Shooter Fun SnapShots ISO 400

[Athiril]

Saw this on sale @ $1.50/roll at K-Mart (they've removed their film processing iirc) today, only 2 rolls left so I grabbed them for playing around with.

The box says made in china, 24 exp and emulsion number 8402

The label on the film is a different design to the box, and is a white label says "Quality", 35mm, 24exp, 400 ISO, same info etc.



The label is semi-transparent under light and I can see "Kodak Gold 200" underneath it, its just a sticker and peels off.



It's in a Kodak Gold 200 can, GB, 36 exp, the tail also looks like its been cut with scissors.

So I assume this is reloaded or loaded in spare Kodak canisters from something else, possibly Lucky colour film, as they have had left over Kodak canisters from previous dealings?

Possibly old Kodak Gold 200 expired stock, cut short to 24 exp perhaps (havent loaded in a camera and seen how many shots are on it, but the tail is hand cut as said ealier), the relabel sticker also covered the DX code.

The second roll is also relabelled over a Kodak Gold 200 canister, however the canister design from (the Kodak label) is much different, again the tail has been hand cut.


Edit: A user in another forums commented he got some of this as well, though in re-labelled Provia and Superia 200 & 400 canisters.

 

[Aurum]

Sounds very like the cartridges used in disposible cameras. The chinese appear to be quite keen on recycling, and you'll probably find that the length of film is attached with a bit of tape at the spool end, to the original stub of Kodak Gold

You may also find (From cheapo disposible camera experience) that the length is more like 15-17 rather than 24.

I'm not sure what the film may be. Probably generic unmarked C41.

Works OK from past experience

 

[hugopoon]

I wouldn't use it for anything important.

 

[Athiril]

Deinately 24 exp, both of them.

Lucky says their film is marked, this isnt marked apart from frame numbers, barcode for numbers, speed (400 87-7) and some weird thing like O X 8 5 2 0

 

[ausphoto]

I just had one roll developed. It says 400 87-7 the colours are dull and muddy. Could the film be THAT expired??

 

[Athiril]

Or THAT underexposed?

 

[ausphoto]

Have seen the emulsion codes:

400 87-7 OX8508
400 87-7 OX8520
400 87-7 OX8523


and yes, all my images show dull and muddy colours...could be that some of the shutters are slow, but still, have shot some bracketed...so..
I have about 30+ rolls of it and its good enough for testing the functioning of historic cameras, checking for light leaks etc (esp. when developed at BigW for less than 5 bucks.

 

[srs5694]

How are you judging the colors? From prints? (If so, how were they made?) From scans? (Again, if so, what hardware and software was used?) It's conceivable that the results you see are bad because the photofinisher used an automated machine that didn't have appropriate settings for the film, and you'd get better results scanning or printing yourself, at least if you're familiar with the tools and processes required to do this. OTOH, it's also possible that the film really is that bad or, as Athiril suggests, underexposed.

 

[ausphoto]

The photofinisher is (was selling) the film. I am scanning myself (Epson V700) and have no probs with other films. Am judging film from scans.
See here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/4811944204/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/4709040692/

 

[Athiril]

For starters I wouldnt rate it at 400.

The one from noisy lines through it is because of your scanner, which we're not supposed to discuss, each line is exposed differently than the last, and is terribly noisy.

The levels have been stretched out for this to show up, either in scanner software, or photoshop/post etc. To set the correct black and white points.

What this tells me is that results on your film have a thin density range.

There are also lines down across the sprocket lines, looks like also incorrect development.


If your lens is uncoated, or highly reflective, you should also calibrate/compensate that for exposure.

IIRC, it's ~0.06 of a stop loss for every uncoated surface (1 element = 2 surfaces) (4% reflectivity for uncoated glass iirc).

With 6 elements all uncoated, thats already a bit over 2/3rds of a stop of loss.

 

[srs5694]

Scanning software often has options for the film type, and if this is set incorrectly, you can get weird results. Some of those photos seem to have a distinct cyan cast, which ought to be correctable but could be the result of incorrect film type settings or other scanning artifacts. You may want to play with your software's options, or try other software. Check our VueScan, for instance. It's shareware, so you can try before you buy.

IMHO, this is on-topic, since the point is evaluating the film. Another way to do this evaluation, of course, is to do a wet darkroom print. I don't believe ausphoto has specified whether he's set up to do this, or whether he's got a pro lab in his area that can do it. Sadly, such a purely-analog evaluation is impractical for many people.

Another point: I gather that ausphoto's samples were all taken with a 127 camera using jury-rigged backing paper. There are of course possibilities for problems to creep in when transferring the 35mm film to a jury-rigged 127 roll, such as light leaks fogging the film.

 

[ausphoto]

Thanks..
ok, yes both were uncoated lenses... still. the film shouls 2/3 latitude, but then it's officially (both on pack and on the film stock) dated as 400 so what s it?

> The one from noisy lines through it is because of your scanner, which we're not supposed to discuss
Which of the two images are you referring to?

 

[Athiril]

If its old cheap slower chinese (Lucky) film thats also out of date, thats underexposing 2 + (0.12 stops * number of elements) + out of date stops.

I ooked up the Optor lens, its 3 element, so its 1/3rd of stop difference in exposure to the f-stop (given if the marked f-stops are accurate).


In any case, next time you shoot this film, try adding 2 and a 1/3rd stops to normal exposure.

 

[ausphoto]

Thanks mate!