I hope I don't sound like I'm being cheap because I don't think that I am. I'm just trying to be smart with my spending given my modest income and the high cost of living area I'm in. If I were simply being cheap then I would use the off brand films like Lucky and just accept the flaws as a part of using a cheaply made and sold film. However, I don't want to compromise quality so that's why I want to stay a customer of Ilford, Fuji and Kodak even though it's frustrating when prices go up because it makes one feel that there isn't much other choice.
One way to cut your costs is to use the bulk rolls of 35mm that are available. You can really pick up bulk rolls very cheaply if you get the short dated stuff. I got some short dated bulk rolls of FP4+ for $35, shipping included from Isreal a couple months ago. I got them in June and the expire date was July, but in the freezer they don't age. I'm enjoying the process of making my own rolls, I feel like I am a lot more involved in the photography process.
Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me.
I put together 8 rolls of film for a trip using only $10.00 cash a few weeks ago. OK I cheated a bit. But I pulled it off.
One roll of film from my favorite store. That took care of my money.
Rolled four from a bulk roll (of APX-100), took one roll of Panatomic-X out of the freezer and already had 3 rolls of TMY-2 on hand.
Bulk film is a great plan, as madgardener already pointed out.
You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!
Lucky
You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!
Lucky
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
Pan-X was ASA 32. TMY-2 is ISO 400. They wouldn't be remotely interchangeable. Sure, if you had sufficient studio light for the Pan-X that you could, as needed, tone down for TMY you could do it, but a better comparison would be Pan F+, APX 25 if it were still around, Efke 25 (ditto) or even the new tech 100 speed films, TMX, Delta 100 or Acros.
You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!
Lucky
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
When you use it one roll at a time, it lasts a while...
I've used Lucky colour films, especially the Super New 100, and didn't find any flaws. It was my favourite film for muted, almost pastel colours. Lucky discontinued all colour films last year.If I were simply being cheap then I would use the off brand films like Lucky and just accept the flaws as a part of using a cheaply made and sold film.
I wonder if the new AGFA APX-100 and the new ADOX CHS-II 100 are the same exact film?
The timing of their availabilities is certainly coincidental.
No they are not. I think I stated earlier in this (or in another) thread that we do not manufacture the new AgfaPhoto APX.
Mirko
Even Better! That means two new black and white films for us !!
Or two competing films at the same ASA with not enough customers willing to move from Delta100, Tmax100, FP4+(125 close enough), FOMA100, Acros100, etc etc... however with the idea that the new ADOX stuff will come in all sorts of formats... if it comes in 4x5, 70mm, 120 and 127 formats... that would be a huge draw, if it came in 220 I might switch from ilford and fuji for the 100 range... but that's just me... (except night exposures... unless this film can match Acros100 on that... ). Especially if it's all reasonably and competitively priced.
As long as you're going as far as 70mm, 127 and 220 then why not shoot the moon and make millions of us older camera folks happy and run 620 too. There are tons of 630 cameras out there and I, for one, would buy 620. I've got some honey cameras in 620 that are fantastic. My Kodak Medalist will match any 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 camera made today. The Kodak Monitor 620, Kodak Reflex I & II, Kodak Duo, and the Chevron are just a few Kodak's. Plus, there are thousands of other 620 cameras out there. It cost no more to make 620 film than it does to make 120 and it always pissed me off that since Kodak created the "bastard" size they didn't keep a small stock available. Maybe that's the kind of thinking that got kodak into trouble in the first place? When Kodak stopped the 616/116/620 production I boycotted them and never bought a roll of B&W Kodak film for many years. Of course I must confess that I still continued to use Vericolor 160 for weddings. So I guess that makes me a hypocrite! JohnW
It's all about whether they can sell enough to make it worth doing. I was buying 116, 616, 620 and 828 long after all cameras that took those sizes were out of production. But I only used the cameras occasionally, and that's the issue. So I could understand it when they went- I was glad they were around as long as they were. Lots of companies (especially these days) do not support old products even if they could do it without losing money. They don't want to bother with it.
There are numerous threads here on APUG about respooling 120 onto 620 cores, easily found through using the search box. Some people have even modified 620 cameras to take 120 film, which would probably vary a lot in difficulty depending on the camera model.
Well guys, 620 is my main beef. Oh it would be nice to haul out my beautiful Kodak 3A and shoot those huge negatives again (many folks here don't even know what I'm talking about). Just like having a roll film 4x5. Or the 616/116 , but I realize there is a film size slitting problem there. Not with 620! Same film width, paper backing etc. Only the spool is different and I'm sure some cheap Chinese plastic plant could poop those out for almost nothing. What I'm saying is is if you want to sell more film in a dwindling market then sell more damn film and I believe a roll of 629 film still constitutes a roll of film. It's not like the other sizes where the slitter has to be setup and paper has to be specially made. Like StoneNYC says all you have to do is repool! So, 620 is already made, but just on the wrong spool. I'm sorry, if I were in the film business and that businesses well being was depended on the volume of film it sold, I would be looking for every way I could do just that. Of course you don't want to create a new high-cost overhead by retooling, but with 620 you don't have to.
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEING MADE! You would not want to make 3 million rolls, but make some just to get the feel of the market. Then you could gauge your production to that. If it doesn't sell then stop spooling 620 altogether. You are noting out since all the film and backing paper was 120 anyway. Oh, if you have some left over 620 spools just dump them on eBay 'cause they are going for as mush as a roll of film anyway.
As for me? I re=spool 620 all the time and it's no problem, but it sure would be easier just to place my order with B&H, Adorama or Freestyle. Do I think it will happen? Heck no! Why, because these companies nowadays do not think out of the box. Then they act puzzled when things keep going downhill. Or worse yet they don't act like they care at all about the company and ride it down the hill while they milk their fat paychecks. Happens all the time and I have more than a few friends who have paid the price for that. Just my stupid opinion I guess, but I'm sticking to it! JohnW
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?