[Eyewanders]

Nice work, Kevin.
I have some Provia 400F. It's all quite expired now, but I quite like the results I've got with it.

---------- Post added 05-29-18 at 04:56 PM ----------

One of mine on expired Provia 400F. This was taken January 2011.

Pentax MZ-L
SMC Pentax-FA 43/1.9 Limited
Expired Fujichrome Provia 400F

Awwwww.

Mine is very expired as well. I was given a few rolls of it along with some Tmax100 from a friend in a ziplock that had moved with her about 5 times. Poorly stored obviously, but weirdly the Provia faired way better than the couple rolls of TMax. I've also got a box of 220 Provia 400F I actually bought not too long ago from a seller in France for fairly cheap. Still haven't tried a roll, but this stuff had been frozen so should be fine.

In that same ziplock from my friend are also several roll of good ol' Seattle Filmworks film, which was just various Eastman stocks. I'm assuming they've done nothing to it but I'm not sure - I know it required ECN2 chemistry. I shot a TON of that stuff years ago because my dad was a member and they were also sending out free rolls, plus you got a free roll with every one you had dev'd with them - that's how they *got* ya. May try it at some point but I'll have to scrub the remjet off when I process it. Don't imagine any lab will do anything like that these days.

[Swift1]

Awwwww.

Mine is very expired as well. I was given a few rolls of it along with some Tmax100 from a friend in a ziplock that had moved with her about 5 times. Poorly stored obviously, but weirdly the Provia faired way better than the couple rolls of TMax. I've also got a box of 220 Provia 400F I actually bought not too long ago from a seller in France for fairly cheap. Still haven't tried a roll, but this stuff had been frozen so should be fine.

In that same ziplock from my friend are also several roll of good ol' Seattle Filmworks film, which was just various Eastman stocks. I'm assuming they've done nothing to it but I'm not sure - I know it required ECN2 chemistry. I shot a TON of that stuff years ago because my dad was a member and they were also sending out free rolls, plus you got a free roll with every one you had dev'd with them - that's how they *got* ya. May try it at some point but I'll have to scrub the remjet off when I process it. Don't imagine any lab will do anything like that these days.

Someone here had a roll of Seattle Filmworks film, and they found a lab somewhere that developed it.
Over the years I have been given a number of rolls of that film, but I don't want to deal with trying to get it developed.

[Eyewanders]

Someone here had a roll of Seattle Filmworks film, and they found a lab somewhere that developed it.
Over the years I have been given a number of rolls of that film, but I don't want to deal with trying to get it developed.

There was a lab I used that somewhere in either Minnesota or Michigan that still did it but it was ridiculously expensive. I sent them a few rolls back around 2011 to dev a number I'd found laying around as well as several more that were unexposed that I went ahead and shot not realizing at the time that few places dev'd it any longer.

It can be processed at home with a regular old C41 kit. The remjet just needs to be removed during the final wash, which as I've seen from a couple folks is actually not as much of a deal as many have made it out to be. Seems there are conflicting reports as to whether or not it'll effect your leftover chems, but Michael Rosso at FPP is pretty adamant that it won't. I'd tend to accept his opinion since they're store sells dev kits and is a big proponent of using Vision 3 and other Eastman films (which they also spool and sell) and if doing so was noticeably shortening chem life, I'm sure there'd be a lot of angry hubbub about it.

[dsmithhfx]

[twilhelm]

There was a lab I used that somewhere in either Minnesota or Michigan that still did it but it was ridiculously expensive. I sent them a few rolls back around 2011 to dev a number I'd found laying around as well as several more that were unexposed that I went ahead and shot not realizing at the time that few places dev'd it any longer.

It can be processed at home with a regular old C41 kit. The remjet just needs to be removed during the final wash, which as I've seen from a couple folks is actually not as much of a deal as many have made it out to be. Seems there are conflicting reports as to whether or not it'll effect your leftover chems, but Michael Rosso at FPP is pretty adamant that it won't. I'd tend to accept his opinion since they're store sells dev kits and is a big proponent of using Vision 3 and other Eastman films (which they also spool and sell) and if doing so was noticeably shortening chem life, I'm sure there'd be a lot of angry hubbub about it.

My understanding of the remjet is it can be removed prior to developing by a baking soda wash. I have not tried it yet, that’s just from my own research.

[timw4mail]

My understanding of the remjet is it can be removed prior to developing by a baking soda wash. I have not tried it yet, that’s just from my own research.

The remjet is only an issue because it can gunk up the minilab machines, isn't it?

[twilhelm]

The remjet is only an issue because it can gunk up the minilab machines, isn't it?

That’s what I’ve been told. Someone I spoke to that has done the wash in baking soda stated black “gunk” comes off the film. He said they used a piece to test how long to wash it, and you can see the remjet as a grey film when it’s partially removed.

[Eyewanders]

That’s what I’ve been told. Someone I spoke to that has done the wash in baking soda stated black “gunk” comes off the film. He said they used a piece to test how long to wash it, and you can see the remjet as a grey film when it’s partially removed.

Skip to around the 11 minute mark. He removes the backing in hot water before the stabilizer bath.

You Tube

You Tube

[gofour3]

One from the deep archives, NYC 1979. (KX & K55/1.8 shooting Kodachrome 64)



Phil.

[dsmithhfx]

One from the deep archives, NYC 1979. (KX & K55/1.8 shooting Kodachrome 64)



Phil.

Young Frankenstein and Silent Movie are great. Pink Lady?

[timw4mail]

One from the deep archives, NYC 1979. (KX & K55/1.8 shooting Kodachrome 64)



Phil.

Look at all the Checker taxis.


Do you suppose the pink on the billboards was originally that pale?

[cooltouch]

Yep, Checker cabs everywhere. <sigh> Good ol' Kodachrome. Looks like it was shot yesterday.

[timw4mail]

Huh, Pink Lady was a Japanese duo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Lady_(band)

[Jellygeist]

I thought about cropping this one, but eh. Part of my series exploring my fascination with new subdivisions:



---------- Post added 05-30-18 at 09:15 PM ----------

Huh, Pink Lady was a Japanese duo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Lady_(band)

They also had a US variety show called "Pink Lady and Jeff" with some guy named...Jeff. The show bombed pretty hard and Pink Lady went back to doing what they did best, which was selling a million billion records.

[dsmithhfx]

Tri-X