yada_wack Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Ok. I haven't really try out any of the professional films or so called yet. These are my experiences and I have some questions. The Kodak 200 that they sell in store. I am getting really bad results from this film. Sometimes it's so so but in the end. I concluded that it's kinda "grainy", never give me the picture I really want. Does anyone have any problem with this film? I think it runs about $1.50 a roll. Fuji 100 Iso film. Now this one I am getting great result for outdoor picture. I mean stunning performance on my 50mm Summicron F2. For $1 a roll, this film is very much to my liking. Anyone have any experiences with the Kodak Black and White 400 ISO they sell in store? The process in C 41 type. I am getting actually very good prints for ISO 400 films compare to my Kodak 200. And oh man at F2 50mm Summicron it is awsome! Any advice on which professional film to try out? I checked out WOlf and they run around $5 a roll. That's an ouchy to my College education that I burned on an M6 and 50MM Summicron heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 hm...is this thread suppose to be serious or is it a mockery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 if it's a mockery, it's not funny. otherwise try buying a bulk film loader and order them through b&h or other volume sellers. the silver b+w films are still around for 2-3 bucks per roll i believe. the cheapest and best way is diy processing and printing. good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Tri-X is still 2.19 a roll of 36 for import film. There are lots of good inexpensive films out there, but not all labs can do them justice. I've found my local specialty lab (Fuji) just cannot do a decent job printing Portra-UC, cant be done on the Fuji paper they use. Downtown in Ft. Lauderdale, there's always CLF, and they do a good job - using Portra paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 On second thought Yada, I advise you to sell the Leica immediately, and use all the money you can on some remedial tutorial studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Having fun, Scott? Try some K64 in that M6. Oh, but I forgot, it doesn't scan well. How about a brick of Tri-X and a case of Dos Equis for inspiration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_shihanian Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 So, Let me get this straight... you blew (er, invested) about 2 grand on your camera and lens, and now you are surprised that the $1.50 per roll film is not as good as the $5 per roll film. Well, duh, isn't that why you chose Leica instead of a single-use camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Sounds like something's out of wack, yada yada yada... PJW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerry_szarek Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 First of all most 200 speed film s*cks. Second any film you get should be processed by a descent photolab. I recommend for color print film kodak royal gold 100 speed, which is not the same as kodak gold. The C41 B&W will print and scan correctly IF you have a good shop doing it. Traditional B&W is still best done by yourself or a custom lab. GS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Asuming that your question is legitimate, why should you be surprised that the cheaper film doesn't measure up to professional standards? Secondly, "professional" is a misnomer and just really means top of the line. "You pays for what you gets [sic.]" You can buy it from B&H at the most reasonable prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne_cornell1 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I was always a Kodak fan and when I got back into photography a couple of years ago started shooting Gold 200 as a compromize (I thought) between speed and grain. I've come to the conclusion the it simply isn't a good film for much of anything -- colors very subdued and lacks contrast. I shoot (at least on negatives) Fuji 400 new. Much better color, good skin tones. Kodak Royal is good but a lot more expensive. For b&w IMHO you can't beat Tri-X, which I bulk load. I've used it for more than35 years and it just keeps getting better--far superior to T-max in tone range, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel_girerd Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 What is the point of owning one of the best optical lens that money can buy ....and use crappy film with it?... But...but,if you are willing to pay attention on the quality of film that are going into your Leica....you can can still go to eBay or on adorama.com and find some quality film for much less than $5 a roll: ex: at www.adorama.com -Kodak Tri-X Pan, TX 400 Black & White Negative Film ISO 400, 35mm Size, 24 Exposure, *Grey* = $1.99 -Kodak T-Max 100, 100TMX, Black & White Negative Film ISO 100, 35mm Size, 24 Exposure *Grey* = $1.79 Cogito Ergo Sum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 This is clearly a troll Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yada_wack Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 Actually it's no troll :) I've been shooting extensively with Kodak 200 and Fuji 100 store film. I asked at a local camera shop and they were selling Tri X 100 I think for $5 a roll. Some of the others are rather expensive. Maybe this wolf is just expensive generally. Photo lab I usually use Costco 1 hour. Sometimes Wallmart near here. What do you recommend for color with leica? I just obtained a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit. Seem pretty awsome at 2.8 with the 400 BW Kodak :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I suppose there's not too much the one hour labs can do to ruin your negatives, unless they don't refresh the chemicals properly. But it's just about impossible to get prints that are in focus or properly exposed from them. If you use a P&S, use the one hour labs. If you use a good camera and lens, you owe it to yourself to find a good lab. PJW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 <I>I suppose there's not too much the one hour labs can do to ruin your negatives</I><P> How about letting the negs drag across the floor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Well yeah, but I think they only do that when they've run out of stopbath, which is understandable. PJW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobflores Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 1 hour photo labs such as Costco, Sams Club, Target, Wal Mart etc... will destroy your negatives just a surely as the sun comes up in the East. They typically let the negatives pile up in a film catch, their equipment is kept in the store front, and not a clean room and dust and grit is everywhere. Though a pro-shop may use the same machinery, they typically have better environmental controls, take better care of the negs, and don't put greasy fingerprints all over everything. You will DEFINITELY see a differnce... an pay for it. What costs $5 at Costco, will most likely cost $15 at a pro-lab. If you're just screwing around experimenting, and have no intetion of framing, exhibiting, or enlarging your photos, then you may want to save the procesessing dough and invest it in decent film stock such as Fuji's NP series, or Kodak's Portra films (Tri-X or TMAX for B&W). I personally, have never had any luck whatsoever with any kind of c41 b&w film. Any way you slice it, when it comes to buying and processing your film, you'll get what you pay for. Bargains on film can regularly be found at B&H (espcially grey market b&w - which is not sensitive to heat, and therefore perfectly good, despite rumors of sitting in cargo ships in sub-tropic heat for months at a time). Color film and transparencies are still cheaper there than most retails stores. You blew the big bucks on the camera, don't cheap out on the film now. P.S. Processing your own B&W film is DEAD cheap once you've invested the 30 or so dollars in the basic equipment needed. You'll be down to much less than a dollar per roll, of course you still have to find a way to print them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d._p.1 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 If I where you, i would buy a couple more lenses. Forget film. Too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now