Cheap Color film

<p>A few months ago I was down in Indiana and bought some color film in one of the Amish stores. It was branded EasyClix ASA 200 and was 2 for $1.00 -<br>

<img src="http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy66/riffeym/Cameras/DSC01992.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It turns out that it is rebranded Ferrania film and I just ran a roll of it through my Minolta 9xi with a Minolta f1.7 50mm lens. I processed it using a 1 liter JOBO C-41 Press kit and scanned it on a Canon MG8120 printer/scanner @ 1200 dpi. Here are some scans -<br>

<img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6187349465_f0c9346aa3_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="426" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6167/6187348949_99460ac835_z.jpg" alt="" width="426" height="640" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6172/6187348511_fe3e5f7328_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="429" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6187348785_423a31c0b9_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>Yep looks like it is worth 50 cents. :D</p>

<p>Looks like a steal. Nice warm tone. That Minolta's pretty sharp too!</p>

<p>Last week I bought the last of the CVS 200 24 exp. film in my local store for $1.49 each. I still think the Fuji film supplied to both CVS and Walgreens is disappearing. We'll know soon enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Larry said:<br /> <em>Yep looks like it is worth 50 cents. :D</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Every penny of it....;D</p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Looks like a steal. Nice warm tone. That Minolta's pretty sharp too!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really wasn't sure about the film because I didn't know the brand. Definately on the warm side.<em> </em></p>

<p>Jeff said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Last week I bought the last of the CVS 200 24 exp. film in my local store for $1.49 each. I still think the Fuji film supplied to both CVS and Walgreens is disappearing. We'll know soon enough.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Slowly (thank goodness) film sources are starting to disappear. I still have a feeling that we will be able to source film stock for quite a while yet!</p>

<p>Mike : D<br /> <em><br /></em></p>

"warm"??????

 

How can we tell when it's been scanned and then digitally processed?

 

(ALL photos posted on photo.net, and all other web sites, have been digitally processed.)

 

That aside, I think the photos are great!

<p>Mare said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>How can we tell when it's been scanned and then digitally processed?</em><br /> <em>(ALL photos posted on photo.net, and all other web sites, have been digitally processed.)</em><br /> <em>That aside, I think the photos are great!</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point taken. I guess when I say "warm", I'm referring to the color cast<em>. </em>I try very hard not to overly modify the image when post processing but<em>, </em>I guess the image is still being digitized. No way around that.<em> </em><br>

BTW: Thanks for the compliment! I'm just a hacker when it comes to taking pictures...<br>

Mike : D<em><br /></em></p>

<p>I'm not sure what post processing has been done here but there's a real retro look to the color...especially in the flower shot. Very nice treatment regardless. So often I see film photos that take very little advantage from the fact it is film and often they can be examples of why digital is better...not here though. These are a great examples of showing some advantages of film over digital. Maybe buying cheap film that doesn't try to be perfect is the better approach.</p>

<p>Les and Greg, thank you!<br>

I'm not an artist or a digital darkroom whiz. When I post process my negs, I try to keep as much of the film "presence" (for lack of a better word) as possible and I always try to represent what I actually saw.</p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>I thought I read on photo.net that you needed an $8,000 camera with a $2,000 lens to take good pictures. Don't let word of this idea of taking pictures on 50-cent film with a $100 used camera get out.</p>

<p>Craig said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I thought I read on photo.net that you needed an $8,000 camera with a $2,000 lens to take good pictures. Don't let word of this idea of taking pictures on 50-cent film with a $100 used camera get out.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Actually Craig, I only paid $80.00.... <strong>:D</strong></p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>It's like my father-in-law says; "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile".<strong> :D</strong></p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>Great Photos Mike. It is nice to meet another Photo hack. I have shot dollar store film, called family savings or something to that effect and the colors came out beautifully developed at costco. There was grain to them on the 4x6 prints, and even though I am not a grain person, it added to it. I should try and find some of that film you just mentioned.</p>

<p>This has been said but that is too awesome! nice find! was it expired? </p>

<p>Timothy said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>This has been said but that is too awesome! nice find! was it expired? </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Timothy! It is indeed expired - OCT 2010. Thanks Eddy, and Les, I'll do a posting on MFC forum about the 9xi.<br /> Mike : D</p>

<p>Hey Mike</p>

<p> I was digging through my freezer and found some Ferrania 100,200 and 400. I will give the 200 a go and I will post back here to see what it looks like. Mine is Branded Solaris. and looks like I payed a $ for it per roll so you got the better deal.. This time. :D</p>

<p>Larry, I look forward to seeing your results! The Ferrania brand name is Solaris and I believe that it is the same emulsion as my "house brand" EasyClix. As far as you paying $1.00 a roll - you're going to have to do better than that! lol! <strong>;D</strong></p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>I found some Solaris branded film at our local "home building center" similar in price. ASA 200. I purchased some naturally...have not shot it yet.......Are they still producing this stuff? What I bought is short dated as well....</p>

<p>Last I knew the plant was still running coatings. Lomography film is made by them. And the Rollei Color negative films are. The Redbird line is their film rolled backwards.</p>

<p>Looks like it was a good buy! Has anyone tried using the Kodak ColorPlus film? I have seen it on the B&H site, but never tried it out.</p>

<p>Larry, have you ever tried "redscaling" your film? I just recently found a site that details re-spooling your 35mm film backwards back into the canister - I didn't know that Ferrania did it commercially.</p>

<p>I hope you and mark get a chance to run some of that film through your cameras. I'd like to see what kind of images that you guys get from it!</p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>I shot a roll of ColorPlus 200 last month. It looks just like Kodacolor 200. It's fine.</p>

<p>Mike I do have a bunch of it in the freezer I may have to someday give it a try. I have just never been that much into Color. I have Cross processed a few rolls of E6 in C-41 but that is about it.</p>

<p>Jason there are a few threads on Color Plus on PNET and a few other places. Some think it is a cheaper version of Gold to be sold overseas from the U.S.</p>

<p>@Michael....No problem...Fall is here in Wisconsin, we'll see how it handles the tree colors!</p>

<p>That's interesting Larry. I never thought about cross processing E6 in C-41 chemistry. Mark, that should be an interesting test - it's fall here in Michigan also and I've been waiting for the change myself.</p>

<p>Mike : D</p>