can't resist this one film

[rhmimac]

As I was buying another batch of E6 positive in the ISO100 and 200 range I couldn't resist buying another 2 rolls of expensive provia400X. It's such a lovely thought being able to shoot chromes up to ISO800.

Do you have an film you can't resist buying although you don't really "need" it?

 

[coat953]

I could never resist Kodak Technical Pan, beautiful film! I paid a fortune last year for a long out-of-date box of 5x4, just made me sad for the demise of Kodak's great black and white films....

 

[kevs]

I couldn't resist buying Kodachrome when Jessops sold it close-dated at £5 per roll from their rummage boxes. Ah, happy days...

 

[darkosaric]

Buying extra film and chemistry is always good. Buying extra lenses and cameras are for discussion. I do both .
Also spent fortune for 30-40 meters of Technical Pan with technidol on ebay this year

 

[StoneNYC]

Buying extra film and chemistry is always good. Buying extra lenses and cameras are for discussion. I do both .
Also spent fortune for 30-40 meters of Technical Pan with technidol on ebay this year

Can I send you my 7 rolls of tech pan 35 and 2 rolls of tech pan 120 to process for me? hehe, where did you get technidol?? lucky...

 

[StoneNYC]

I keep telling myself I'll by B&W film and then shoot digital for color... and then I buy more Provia and Velvia... so yea... I'm the same, I can't help buying it, it's so nice... but such a PITA to process... or rather pain in the wallet...

 

[darkosaric]

Can I send you my 7 rolls of tech pan 35 and 2 rolls of tech pan 120 to process for me? hehe, where did you get technidol?? lucky...

Together wit films guy was selling Technidol, Spur developer and JOBO dynamic DOKU infrared P3. I was lucky .
I did not try Spur nor Jobo - I know that technidol is what I need, afraid to play with TP - too valuable for me.

 

[David Lyga]

You know, darkosaric, I process Tech Pan in normal developers. Figure about 3/4 the time used for Pan F. Rate Tech Pan as for Pan F. - David Lyga

 

[darkosaric]

You know, darkosaric, I process Tech Pan in normal developers. Figure about 3/4 the time used for Pan F. Rate Tech Pan as for Pan F. - David Lyga

Thanks. I still have 4 bottles of Technidol, but couple of rolls of TP I will be forced to develop in something else. Will keep this in mind.

 

[StoneNYC]

You know, darkosaric, I process Tech Pan in normal developers. Figure about 3/4 the time used for Pan F. Rate Tech Pan as for Pan F. - David Lyga

So you're saying tech pan in Ilfso 3 would be ok?

What shoot DD-X? It's made for t grain films so it won't take advantage of that since tech pan is traditional grain, so would Ilfsol 3 be better since its made for low ASA fine grain traditional grain films?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rjbuzzclick]

I will always buy Verichrome Pan in 120 if I see it, no matter how old.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My staple film is Tri-X 400. It used to be TMax 400, but the shiny emulsion doesn't scan well in my Epson V700 scanner. I shoot everything and anything important with Tri-X, but once in a while I get a hankering for a slower and finer grained film, just to get a smooth print that looks like it was from large format.
Usually it's Fuji Acros that gets the nod, because of its absolutely irresistible highlight tonality. Then as soon as I buy a couple of rolls, and realize that it's way too slow for how I shoot, and I regret the impulse. But then a couple of months down the road, there I am again, looking at the Acros, TMX, and Delta 100... When will I ever learn?

 

[rhmimac]

I'm very happy I'm not alone with CRTOF syndrome. I'm planning to shoot more E6 in 2013. 'They' just have to feel my augmented consumption of it!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Velvia 50, with Provia 100 hot on its heels.
Same film in use for more than 20 years.

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm very happy I'm not alone with CRTOF syndrome. I'm planning to shoot more E6 in 2013. 'They' just have to feel my augmented consumption of it!

Better pick some up now, I have a feeling prices will be going up soon.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LJSLATER]

I can't resist shooting slide film. My two favorites are Velvia 50 and Ektachrome 100VS (I've got about 15 rolls left). For years I've been kicking myself for shooting chromes because I don't have a single print from any of them.

I recently made my first attempt at creating internegs from some of my favorite slides using Portra 160. Making the internegs took around six hours total for 76 frames, and when I got the film back, I was saddened to find that not a single one was useable! It's enough to drive a man to drink.

I'm tempted to switch to C-41 or digital for color, or maybe go fully black & white for a while. But damn if I don't just love looking at my slides on my crappy lightbox with my crappy 15x loupe.

 

[rhmimac]

@LJSLATER: same for me, I love the chromes, can project them but that's becoming a hassle due to the framing up front.

But you're right: they are so lovely to look @!

 

[ME Super]

In my opinion, projecting (I don't own a loupe so I use a 50mm lens wide open for one) is the main reason for shooting chromes. Ease of converting to another format which shall not be named is secondary.

 

[Roger Cole]

My first thought was no, but on second thought yes - Arista EDU Ultra aka Fomapan 400, in both 120 and 4x5, and to a much lesser extent Pan F+.

