Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?

Just curious.
When I get the film developed I'll get prints, negatives and the
photos on a CD. I've loaded photos from my digital camera onto my
PC and copied those files onto a CD for backup ... and maybe,
someday, I'll get some of them printed.

Still stuck on 35mm
Dick

 

I've finished with 35mm colour film.

I sold off my last refrigerated stocks only a couple of weeks ago,
including a few rolls of Kodachrome 64 I hadn't managed to use.

I still have a darkroom and keep a small stock of Kodak BW400CN for
making limited edition prints that still sell well. Shooting black
and white film for this is the only exercise my Leica M lenses get.

 

I think if it were a competition, I could be more "stuck on 35mm" (or film
and darkroom) than most others!
I maintain both a color and B&W darkroom, capable of handling 35mm up to
4x5, and printing up to 30"x40" prints.
My refrigerator typically contains 40-60 rolls of 120 film, 75-100 rolls of
35mm, and a couple boxes of 4x5 film. Also, a roll of 4"x575', 5"x575', and
8"x575' color print paper. (And a case of beer, a head of lettuce, a couple
of tomatoes and carrots!)
As to cameras, in the studio is a 4x5 view camera, three medium format
cameras, 360 35mm camera bodies and 550 various lenses.
Yeah, I think I'm pretty much committed to "the Dark(room) Side"

Ken Hart

 

Me too. Main cam is a Canon A-1, though I also use various rangefinder
cameras as well.

Somebody keeping score here?

 

Although I mainly shoot digital, I still use my Nikon FM2 and Pentax
ME Super, and occasionally a Canon compact. I mainly use Ilford XP2
Super amd Fuji Superia 200 or 400, though I've recently been trying
Kodak Ektar 100 with impressive results. I get 6x4 prints and high
res scans on CD, which I sometimes edit digitally and make 8x12 prints
from.

I shoot about 1 or 2 rolls per month.

 

I use 35mm film occasionally, and weather and UPS permitting will
do so this weekend to test drive a 24-120mm f/4 Nikkor.

 

pbromaghin wrote:

Oh the memories. 1957 Chev with a 283ci / 283hp fuel injection engine.
If a person had one of these cars in pristine condition, it would be
worth 5 Accords.

Dick

 

A few years ago drove a 56 T Bird to its new home 800 Miles away.
Pretty to look at, fun to drive to a car rally but when the realities
of a road trip start to sink in car design has come a long ways
in a half century. Noisy, 10 miles to the gallon, unstable at
highway speeds and a small gas tank.

w..

 

I use 35mm a lot.
Develop my own B&W, scan everything and print (or have printed if
poster-sized) what I want.

Certainly not "stuck" with 35mm (and 6x7), just enjoying it... ;-)

 

Cheesehead wrote,on my timestamp of 6/10/2010 5:53 AM:

Holy Agfa! I thought I was pretty extreme, but you two are dedicated film
users! Well done!

 

Cheesehead wrote,on my timestamp of 6/10/2010 11:30 PM:

Hmmmm, I'd give Fuji Acros 100 and even Neopan 400 a try, if I were you. In
Rodinal 1:100, low-ag, quite frankly, as good as. Same with DD-X as the
developer.
But I do scan - I don't optically print - so things might be different for you
if you use an enlarger.

 

A turntable - YES!. I have one also, and every record I've ever purchased
on 33 and 45 - probably over 500 albums and records over the last 50 years.
Herb Alpert, 4 albums, and just about every other kind of music - Jazz,
folk, country, rock, and many other albums that aren't available on CD.
When I'm carried out feet first, I hope my record collection is given to
someone who loves music, and not thrown into a dumpster.

BTW: I still have 8mm home movies that my father took in the 1940s and a working
Revere projector along with prints and negatives dating from the 20s-30s.

JMHO
Dick

 

Please don't ruin perfectly good film by using Rodinal. There are much
better developers available today (some of which are nearly as old as
that old Agfa formula).

 

.... and I only wish I could re-grind my styli (Signet TK7: very
expensive phonographic jewelry) ...

 

Fotoimpex.de has 110 (and other) film, at least in colour negative.
Minox film of all kinds is no problem.

Also, Agfapan 100 currently lives on as itself as well as "Rollei Retro
Original", at least in 35mm. An updated version should be coming out
soon as "Adox 100".

So much for the "film is dead" crowd...

 

There is also an English version of the site and there is a very similar
shop in the U.S. (can't remember now, maybe Adox- or Ansco- something?).

 

Well, as I said, the better developers are also old. I wouldn't use
HC-110 as a comparison. D-76 is probably as old as Rodinal and a much
better choice in most cases.

And yes, of course it is subjective to some extent, but D-76 is so much
better, demonstrably, than Rodinal (in terms of grain size, certainly)
that there's not much of an argument possible here. (Unless, of course,
on is actually going for grainy prints.)

 

D-76 is only available as a powder (although I think the formula is well
known and can be found on the net), HC-110 is only available as a liquid.
In the US it's a syrup, in the rest of the world it's a more dilute liquid.

Many people have called HC-110 "D-76 liquid" or "D-76 in a bottle". HC-110
can be several different developers depending upon the dilution, and one of
them (I no longer remember which) produces results very similar to D-76.

As for Rodinal, it produces SHARPER negatives with large grain at low dilutions,
at high dilutions it produces finer grain.

If you have the time, the film and the developer, it pays to try these things
for yourself and see what combination you like the best.

Geoff.

 

You're welcome.

Attempts is a good word. Since the whole thing is done with interpolation,
(educated guessing) it's difficult. To inject a little bit of digital here,
the biggest problem with digital photography is that Foven signed an
exclusive license with Sigma. This stuck everyone else with a Bayer
sensor array. :-(

T-Max is a fine film, but it needs to be exposed and developed properly,
with it's limitations kept in mind. That's why it got such bad press when it
came out, everyone thought they could expose and develop it like any other
film they were using.

Some people (me being one) were successful with it, others were not.

Geoff.

 

shiva das wrote,on my timestamp of 15/10/2010 9:09 AM:

You mean you have been "ruining perfectly good film"?
Tsk,tsk, you bad, bad person!

Ah, you see: there are "users". And there are "scammers".
The second class are the ones who come online and claim that this or that is
"better", without ever having used any other or any experience of with other
products.

Ah well: it's all "demonstrable", I guess...