Why film? (Page 7): My Ftb was my favorite 35 mm camera, over my EF and A1.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

charles brown wrote:

In my film days I had a growing family and buying film for my Canon Ftb was not at the top of my priority list. When I did take pictures, I had to make sure that I got it right as I could ill afford many mistakes. Also, I often had to use the same roll of film for many different types of photographs. When digital came along the first thing that excited me was the ability to change camera settings at any time, especially ISO, and not have to photograph everything using he same setting.

My Ftb was my favorite 35 mm camera, over my EF and A1.

User ID

TriX wrote:

As long as we’re discussing film, has anyone tried the CineStill 2 bath C-41 color negative processing chemicals? I’ve usually used the 4-5 chemical process, but this is getting excellent reviews and the pricing is very reasonable.
https://cinestillfilm.com/products/cs41-simplified-color-processing-at-home-quart-kit-c-41-chemistry?variant=30376678593

IIRC, when I used Kodak C41 there were only three steps (three baths). The bleach was the second worst stuff I had ever used. Only Ciba bleach was worse. Both were horrific.

User ID

SteveFranz wrote:

But it's very satisfying to see an image form on a blank sheet of paper or film.

Acoarst I knew someone was bound to cite that "magic moment" in the print tray. And acoarst I experienced that magic. The only thing since then that smacks me as equally magical is digital image capture. Polaroid is nothing next to the magic of digital (and I used Polaroid up thru 8x10). Not denying Polaroid (BW) was huuugely magical to me around 1962 !!!

Magic ? Without even a sound, I can burst 75fps, all perfect, and visible immediately. Now THAT is magic !

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

User ID wrote:

IIRC, when I used Kodak C41 there were only three steps (three baths). The bleach was the second worst stuff I had ever used. Only Ciba bleach was worse. Both were horrific.

Cibachrome was tolerable considering what we could get from Kodachrome slides. I still have a couple of prints that have never faded after 40 years.

But I scanned the original slides and the results are just as good.

User ID

selmslie wrote:

Cibachrome was tolerable considering what we could get from Kodachrome slides. I still have a couple of prints that have never faded after 50 years.

But I scanned the original slides and the results are just as good.

Digital vs Ciba ? No contest !!!
Easier, safer, hugely better DR.

Always avoided Kandykrome cuz there was no way to process it. Worse yet, being an artsy bunch, none of the women ever owned a red sweater :-(

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

User ID wrote:

Digital vs Ciba ? No contest !!!
Easier, safer, hugely better DR.

Always avoided Kandykrome cuz there was no way to process it. Worse yet, being an artsy bunch, none of the women ever owned a red sweater :-(

If you didn't have some red in the image

Kodachrome was less spectacular.

User ID

selmslie wrote:

If you didn't have some red in the image

Kodachrome was less spectacular.

It was in all the Kodak guide books.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

User ID wrote:

Acoarst I knew someone was bound to cite that "magic moment" in the print tray. And acoarst I experienced that magic. The only thing since then that smacks me as equally magical is digital image capture. Polaroid is nothing next to the magic of digital (and I used Polaroid up thru 8x10). Not denying Polaroid (BW) was huuugely magical to me around 1962 !!!

Magic ? Without even a sound, I can burst 75fps, all perfect, and visible immediately. Now THAT is magic !

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

User ID wrote:

For some, its just about making an image. For some... (show quote)

The stuff you don't know isn't gone simply because you're ignorant of it. I suspect that anyone on Ancestry could start with your grandparents run your "tree" on back. But why would you care about that? You are sufficiently genius enough from your own efforts.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

selmslie wrote:

Cibachrome was tolerable considering what we could get from Kodachrome slides. I still have a couple of prints that have never faded after 40 years.

But I scanned the original slides and the results are just as good.

Loved Cibachrome - beautiful ultra long lasting media. I stopped doing color when Cibachrome paper and chemicals became unavailable - no interest in Kodacolor prints although I still have a color darkroom. The reason I asked about the 2 part C-41 process is that I have a lot of 120 Fuji Velvia and NPS that’s been in the fridge for years that I may go shoot, develop and scan if I can simplify the developer/bleach/fix (or blix)/stabilizer process. I agree the bleach was nasty stuff, even with good ventilation - wonder if the 2 part bleach is as bad.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TriX wrote:

Loved Cibachrome - beautiful ultra long lasting me... (show quote)

I never felt comfortable with C-41 or the RA-4 process because I didn't feel I would be successful fixing any color errors in the film development stage with adjustments in the print stage.

Even with the film developed professionally, the printing stage was challenging.

I had to wait until I could scan and print digitally to get what I wanted.

Coral Gables 1984 RB67 Kodak VPS

(Download)

piano44

Last time I used them, Blue Moon Camera in Portland OR makes prints optically. They sell and process Minox film, and I don't know of any place else that does that. They were also processing panoramic prints from Horizon cameras and others.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

terryMc wrote:

Linda, I think you've been around long enough to know that whatever subject is broached there will be those who are going to find no use for it other than to point out its irrelevance (to them). Some will tell us that since it's of no interest to them, it should be of no interest to anyone. I find that attitude curious, but rife.

Well said.
I'm tired of reading this so everyone should stop because I can't control myself...

People should be able to figure out that the more a subject is found interesting, the more times it will pop up and the more pages it will accrue. If they don't want a subject to be discussed repeatedly and for many pages, post something in which no one is interested.

Meanwhile, there is always the "next" and the "unwatch" buttons.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

User ID wrote:

For some, its just about making an image. For some... (show quote)

My 84 year old brother, single, no kids just passed on. I had the pleasure of going through a few thousand photo's he had in boxes. I tossed at least 90% of them because they were of people and places I didn't recognize. About 99% of landscapes, flowers and wildlife meant absolutely nothing to me... tossed. Made me even more aware that LOTS of my pictures have no meaning to anyone but me. My kids will be tossing lots.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

BigDaddy wrote:

My 84 year old brother, single, no kids just passed on. I had the pleasure of going through a few thousand photo's he had in boxes. I tossed at least 90% of them because they were of people and places I didn't recognize. About 99% of landscapes, flowers and wildlife meant absolutely nothing to me... tossed. Made me even more aware that LOTS of my pictures have no meaning to anyone but me. My kids will be tossing lots.

My challenge is to toss before I die so my kids will not be forced to do what I should have already done.