Truprint film... any good?

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Mike Henley, Jun 19, 2004.

  1. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    I just used the truprint £0.99 service and, though not impressive
    prints, is very satisfactory considering its price and I'm delighted
    that i have this option to practice film photography, which i find
    more enjoyable than digital, without spending much.

    They send me a truprint-branded free film, has anyone used this? is it
    any good? I'm tempted to use it, and may soon have a quite a few of
    them if i stick to truprint. Is it worth the £0.99 + £0.70 development
    cost (plus my photos)?

    I also heard that Royal Mail may increase the amount they charge them
    for posting film by a factor of %400. This will probably mean that
    their £0.99 service may go. Anyone got any news on this? if it happens
    how soon is it likely to be? (may affect my film vs digital plans)

    Also, i think they only charge postage fees for the first 2 films,
    does this mean i can send 10 films to them for only £1.40 in postage
    fees? (i suspect if so this could be what royal mail is objecting to)
     
    Mike Henley, Jun 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I thought the 99p was jut an introductory offer.

    The film is not very good IMO.
    The old stuff they used to do was the same as Jessops and fine for a lot of
    purposes but I found the colour on the newer stuff to be quite poor.
    If I was to guess I would say it was one of the ex east german film
    manufactureres profuct that was in the cassette.

    I stopped using them for processing and ended up throwing alot of it away.
    Now my kids have cameras it would have been passed to them.

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Hudson, Jun 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike Henley

    Sabineellen Guest

    is it?

    nothing here suggests it's an introductory offer.
     
    Sabineellen, Jun 19, 2004
    #3
  4. [Mike Henley wrote in uk.rec.photo.misc]
    Cross process it ! Wacky effects that look good even if you use film that
    I wouldn't normally allow to cross my backplane...

    I had a play :
    http://www.fotoserve.com/expert/cross.html

    Contrast and colour go mad. It's often used to best effect on portrait
    photography, and looks superb when the effect is subtle. My favourite
    portrait photographer, Annabel Williams, uses it widely, and it's
    referenced in her book :
    http://www.ukphotographics.co.uk/tour/magazine/reviews/book_0501_02.cfm


    But I wouldn't expect good results from the film under normal use.
    Given you can buy great films for not very much money from MailshotS,
    or Mathers, I stick clear of 'cheap' film.
     
    Andy Davidson, Jun 19, 2004
    #4
  5. I bought 20 rolls of 36 exp Kodak Roal Supra Gold for £32 which is £1.60 per
    roll.
    The postage was 1.95 for the lot.
     
    Gordon Hudson, Jun 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike Henley

    Craig Cooke Guest





    You said

    i have this option to practice film photography, which i find more enjoyable
    than digital




    I said

    Eh ? Why ?


    --
    Regards

    Craig Cooke


    www.storm-imaging.co.uk
     
    Craig Cooke, Jun 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    fuji superia is less at 7dayshop or unbeatable.co.uk...
     
    Mike Henley, Jun 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Yes, but its not as good.
     
    Gordon Hudson, Jun 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike Henley

    lizard Guest

    I would suggest that you try it rather than ask, because it is so fecking
    cheap! I would personally not expect much and wouldn't trust some once in
    a lifetime photos to the service and film but why not go and try it and
    see if it helps you take better photos? When I first started trying to do
    "proper" photography I found that the 6 or 7 quid to get each film
    developed to only feel fucked off at the results because I had made stupid
    mistakes when taking the photos to really suck, and certainly the quality
    of the prints or film were not going to be a factor in this either as they
    were elementary mistakes I wish I could have shot perhaps 20 or 30 reels
    of film and only spent a couple of quid per process to learn quickly.

    Anyhow, try and use the free film and cheap processing service as you can
    afford to be very experimental with this, if you find its shit after
    spending perhaps 20 quid this way then use something else. I would at
    least say if you can't afford to spend 20 quid on potentially getting a
    load of crap then you don't want to be using film and should be using
    digital instead to experiment with.
     
    lizard, Jun 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike Henley

    Mike Henley Guest

    Several reasons.

