brian_quinn2

<p><br />As of 2010 CS industries is the distributor of this film in the <br />USA. You could contact them about resellers.<br>

<a href="http://www.csishop.net/film.html#ferrania">http://www.csishop.net/film.html#ferrania</a></p>

<p>I made the note about developing the film myself. This is because the labs tape rolls together to feed them through the devloper. Often the last frame is lost this way. So don't make the last shot and important one.<br />As far as loading the film in the dark is conserned I started doing this when I was using IR film that required this to avoid fogging the first few frames.<br>

Some Pentax cameras also require that you shoot the first 3 frames at 1/1000 of a second. then the meter starts working. This was to ensure that you would not shoot a crital shot on the exposed leader. You could get a shot if you set the F stop manually and did not rely on the meter for the 3rd of the first three. the first 2 shots were exposed leader so it did not matter.</p>

<p>If I load my Pentax Super Program in the darkroom and develop it myself I can get 40 shots form a 36 exposure roll. If I use my <strong>Yashica Samurai I can get 75 shots per roll with no trouble.</strong></p>

Russ, are you familiar with the word “sarcasm”?

If I did not love film why would I be buying up old used camera gear as fast as my bank account would allow?

<p>That camera is a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye. It takes 620 film but actually you only need a 620 take up spool. You can load a regular 120 roll on the supply side. As I do my own developing I always keep the 620 spools but if you send it out you can just request they return the used spool with you film. I actually used mine less then 2 weeks ago with FLASH BULBS. It was at a party and I find that using flashbulbs and an old camera can really get your subject interested in having their picture taken. A lot less forced smiles and a lot more blinded people after the shot. They kind of dare each other to sit for the intense flash. The look down finder also helps in that they are not used to it and don't realize that you are ready to shoot.</p>

<p>No, film is not superior unless you shoot for enjoyment. If enjoyment is what you want film is much better. </p>

<p>It’s kind of like going out to see a play. Why would you do that with all the expense etc. when you can just get something from Net Flicks and watch it in your living room?<br /> In many respects "the end of film" as been great for me. I how own tons of film camera gear that 10 years ago I could only dream of. Everything used is selling for only a tenth what it cost a decade ago.</p>

<p>You have an 80mm f2.0 Zeiss? I’m jealous! The fastest lens I have for my Pentax 645 is an F 2.8 .</p>

<p>You really have a problem in needing high shutter speeds and having to shoot in low light. You may want to consider a 35mm system for low light. It will let you move and react faster. In 35mm you can easily get a 1.4 lens for cheap. There are no affordable medium format lenses faster than F 2.8. If you shoot Tmax 400 with a lens two stops faster it is like having a film two stops faster. Tmax 400 does well at EI 800 in Tmax or Xtol developer. So you can get the same shutter speeds with it as when using a 2.8 lens with 3200 film. That is no speed gain over the Delta 3200 but the grain will come down in your prints. Or you could even try Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200 at lower speeds to keep the grain down in 35mm. When shot at speeds of 1000-1600 and developed less these films are finer grained but still not as fine a grain as a 400 speed film exposed at box speed.</p>

<p>Some nice shots. I don't mind the grain but I do agree you need faster shutter speeds. These guys are moving too fast. What is lens are you using (max F stop). For many models of cameras it is possible to picked up a good used manual lens like a 135mm F2.8 for $40. I just got a Pentax mount 85mm F1.4 for about $140. </p>

<p>Developers that lessen grain usually cause you to lose film speed. Just let the grain show. I'm sure you will get few complaints about grain when you consider the subject matter. Hell, there is a lot of software today to make digital images imitate film grain in photos.</p>

<p>What filters can be used when shooting old slide film to try and offset the color cast? Some ideas to try or results of your attempts would be nice to read.</p>

<p>Many people find a slight (maybe 20%) difference in contrast between format sizes. So development time is altered a bit to compensate. But then again you are using different camera and enlarging equipment based on negative size and this may also alter contrast somewhat.</p>

<p>Advice on how to use our favorite film of yesterday is nice. I loved it and so did you. BUT we need to start using and most importantly BUYING new IR film that is still being made. My current favorite after trying everything Freestyle has to offer is AURA. I would like to push for it to be used more often to keep it in production. But that is just my say so. If you disagree OK. Let us not start an argument.</p>

<p>OOPS.<br>

I usually use a Red 25. But sometimes I use a #29 or Hoya 072.<br>

Here is a shot with the #25. The camera film speed was set to 50 and I let the camera meter the scene through the filter. The image on the left is at EI 50 then the ones to the right are one stop over and one under (EI 25 and EI 100). As you can see the image on the right has no IR effect the one in the middle looks the best to me. It is easy to overexpose this film and blow out the highlights so I always bracket.</p>

