25asa

My understanding is ProImage 100 isn't as saturated as Gold 100 version 6 was. Or as sharp either. Its kind of an inbetween film. Gold 200 probably has more saturation than ProImage 100.

Its a shame Gold 100 can't come back. Anyone do a comparison to see how close Kodak ProImage 100 is compared to Gold 100, probably version 6?

Its one of those films that has really jumped up in price over the last 3 years. Its become too expensive to purchase today. I sold off excess rolls of this stuff a year ago, and with what I have left, Im keeping that. I could never replace it economically if I decided to do so. Only thing you can do is to pay what its going for when you do see rolls on Ebay now. Good thing is any year of film will be good.

My second T70 which I bought a couple years ago, I never ended up using. The battery metal contact on the door, fell off, and its kept me from using the camera. Im sure it can be repaired, but Im neglecting it, because I have other cameras I can use. The post above me here was my post in the linked thread. Yes the T70 is more reliable, but I did eventually get two T-90 cameras, though both of them were dead for a short while, till playing with them coaxed them back to life. They both work now.

Archival quality may refer to unexposed film in your case. Once its exposed and developed, I dont see the film fading over time any quicker than still film. After all- movie studios are still transfering color film from the 60s and getting usable results. I guess storage conditions have some affect on the film as well. Heat and humidity damages film no matter what.

Reviving an old thread of mine. I never ended up shooting any of this film when I got some back in the day. But Im re-trying this film recently for a video Im making on it. I managed to get a few rolls of this stuff, but how badly the film has aged I dont know. I'll see when I get it done. Is Scott Eaton still around?

I watched well over a month or two ago, so I didn't actually take note of the video title itself. I just remember he mentioned this.

Here are some chart graphs between these two films. Maybe someone could decifer and comment?

One of my photo friends suggested Plus X roll film has a very similar look to Tri-X Pro 320. The curves are apparently quite similar. Trying to find a replacement for Plus X roll film, but in 4x5, will 320 do? How do you find their looks in comparison? And how does Tri-X 320 shoot outdoors in bright sun? I find Plus X works very well in those conditions.

I find it interesting that Tony Northrup basically used the same idea as me for a camera today, of which he mentioned in one of his recent videos. I dont know if he read this post, but he came out with the same idea. Put the sensor where the prism would go.

35mm is one of those film types that are sold fairly quickly these days. So many young people are shooting it today, that they are getting desperate to get more rolls for their hobby. Covid restrictions and getting needed supplies to make the film are the issues today.

I have been using more rolls of my Pan X stash lately, and every one of them turned out rather well. I even shot a roll on my half frame camera, which I still have to scan up yet. It really is a great film. It has a quality to it that just makes it look so good.

I dont find Pan X extremely contrasty at all. It for me is anything but. I find its contrast softer then other slow speed films. This film is one of the best tonal quality films I've ever used. I wished Kodak would bring it back to be honest. In the mean time, I still use what of the stash of it I still have left over.

I'd love to get a 5x7 view camera, but the pricing for a new one is almost as much as an 8x10, and so much higher then 4x5. I don't think you'd save that much weight either with such a camera over 8x10.

Many younger people who shoot 120 have been asking for Gold 200 in 120 for a long while now. I too will be using this film, though Im much older. I like the look from Gold. Pricing for this has been bungled since Kodak released it. It was $50 a 5 pak, then 45. Some places had it for 40, then went to 42. Prices of Portra 160 at the time were 50, but I noticed some places raised the prices to make it seem like you are getting a deal on Gold 200. Seems shifty if you ask me. Its the middlemen that are screwing with the prices on this stuff (distributors).

Unique Photo in the US has the cheapest price I've seen so far for the 5 pak. They have it for $45. But these places should be charging $38 for it, according to Kodak.

Well today Kodak announced Gold 200 in 120 format. Seems like our voices were heard this time. Now if they'd only reintroduce Plus X and Panatomic X, I'd be over the moon. I plan on getting some rolls of the Gold 200 when its released. Be warned- Most places are not giving the 25 percent discount on the 5 pak, as Kodak stated they should. So there is some gouging happening on the market at the moment.

