tomspielman

Well, we really don't know what other photography classes the OP might be taking or experience they have. She just wanted to know why her film turned out purple and how to avoid scratching it. She might be already very adept at things that can be learned using a digital camera or in the process of learning them. As far as learning film goes, there's still value in it as far as I'm concerned. There are university level classes that teach all kinds of "archaic" skills. There are keyboards that can convincingly simulate all kinds of musical instruments. Are we suggesting there's no value in learning to play the actual instruments? How long will it be before devices can generate pleasing images and sounds (music) without any human inspiration at all? Should we just stop doing it? Of course not. As long as people get satisfaction out of creating images using film and/or there is an audience that appreciates images on film, there is value in learning film.

The only camera I have with a lot of sentimental value is my father's 8mm movie camera. The others I will divest myself of if I can't fix them or will no longer use them, - unless I decide to keep one for parts. The most expensive camera I have is worth maybe $400. The next most expensive is worth less than $200. If it's beyond my ability to fix, then it would probably cost more than I'm willing to spend to have somebody else fix it. At that point I'd sell it for parts if I thought it was worth anything at all.

I thought the 8000 was slower than the 9000 because you always had to scan in superfine mode in order to avoid banding. The 9000 fixed that. I'm not sure how much difference it makes in total time.

It might be a scanning problem. On my scanner software I can choose whether the film is negative or a positive, B&W or color. I believe that if I accidentally scan a B&W negative as a color negative, the resulting scan will have a sepia tone to it. Glen may be right in that their process isn't set up to handle B&W properly since C41 is typically color. Anyway, no, sepia not normal for XP2. The roll I shot was very crisp in terms of tone. Black was black and white was white.

Did you get scans as well as prints? It would go to know if Jochen's theory is correct, - that it was a problem with incorrect paper. I recently tried some XP2 and was happy with the results. I processed it at home but I've gotten good results with XTOL and regular B&W film as well so I don't know if I have a reason to use XP2 again given that it's a bit more expensive.

If you look closely at the negatives, can you see the blotches?

Those are some fabulous looking turkeys ! This is from a Thanksgiving 2 or 3 years ago. Seated is probably my favorite uncle who was 97 at the time. He was a fighter pilot in WWII. Flew Mustangs over Germany. He wasn't with us for too much longer. He lived to be 99, - which also happened to be the temperature on the day of his funeral, - a coincidence he would have enjoyed. We spent Thanksgiving at the same place this year (his daughter's) as we have for many years. When I was young, Thanksgiving was at his place. His wife, my aunt, loved Thanksgiving.

She might like that, - she might hate it. ;) Functionally it would be a good fit, - easy to load film and one button operation. But so many things with teenagers is about their peers think. For whatever reason, her peers are into disposable cameras. It might be like having a certain brand of jeans. A virtually identical pair of jeans that cost half as much aren't going to cut it. If I'm going to gamble on picking a camera for her, it might as well be something I like in case she won't use it. :)

As a film enthusiast with questionable skill, here's what I would personally do to hedge my bets: Shoot color on a digital camera and B&W with your Olympus. Use a fast lens and get close. A 50mm 1.4 is not hard to find and not that expensive for OM cameras. Use fast film. I have not tried Kodak's TMAX 3200. It sounds ideal for this sort of thing but it also sounds like you need to know what your doing to get the results you want with it. But if the light allows, 400 ISO film at box speed might be fine if you're OK with stuff in the background being out of focus. Usually 400 film is flexible enough to be shot at 800 if that extra stop helps. I'd also expect some grain in these light conditions, - which might be exactly what you're looking for. If you really, really want to shoot color on film, see if you can order some Cinestill 800Tungsten or something similar. As I said, I'm a film enthusiast with questionable skills. So I tend to stick with ambient light. If I got good results with a flash, it would be mostly by luck. Obviously, if you know what you're doing that may be the better way to go. Again, if this were me and I was just taking pictures for my own use, I'd be OK with experimenting. If someone is depending on me to get decent pictures, that's when I'd go with digital at least for the color photos. But don't get discouraged. People managed to take decent pictures indoors before that advent of digital cameras, but I agree it is more challenging.

I had a OM-2S for a couple of years and didn't really have the battery eating problems that some people have had. I did keep the shutter set to "B" when I wasn't using it. Supposedly this shuts the electronics off. It was a good camera. Ultimately I decided that for an SLR I was happy with a just a simple mechanical camera so I kept an OM-1n and sold the rest.