    1. I like the mechanicality of a film camera. No "Menu/Set" "<" ">"
    buttons, no LCD. I prefer turning the aperture dial on the lens
    directly rather than having to go through an "interface" thingie.
    2. Even a quality compact like a Minox GT-E, with an over 80 lpmm
    sharp lens and a good technique (f8, minitripod.. etc), at under
    200gms of weight and a small size that makes it easily pocketable,
    with a quality fine grained film, produce images that if needed can be
    film-scanned at 4000 dpi or more, beating most digital cameras if not
    all. I like the comfort in trusting my image to photochemical
    molecules rather than manufactured pixels, and the knowledge that i
    can get more out of it either now profesionally or in the future as
    affordable scanner technology gets better. With a 5 or 6 megapixel
    camera that's all you'll ever get out of it. My quality compact 35mm
    at £100 can give me 10 megapixels and my Fuji GA645 at £300 can give
    me 30 megapixels. I can concentrate on my photography and don't worry
    much about gear for a long time.
    3. I don't have to worry about batteries and their recharging. A
    battery in a mechanical camera lasts for a very long time and so does
    a film. I'm almost always ready to pick the camera and go out whenever
    i want to, or if it's in my belt pouch and there comes a photo
    opporutnity i just reach for it and click. It's true that i'd only
    have 36 images on a film inside it but same argument applies to
    digital camera and its memory capacity. With a camera i'll take
    another film with me and just walk out, heck, i'll take 10 if i need
    to, it only costs a little over a £1 per film, not same with digital,
    how many memory chips do you need to shoot at film's equivalent in
    resolution and how much does each cost?
    4. I had a digital camera for 2 years now and i found it totally
    uninspiring. It sat in the drawer msot of the time. I don't know what
    it is but there's something about film that feels more real.
    5. My film cameras are classic and compelling in their design and
    beauty. I love to own them and hold them and use them. I am yet to
    find a compelling digital camera that i could like as much. I have an
    olympus XA that i've been wanting to put on ebay since i have too many
    quality compacts and the olympus is relatively inferior but it's been
    quite difficult to part with it. Not same with any current or past
    digital camera. They also (film cameras) depreciate less as most are
    bought by collectors and enthausiasts; who else would buy a 1979
    camera with manual aperture/focus/advance/winder/asa?
    6. I love the discipline that film requires. Shoot less and think more
    about each shot. Not same with digital.
    7. film is a great archival medium. It lasts a long long time. Not so
    with digital. I would argue that a film bought at £1 (superia xtra
    100) and developed for another £1 from truprint (it's good enough)
    would be a better than an equivalent resolution digital (huge files)
    stored on archival grade CDs (not cheap and yet less durable and
    proven than film). Film has lasted for decades, "CD rot" or CDs
    becoming unreadable is very common.
    8. film doesn't require a computer. I do have a computer but i prefer
    my photography as a hobby to be associated with healthier outdoor
    activities like phototrekking than be dependent on spending time on a
    computer.
    9. I like the fact that sometimes i can forget what images i took a
    fortnight or more ago and when i get them in the post i'm pleasantly
    reminded. Using a 1-hour lab is costly, unnecessary and unsatisfying;
    it just feels like a premature ejaculation.

    I can have more reasons... but these are enough for now
     
    Mike Henley, Jun 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike Henley

    TP Guest


    Perhaps you should try a 2004 model. Most digital cameras from 2-3
    years ago are incapable of even approaching the performance of those
    on sale today - and not just in terms of pixel count.
     