I'd be really interested in getting the Sony A7RV if it does indeed go with their 102 MP sensor from 2019. But the latest rumours suggest it may stick with its 61MP sensor that its used in the last 2 A7R cameras- the A7R IV and A7R IVA. I'd rethink getting the Fuji GFX 100S for the time being, if they do go with the larger sensor. It would be great for getting faster action shots that the Fuji doesn't do well in, and still retain the same rez. So what do you guys think Sony will do? I'd find it strange they'd put a third model out with the same 61MP sensor, and call it a day. Makes me wonder why Sony bothered designing the 102MP sensor, if they never end up using it. Also what resolution would that 102MP sensor be, if it was in APS-C crop mode? Would it beat 40MP?

I woke up from a dream about coming up with an idea for a film and digital EOS hybrid camera. It would basically be a EOS 1V camera with a mirrorless operation type of digital camera guts also put inside. The shutter would operate for the film section, and the mirror in the mirrorbox would bounce the image up towards where the focus screen would normally be, but instead of that, there would be a full frame digital sensor. The sensor would operate electronically without a shutter, so it would be like a mirrorless camera with electronic shutter. The sensor would pick up the image most of the time and send it to an EVF, so you could see what you're looking at. There would be a switch on the camera body to select between film and digital. This camera would be for those who want both film and digital shooting. With all the mirrorless technology they have now, this camera should be a piece of cake to produce. It would be like an EOS 1 camera in size and weight, using the large battery. Im sure they could scale it down to a lighter smaller EOS camera body. This camera would use the normal EF lenses. So my idea would probably never be made, but I wonder, what do you guys think?

When I worked in a photolab, Kodak would accept back used single use cameras for recycling. I don't know if they still do it, but in the past, they did get recycled. I would assume the plastic just gets melted down for making new cameras.

I have read for example, to be very wary of bringing camera gear to locations in San Fransisco, like the Golden Gate lookouts. I've heard of people getting their gear stolen from them right at the location right in front of them. Some held at gunpoint to hand over their gear. One photographer in San Fransisco had the thieves follow him home, come to his car, smash the rear window, and steal his gear from inside his car. They pulled a gun on him when he tried to intervene. I've also heard of people being followed with the thieves smashing the vehicle while its stopped in traffic, after following them for a while. This makes me nervous going on trips, especially alone with gear. I want to go to San Fransisco to get pics of the Golden Gate and around town, but if I hear stories like this, I dont know if I'd want to risk it. Especially if guns are involved. How common is this in tourist spots like Frisco for example? Moderator- Move to the appropriate forum if this isn't correct here.

Is it true Lomography Color Negative Film (in 35mm and 120) is a special roll of Kodak Gold made for Lomo? Some claim this Lomo film is indeed Kodak Gold (whether the 100 is Gold 100 or 200 I don't know). The saturation of colors suggests it might be, though the colors seems a little over the top. Not sure if thats because of the scans done or not. Anyone know exactly what this Lomo 100 film actually is? I purchased 6 rolls in 120 just to see if this is indeed Gold or not.

Actually Dunkirk was completely Photochemical with optical dupes depending on shown format in 70mm. Thats why the 5 perf looked worse then the IMAX portions on the print in the theater. But digital intermediates lose rez compared to optical work.

When Gold 200 and Pro Image 100 are basically going for $6 a roll in 35mm, and then the Pro films for $12, I can see why penny pinching Millenials want to save a dollar for their hobby. You get soaked on developing and scanning costs anyway.

One of my videos showing my freezer stash. I could definately qualify as a hoarder. I dont shoot that often, so I never use all this film I have. Yet I keep buying more of it. I basically get the discontinued stuff mostly, but occassionally buy new in stock film. I develop my own B&W film now, but Im lucky I still have 3 labs in the valley here I can send film to for color.