10:15 PM	#20
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by womble Personally, the lab I use returns perfectly good dust-spot free scans and I'd rather pay them £5 for those than spend an age with my film scanner for lots of images. I, therefore, get the lo-res ones done by the lab (perfectly good enough for posting on fora, Flickr and to the PPG) and only do the high-res scans myself when I have an image I want to submit for a competition or print large (although in the latter case I prefer to get someone to do me a old-fashioned silver gelatin print). K. Yep I do the same. Phil.

12-08-2011, 04:18 PM	#22
crrumford New Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 15 Original Poster	Nice. Quite a difference there. I'll have to bump it up the list of photography equipment to purchase.