    TP, Jun 21, 2004
    #11
  12. Mike Henley

    lizard Guest

    I'm going to base my responses around Canon EOS kit because that is what I
    use, using an EOS 300d is *very* similar to the film EOS cameras in
    operation pretty much to the point of if you turned of the lcd and never
    used it and only looked at the photos when you pulled them off the memory
    card there wouldn't be much (if any) difference in operation so having an
    lcd is an advantage.
    I have had my EOS 300d for about 2 weeks now, I have taken about 2000
    photos with it so far (ok about 500 of those were the venus transit)
    because I can afford to be experimental (at prices like that for
    photography hardware you have to be, I think my gf would kill me if I
    didn't take photos of *everything*) ;) Thats the equivalent of 55 rolls of
    film and the cost of developing them would be about 385 quid (and then the
    extra to get big prints of the really nice photos to stick on the wall) so
    the camera is halfway to paying for itself already! I think thats more
    photos then I took with my film EOS in the past 2 years. Another lovely
    feature of digital is being able to change iso speed on the fly to suit
    conditions.
    Disagree entirely, with digital you can afford to be much more
    experimental and find out the results, with film you want to make every
    shot count and quite often I would have forgotten how i took a particular
    shot by the time I got my prints back at least with digital all that
    information is there saved in each shot so I can reflect on a days
    photography months later. Also sometimes you don't have the time to make a
    shot count, when I was taking photos of Jaguars flying overhead here it
    would sometimes mean you would have to chance it as when your subject
    isn't co-operating with you and has a closing speed of well over 300mph+
    film gets very expensive. This is also the same for the Venus transit, if
    I missed this one I get another chance in 8 years time if I can be
    bothered to visit Australia, but with my lovely digital camera I was
    pulling the pictures off as the event happened (and uploading them to show
    friends while the event is happening is a great feeling) I also took a few
    shots with the film body at the same time but I now have 4 shots left to
    take and then have to bother to take the film to the alright lab and then
    go and collect the photos (I usually pay the extra 2 quid to get the
    prints in a 15 minute service as the car park costs over a quid per hour,
    and the costs of driving to this town 10 miles away and back again twice
    isn't the worth the saving of going to pick them up the next day)
    Take good backups, I have all my photos on disk (and copy them to another
    disk nightly) a new backup gets burned at least every 2 weeks. I burn onto
    3 different brands of media in a cycle to try and eliminate any media
    problems, if the harddisk failed I would pull the pics off of the backups
    and burn them to disk again. Also when you factor in the power of image
    retrieval using digital you can do things you can't do with film (look at
    this bit of software as an example of what can be done
    http://imgseek.sourceforge.net/sshot/ )
    I wouldn't want to subject *any* of my photos to a postal service, I still
    recall the disappointment when I was about 10 of sending off a film to a
    postal film developer and never getting anything back (they cashed the
    cheque though, but also claimed they never got the film) I was gutted as I
    had taken my crappy camera on holiday with me to France and taken lots of
    photos that I wanted to show my friends and I never got to see them.

    Also there was the time a few years ago that I went to collect my photos
    from a local chemists (never again!) and there was an elderly gentleman in
    the queue in front of me who was trying to explain to the nice girl behind
    the counter that she couldn't send off his slide film to be developed as a
    negative film, he didn't want prints he wanted *slides* after he left the
    shop as he had given up the girl made comments along the lines of "stupid
    old man, who does he think he is telling us how films should be developed"
    when I got my pictures home I was gutted as they had fucked up the entire
    film, now I take my photos to a local shop run by an enthusiast ever since
    I have taken film to him I have found that the quality of my photos has
    improved... I think the moral of the story is that with film you are
    trusting other people to not fuckup your prints for you at least with
    digital I am in control of the whole process.

    *shrug* there are reasons for and against, I am keeping my film EOS body
    though as a backup and for perhaps for special events (but you can be
    sure that I will be taking pictures with both cameras) but the 300d has
    already become my primary camera and so it will stay for a good few years
    yet.
     
    lizard, Jun 21, 2004
    #12
  13. I agree wholeheartedly !

    Each to his own of course, and I can appreciate that the original poster saw
    his arguments as reasons for not going digital. Strangely enough, I saw
    many of them as reasons for getting rid of my film equipment. Who cares
    though. As long as you enjoy your photography then it is not worth arguing
    about.

    Dennis
     
    Dennis Bradley, Jun 21, 2004
    #13
  14. Fuji Superia is superb IMO.
    Regards Mike.
     
    Mike Cawood, HND BIT, Jun 21, 2004
    #14
  15. Mike Henley

    Alan Guest

    I also have a 300D. I agree with you that if you ignore the screen it works
    just like any film EOS. I do not find the cost of memory the OP mentioned to
    be an issue, as I have a 1GB card in the camera (good for 350 ish shots) and
    a portable hard drive / card reader device with a 20GB drive in it, so I'd
    have to take over 6000 shots before running out. Factor that in film costs
    (and the fact it's re-useable) and it doesn't take long to pay for itself.
    I've learnt more about photography in 6 months of owning a DSLR than years
    of film, and no ongoing expenses in the learning process.
    I cannot see any advantage for running a film SLR now, and certainly have no
    intentions of going back.
    The OP mentioned long-term storage. Clearly this is a problem for any
    computer data, not just photos. A sensible approach is just to make sure
    there are several copies of the data, with at least one "off-line" (NOT on a
    hard drive), and keep a copy stored elsewhere, and you'll be fine. This
    method means that even if my house burned down tomorrow I can still get back
    thousands of photos and other important stuff from my tapes stored in work.
    Prints don't survive fire very well, but data is so easy to duplicate that
    it can - at minimal cost.
     