Yes, with the Kodak disposables there's a small modification you need to make in the film advance and you also have to cut a couple of notches in the spool of a standard 35mm roll. The idea seems like a non-starter for my daughter, - at least for now. But if a disposable comes my way I might give it a try on my own just out of curiosity. I have scavenged film out of a Fuji disposable before to use in a regular camera. In that case it was just a normal roll of film.

It's another variable. If you open a packet and the stuff still looks powdery rather than clumpy it might be fine. But as Steve mentioned, if your pictures don't turn out, you will be left wondering why and it will be hard to know if it was bad film, bad chemicals, a problem with the camera or a combination of all three. :) I'm assuming you're talking about B&W chemicals. If so, they're not that expensive and you can mix your own "Stop" using vinegar and water. Save the old chemicals for when you're comfortable that everything else is OK.

Your chances of getting images is pretty good. They may not be the greatest, but getting OK images out of B&W film that old is possible. Color not so much. You might get better results processing it as B&W. I have no idea about old Polaroid film. Rule of thumb: For color film, "over expose" 1 stop for every decade. So 10 year old ISO 100 film you would shoot as if it were ISO 50. For B&W it would be about 1 stop for every 2 decades. Slower film ages better than faster film (less fogging). And B&W ages better than color. I develop as normal. Some B&W developers/techniques might help reduce fog but that's beyond my expertise.

Part of the reason I've wanted to steer her towards are regular camera is so that she could shoot B&W if she wanted. I think she'd like it. An Ilford disposable and a regular color one might go in her stocking for Christmas. Maybe the Canon will go in mine. :)

Seems like kind of waste put Portra in a disposable but I haven't seen any other 800 speed color film available. The ease of having the film pre-loaded isn't something I considered and that might be a sticking point for my daughter and a regular camera. I have to admit that I missed a bunch of shots once because I didn't load the film right and it wasn't advancing. That would be about all it would take for my daughter give up on "real" cameras.

I had one of those "Time" cameras briefly. It came with a bunch of other cameras I was given. I tossed it I'm afraid. Funny that they actually put a lead weight in the bottom to make it seem more substantial than it was. ;) NHSN is probably right that my daughter isn't particularly anxious for me to see her pictures so I'm not going to push the idea of processing the film. The offer was extended, and if she can ask if she wants me to do it. But I might still get her something like the Canon WP-1 to see if she would like that. It's cute in the way that the Fuji Instax cameras are and she like those. Teenagers can be very precise about what they want though so something that just looks kind of like a disposable may not cut it.

Wisconsin Dells? If so I’m pretty sure I’ve been there. We were regular visitors to the Dells when the kids were younger. Anyway, I like that Canon enough that one could find its way into my daughter’s Christmas stocking. That and another disposable. She can keep the one she likes and I’ll keep the other. :)

Those are some excellent photos. My daughter won’t be be quite as artistic. I suspect that part of the reason she’s hesitant to have me process the film is that she’d prefer to do some “curating” before letting her parents see the pictures.

It think with the Kodak there's a little spool inside the camera that the film needs to be wound onto. I've also seen some instructions that say that the camera has to be slightly modified to work with a normal 35mm cartridge. And a couple of notches have to be cut into the spool portion of the cassette so that the film advance will work.

I'd develop the film so there wouldn't be any additional expense over what it would cost me to process normally. There are people that actually do this for various reasons and have posted instructions. For the Fun Savers the process doesn't seem too awful. They have tabs that are used to hold them together. Worse thing that can happen is that I break it. FWIW she's debating over whether or not she wants to place her precious memories in the hands of her father rather than a "professional". She asked me whether if I've ever messed up a roll of film and I answered honestly. In my defense I've never botched C-41, - only B&W. :) She might like that Canon. We'll see how it goes.

So my teenaged daughter and some of her friends have "discovered" disposable cameras. They take some pictures, set the camera aside for a few weeks, get the photos developed, then reminisce about days gone by. ;) She knows I'm into film cameras. I've told her that I can get a her a little film camera that would take better pictures and she can reload with any type of film she likes. Something like an Olympus XA2 but really any old point and shoot. For some reason that idea doesn't appeal to her. But having her spend money on these single use cameras bothers me and one of the things I've considered is just reloading them. What she has sitting on her desk right now is a Kodak FunSaver which is pretty decent as far as disposables go. However it uses an 800 ASA film that I can't seem to find anywhere else. So would pushing a 400 ASA film get decent enough results? What do people think? She may not go for the idea anyway, but I may try it just for kicks.

Vine growing past the tippy-top of my roof.