The first I can't really explain except that it's relatively cheap to play around with and has an old style look that's fun sometimes. The Pan F+ is a bit more rational in that it's a lovely film. I shoot it in 120 and develop in Diafine which gives me a bit more effective speed (I shoot it at EI 64) and 15x15 prints on 16x20, or even cropped 16x20 prints, from 6x6 that rival my prints from 4x5. They don't IMO quite equal them but, honestly, only I seem to notice. The reason it's a film I don't really need is that the speed is too slow for most of my shooting and I could get results that are likely just as good from Acros or TMY or Delta 100. I've just started shooting a few rolls of Acros and like it, though somehow I hate to supplant FP4+, though they look totally different.

But I certainly don't NEED any Pan F+ when I have Acros in the film fridge, and I even more so don't need rebranded Foma of any speed when I have Kodak TYM-2 (4x5) and Tri-X (120) but I buy some of it and shoot some of it anyway.

I do buy Provia 400X too, but I feel like I need that, because I'm trying to shoot lots of slides while I can and it's two stops faster than any other current production slide film and a really nice film.

 

[PKM-25]

So you're saying tech pan in Ilfso 3 would be ok?

What shoot DD-X? It's made for t grain films so it won't take advantage of that since tech pan is traditional grain, so would Ilfsol 3 be better since its made for low ASA fine grain traditional grain films?

I have had good luck in Rodinal at high dilution but I think TD3 is the go to soup for TP now that Technidol is gone. I have 150 rolls in 35mm and 160 rolls in 120 in the freezer with enough Technidol for all but about 30 rolls of it, TD3 for the rest.

I bought a 105mm Rodagon-G just to enlarge the 120 version of that, APX25, Efke R25 and Tmax100 to be shot in 6x6 and 6x12 format...

 

[StoneNYC]

I can't resist shooting slide film. My two favorites are Velvia 50 and Ektachrome 100VS (I've got about 15 rolls left). For years I've been kicking myself for shooting chromes because I don't have a single print from any of them.

I recently made my first attempt at creating internegs from some of my favorite slides using Portra 160. Making the internegs took around six hours total for 76 frames, and when I got the film back, I was saddened to find that not a single one was useable! It's enough to drive a man to drink.

I'm tempted to switch to C-41 or digital for color, or maybe go fully black & white for a while. But damn if I don't just love looking at my slides on my crappy lightbox with my crappy 15x loupe.

I thought you could still print chromes? You just needed a special setup?

And, I assume you wouldn't consider this, but have a scan made and had that printed? Or do that fancy thing where you have a chrome scanned, then have it projected onto negatives? I'm not familiar with the process so much as I've seen others talk about it.

Personally I have found scans of provia chromes to show virtually no grain, way less than B&W, I can't speak for ektachrome as the only ektachrome I've scanned was EPP and improperly exposed/developed (I used old developer knowing it might be bad, and it was).

I know that's taboo here but I'm just offering a possible way for you to get some nice prints from your chromes.

On the other side of things, I've never projected any of my chromes. I don't own projector...

I do know I've seen or read they do have 6x6 projectors... So look for one of those?

Good luck!

PS the Kodak Ektar 100 is very saturated and you might like it as a substitution for chromes.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

I have had good luck in Rodinal at high dilution but I think TD3 is the go to soup for TP now that Technidol is gone. I have 150 rolls in 35mm and 160 rolls in 120 in the freezer with enough Technidol for all but about 30 rolls of it, TD3 for the rest.

I bought a 105mm Rodagon-G just to enlarge the 120 version of that, APX25, Efke R25 and Tmax100 to be shot in 6x6 and 6x12 format...

Showoff! I have a measly 7 135 rolls and 2 120 haha

As I understand it Tech Pan isn't all black, it had some blue and possibly magenta tones when that was a heavy element in the image, so THAT'S what I'm interested in more than the fine grained nature, the slight color tone, but I don't think you can get that from anything except Technidol but I don't know that for sure. I also don't know if the slight colors are even discernible or merely faint and really it wouldn't matter?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

The only ways to print chromes in the darkroom now are 1) via internegatives, or 2) via reversal processing of RA4 paper. That's possible but has some pretty significant limitations. There are threads on here if you care to search.

I'm planning to get set up to scan mine and print hybrid, not because I want to, but because it's much more practical than internegatives.

 

[StoneNYC]

The only ways to print chromes in the darkroom now are 1) via internegatives, or 2) via reversal processing of RA4 paper. That's possible but has some pretty significant limitations. There are threads on here if you care to search.

I'm planning to get set up to scan mine and print hybrid, not because I want to, but because it's much more practical than internegatives.

Well how did they print them back in the day?

Like, national geographic was filed with images that were chromes, so how did they do it?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Well how did they print them back in the day?

Like, national geographic was filed with images that were chromes, so how did they do it?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back in the day:

1) So called "R" prints - not so great results - materials no longer available;
2) Cibachrome/Ilfochrome - very high quality, but the high contrast can be a real challenge, and the saturated colours are not ideal for everything - Ilford Switzerland just discontinued the materials, although some is still around - quite expensive;
3) Conversion to the materials that printers use for newspapers/magazines/posters - for colour some sort of separation process is needed, with inherent potential loss of quality, is only economic if done in quantity.

Although National Geographic is/was a well produced magazine, that uses a good quality photogravure process, the quality of a photograph printed in it's pages doesn't approach the potential quality of a good photographic print.