<p>I was a Kodak IR man until they stopped making any IR film (Konica too is out of the film business). Now I like EFKE IR820 Aura and it can give similar looking results to Kodak HIE. I set my ISO to 50 and meter through the lens with a full stop bracket (+0, -1, +1). One stop makes an HUGH difference with this film and the IR effect you get. So you really get only 12 shots from a 36 exposure roll. The SFX200 and Rollei are nice but only give the IR look when used with a true IR filter that you can't see through and that means you need a tripod too. Only the Aura allows for hand holding shots.<br />One more thing you only need to use the IR focus mark on you lens when using filters that you can not see through. If you can see through the filter just focus as normal. Your results will be fine.</p>

<p>Greg, if you are permitted to answer, what is you company? I may send you some business.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell:<br />Clark and York are now the same lab. Just different names. The Snapfish film is developed by them under contract too. See the shipping address on the mailers. Is seems like they do a better job with the Snapfish orders. Maybe a little more QC is demaned by their contract with Snapfish.</p>

<p>A good 6 MP scan is far better then a bad 28 MP scan. Not to say you lab does bad work but you can't rate a scan just by saying it is more MP and therefore better. Remember the days of <em>interpolated pixels? not to mention poor color balance, poor contrast, poor etc.<br /></em></p>

<p>Dwayne's photos on CD are a larger file (2,000 x 3,000) than snapfish provides (1,000 x 1,500). Snapfish is posted right to the web however. I can see the prints before they get to me by snail mail. Dwayne's prints are better. The down side is they charge twice as much. I use Snapfish for snapshots and Dwayne's for the rest. I also have a high end 35mm scanner if I really need a large file. But the mail in service saved me tones of time. Give Snapfish a try to start out and then upgrade if you want more.<br>

PS I also tried MPIX but did not feel they were any better then Dwayne's and I shoot a lot of slides and Dwayne's is the place to do that.</p>

<p>I have several Kodak Master Photoguide books<br /> 1956 Printing<br /> Tri-X ASA 200<br /> Plus-X ASA 80<br /> Panatomic-X ASA 25<br /> All 135 size<br /> ------------------------------<br /> April 1962 Printing<br /> Tri-X ASA 400<br /> Plus-X ASA 160<br /> Panatomic-X ASA 40<br /> All 135 size<br /> ------------------------------------<br /> March 1965 Printing<br /> Tri-X ASA 400 (135)<br /> Plus-X ASA 125 (135)<br /> Panatomic-X ASA 40 (roll film)<br /> Panatomic-X ASA 32 (135)</p>

<p>Here is some info on the 1960 film speed revision. It is from a data guide for GE flashbulbs from 1961.</p>

<p>In 1960 the ISO standard was revised and ALL film speeds of all makers doubled. It was revised again about 30 years later to allow makers to even more flexibility in the numbers they put on their boxes. This was in part because when Kodak came out with Tmax films their speeds were low in the standard ISO test developer. Tmax were faster films with speed enhancing developers such as Tmax developer. So Kodak marketed them as having EI speeds instead of ISO speeds. Now any developer may be used to determine film speed. The maker must just let the user know what developer was used for the test.</p>

<p>Film speeds are just a guide to let the average user get good shots to start off. Later you decide what works best for you and your equipment. Kodak may have decided that it was better to put some safety factor back into the speed rating for Plus-X if too many negatives were underexposed at 160.<br>

I have some Kodak data guides from the early 1960s and will post a reply if I find Plus-X rated at 160 in them. I will have to find the books first.</p>

<p>I had this sort of discussion years ago during a multiday mountain climb. We have VERY heavy packs. Close to 100 pounds each. The scenery was very nice and we were taking photos along the day. On such a long slog up a mountain you have lots of time to think and debate. Often about what could be done to make you pack lighter. I pointed out we could take less photos because film weighted more once it had been exposed. I figured it had to since it had stored light energy. My non scientist climbing partner did not agree. He said it would weight less when exposed. The argument went on for hours. You have to do something to keep your mind off the suffering you are under in these conditions.</p>

<p>I have ordered from eCamera Films a few times.<br>

The film was good for my needs but was expired but they tried to hide that from me.<br>

They repack expired film cans that are expired and sell them in a boxes of 20 or 50 and just make up an expiration date and stick it on the side of the box. I know that as the films have the same looking canisters but the print on the actual rolls differ. But they are supposed to be from the same dated lot? I don't think so. Also some of the rolls were Kodak Select or other types that have not been made for years. <br>

Still give them a try. I was happy. Just realize what you are getting for you dollars.<br>

If it is too good to be true it is.</p>

<p>Plus-x and hand color.</p>