Two Rolls a Week

[thuggins]

A while back I decided to shoot at least one roll of film thru every working camera. The main question was how to do it at a reasonable cost and how to archive dozens (and dozens) of rolls of test shots.

My first thought was a cheap C-41 print film with the images scanned. While doable, my affair with C-41 ended two decades ago and I have no interest in restarting it. Also, the time required for the scan (or the cost to have it scanned) made it a no starter.

Second thought was B&W with contact prints. I think the contact printing would be fairly easy, but it still makes the whole process unduly complicated and costly.

The easiest solution and the best results would be to just shoot slides. At less than $2/roll for development with the Tetenal kit, the only hurdle was the film cost. This could be ameliorated by by shooting half a roll per camera. Doable but a bit cumbersome.

Then I discovered the folks at Photo Warehouse sell 24 exposure XP2 for $4.29/roll. Since this cross processes to very nice B&W trannies, the whole cost is about $6/roll. Best of all, there is no secondary activities and 24 exposures fit in a single 35mm archive sheet.

I've been at it for about nine months now and am about half way thru the cameras.

 

[markjwyatt]

Shoot two rolls and call me in a week?

 

[wblynch]

So do you print them or scan them? You left out the part that seemed the biggest hurdle.Are you reversal processing them?

 

[thuggins]

So do you print them or scan them? You left out the part that seemed the biggest hurdle.Are you reversal processing them?

... this cross processes to very nice B&W trannies...

I'm not really sure how to be more explicit than that.

 

[Ces1um]

You take a C-41 film stock, cross process it in E6 chemicals to get a black and white transparency. Any other chemistry you could throw in there just to get more processes involved?

 

[thuggins]

You take a C-41 film stock, cross process it in E6 chemicals to get a black and white transparency. Any other chemistry you could throw in there just to get more processes involved?

It's fairly clear that your comment was intended to be humorous, but based on other discussions here it is apparent that folks place a really artificial distinction E-6 and C-41 "films". Based on hundreds of rolls of various types of film processed in E-6 chemistry, it is apparent that the only thing that makes C-41 unique is the orange mask. Take away that and you have a "universal" film. Whether you end up with a transparency or negative comes down to the way the film is processed.

Ilford may label XP2 as a C-41 film and intend for it to be turned into negatives and prints, but it is fundamentally no more a C-41 film than it is an E-6 film. So the developing process is no more "involved" than with any other film. Rollei sells their CR200 as a C-41 film, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the exact same film that they sell as E-6. It becomes a negative if processed in C-41 and a tranny if processed in E-6.

 

[Ces1um]

It's fairly clear that your comment was intended to be humorous, but based on other discussions here it is apparent that folks place a really artificial distinction E-6 and C-41 "films". Based on hundreds of rolls of various types of film processed in E-6 chemistry, it is apparent that the only thing that makes C-41 unique is the orange mask. Take away that and you have a "universal" film. Whether you end up with a transparency or negative comes down to the way the film is processed.

Ilford may label XP2 as a C-41 film and intend for it to be turned into negatives and prints, but it is fundamentally no more a C-41 film than it is an E-6 film. So the developing process is no more "involved" than with any other film. Rollei sells their CR200 as a C-41 film, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the exact same film that they sell as E-6. It becomes a negative if processed in C-41 and a tranny if processed in E-6.

That's really quite interesting- didn't know that! So when Lomography recommends cross processing, why do the colours shift so much? Is it due to that orange mask or the lack thereof?

 

[MattKing]

If you develop a film designed for C-41 in C-41 chemicals you will end up with an orange mask negative that will give quite accurate colours when optically printed on to RA-4 materials.
If you develop a film designed for E-6 in E-6 chemicals you will end up with a positive transparency that will give quite accurate colours when viewed or projected optically.
In either case, you will also be able to scan the results and work normally with the resulting digital file.
If, however, you develop a film designed for C-41 in E-6 chemicals you will end up with a positive transparency that will give less than accurate (but possibly interesting) colours when viewed or projected optically, but may give closer to accurate results when scanned and adjusted digitally.
Cross-processing may also result in an end product that has less longevity.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A while back I decided to shoot at least one roll of film thru every working camera. The main question was how to do it at a reasonable cost and how to archive dozens (and dozens) of rolls of test shots.

My first thought was a cheap C-41 print film with the images scanned. While doable, my affair with C-41 ended two decades ago and I have no interest in restarting it. Also, the time required for the scan (or the cost to have it scanned) made it a no starter.

Second thought was B&W with contact prints. I think the contact printing would be fairly easy, but it still makes the whole process unduly complicated and costly.

The easiest solution and the best results would be to just shoot slides. At less than $2/roll for development with the Tetenal kit, the only hurdle was the film cost. This could be ameliorated by by shooting half a roll per camera. Doable but a bit cumbersome.

Then I discovered the folks at Photo Warehouse sell 24 exposure XP2 for $4.29/roll. Since this cross processes to very nice B&W trannies, the whole cost is about $6/roll. Best of all, there is no secondary activities and 24 exposures fit in a single 35mm archive sheet.

I've been at it for about nine months now and am about half way thru the cameras.

View attachment 200292 View attachment 200293

6$ per roll is C-41 regular shots for me including developing in Telenal kit.
Film is 4+$, I develop 30 films in 30$ kit.

To test my cameras, lenses I'm using expired (2004) Kodak 50D (something like 40$ for 400+ ft) in cost effective BW developers (cost next to nothing per roll).

I have Plustek scanner which I purchased locally, LNIB for 25$. Old, but working.
Refub flatbed from manufacturer is 100$ (120CAD). This one scans 12 frames at once.
Any free software which allows tags will do. Like still available Picasa.
Regular printers with inks go on something like 29$ sale often and cost of contact sheet print is next to nothing.
20 CAD new printer with cartridges.

 

[twelvetone12]

I guess the shifts come from the mismatch between color dyes and developing agent in C41 and E6. XP2 should become blewish when reversed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

that's the current hurdle with today's analog photography; it's more of a task than just fun.