    Alan, Jun 21, 2004
    #15
  16. Mike Henley

    Alan Guest

    I also have a 300D. I agree with you that if you ignore the screen it works
    just like any film EOS. I do not find the cost of memory the OP mentioned to
    be an issue, as I have a 1GB card in the camera (good for 350 ish shots) and
    a portable hard drive / card reader device with a 20GB drive in it, so I'd
    have to take over 6000 shots before running out. Factor that in film costs
    (and the fact it's re-useable) and it doesn't take long to pay for itself.
    I've learnt more about photography in 6 months of owning a DSLR than years
    of film, and no ongoing expenses in the learning process.
    I cannot see any advantage for running a film SLR now, and certainly have no
    intentions of going back.
    The OP mentioned long-term storage. Clearly this is a problem for any
    computer data, not just photos. A sensible approach is just to make sure
    there are several copies of the data, with at least one "off-line" (NOT on a
    hard drive), and keep a copy stored elsewhere, and you'll be fine. This
    method means that even if my house burned down tomorrow I can still get back
    thousands of photos and other important stuff from my tapes stored in work.
    Prints don't survive fire very well, but data is so easy to duplicate that
    it can - at minimal cost.
     
    Alan, Jun 21, 2004
    #16
  17. Mike Henley

    Alan Guest

    I also have a 300D. I agree with you that if you ignore the screen it works
    just like any film EOS. I do not find the cost of memory the OP mentioned to
    be an issue, as I have a 1GB card in the camera (good for 350 ish shots) and
    a portable hard drive / card reader device with a 20GB drive in it, so I'd
    have to take over 6000 shots before running out. Factor that in film costs
    (and the fact it's re-useable) and it doesn't take long to pay for itself.
    I've learnt more about photography in 6 months of owning a DSLR than years
    of film, and no ongoing expenses in the learning process.
    I cannot see any advantage for running a film SLR now, and certainly have no
    intentions of going back.
    The OP mentioned long-term storage. Clearly this is a problem for any
    computer data, not just photos. A sensible approach is just to make sure
    there are several copies of the data, with at least one "off-line" (NOT on a
    hard drive), and keep a copy stored elsewhere, and you'll be fine. This
    method means that even if my house burned down tomorrow I can still get back
    thousands of photos and other important stuff from my tapes stored in work.
    Prints don't survive fire very well, but data is so easy to duplicate that
    it can - at minimal cost.
     
    Alan, Jun 21, 2004
    #17
  18. Mike Henley

    Alan Guest

    I also have a 300D. I agree with you that if you ignore the screen it works
    just like any film EOS. I do not find the cost of memory the OP mentioned to
    be an issue, as I have a 1GB card in the camera (good for 350 ish shots) and
    a portable hard drive / card reader device with a 20GB drive in it, so I'd
    have to take over 6000 shots before running out. Factor that in film costs
    (and the fact it's re-useable) and it doesn't take long to pay for itself.
    I've learnt more about photography in 6 months of owning a DSLR than years
    of film, and no ongoing expenses in the learning process.
    I cannot see any advantage for running a film SLR now, and certainly have no
    intentions of going back.
    The OP mentioned long-term storage. Clearly this is a problem for any
    computer data, not just photos. A sensible approach is just to make sure
    there are several copies of the data, with at least one "off-line" (NOT on a
    hard drive), and keep a copy stored elsewhere, and you'll be fine. This
    method means that even if my house burned down tomorrow I can still get back
    thousands of photos and other important stuff from my tapes stored in work.
    Prints don't survive fire very well, but data is so easy to duplicate that
    it can - at minimal cost.
     
    Alan, Jun 21, 2004
    #18
  19. Mike Henley

    Craig Cooke Guest

    <snip>

    Guess you like film then :)

    I use a Canon EOS10D and I also have two EOS5's and an EOS1000FN - hardly
    ever use film these days - but ... each to their own.


    --
    Regards

    Craig Cooke


    www.storm-imaging.co.uk
     
    Craig Cooke, Jun 22, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.