|
I've had some not so positive results with expired portra 160. They were very brown and muddy. But the ones I got were not fridge stored, so yours may very well be fine.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I got my hands on a bunch of free expired film. The rule of thumb is film "loses" one stop of ISO a decade if stored in a cool dry location. All bets are off if it has been frozen though, in that case there is no way to know without a test roll. It also depends on which Portra it is, I regularly shoot 160nc that expired in like 2007 at box speed with no issue beyond a slight magenta shift. I have some 400UC that expired in 2003 that I shoot at 250 because that's what works best after a test roll. I have some Portra 100T that expired in 2001 and is perfect at box speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
I shot some Vericolor III (pre-runner to Portra) from '97 and didn't compensate for the speed at all, and I found it was a little low on dynamic range and a bit more grainy than I expected, but I was pretty happy with it:  (Gives me an excuse to post some photos)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
This fucken owns dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 10:57
|
|
|
^ yes, yes it does.aliencowboy posted:I got my hands on a bunch of free expired film. i shot nps160 & portras 160/400 from ~02-04. i think both ended up a bit grainer but ISO seemed to be right on. no color cast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:I got my hands on a bunch of free expired film. If it's really been in the fridge for all 10 years, it'll be totally fine. When I got my RZ67 it came with some Vericolor II that'd been in a fridge for 20 years and it came out totally fine at box speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:This is the one I got. Hmm. So what's your impression after a few days use? I'm thinking about buying a bulk loader this week and honestly $20-something isn't a lot to spend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:The rule of thumb is film "loses" one stop of ISO a decade if stored in a cool dry location. All bets are off if it has been frozen though, in that case there is no way to know without a test roll. I'm guessing this goes only for colour film? The agfapan 100 i have expired in 1989 (pretty sure it wasn't stored cool either), i shot and developed some. It maybe be more like iso 50-70 than 100 but it sure hasn't lost 2.5 stops like this formula would suggest. I've seen other example of B&W that expired a long long time ago that didn't seem to have lost much speed. Of course this is all guesswork on my part, i haven't actually done any methodical testing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I shot some Vericolor III (pre-runner to Portra) from '97 and didn't compensate for the speed at all, and I found it was a little low on dynamic range and a bit more grainy than I expected, but I was pretty happy with it: hell yea
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:I'm guessing this goes only for colour film? The agfapan 100 i have expired in 1989 (pretty sure it wasn't stored cool either), i shot and developed some. It maybe be more like iso 50-70 than 100 but it sure hasn't lost 2.5 stops like this formula would suggest. Well it's a general rule of thumb, some stocks do better and some do worse. Slow B&W that's kept cool loses very little speed over super long periods of time. People are still shooting Kodak Super-XX that expired in the 50's and getting usable images albeit with some fog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
I've been absent from the action thanks to a grueling move - but I have to post for this image, because this image gentlemen, this image owns bones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Hmm. So what's your impression after a few days use? I'm thinking about buying a bulk loader this week and honestly $20-something isn't a lot to spend. If you're going to buy from Freestyle and you're in Canada, you might as well pile on a big film order to spread out the outrageous shipping charges. It's less obnoxious to pay $40 for shipping on a $150 order than that same $40 on a $25 order, at least to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I was hoping to do a bigger order but realistically I just needed those few items. I ended up buying the $20 loader, a set of five plastic cans, and 100xAP400. I also bought three rolls of Kentmere 400 since I'd literally never heard of it but it looked kind of like HP5+ and I said "why not". And then paid as much in shipping as I did for my bulk roll loader  Next time I buy from freestyle I'm going to check the local film user groups to see if they want to do a group buy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I also bought three rolls of Kentmere 400 since I'd literally never heard of it but it looked kind of like HP5+ and I said "why not". I guess that is because it is pretty much HP5+ (also made by ilford). Maybe made to slightly different specs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words on the shot, the old course at St Andrews has some pretty ridiculous bunkers
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:I guess that is because it is pretty much HP5+ (also made by ilford). If it has the same pushability then I'll be happy  Though massive dev chart doesn't list any times past ISO800.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:If it has the same pushability then I'll be happy Hhhmm, not sure what it is but I found a 19 page spergathon about it on Apug http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/58301-kentmere-film-maybe-mr-galley-will-know.html. The general consensus between there and a few other places is that it is not HP5. Now if you will excuse me I'm going to go order enough Arista premium to fill a bathtub and roll around in it (because HP5 is inferior to Tri-X you see).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
Wow some people on APUG are reaaaally anal about using a scanner to, well, scan photos.quote:APUG is for discussion of analogue photography and processes. Scanning is a digital process and has no place on APUG. If people want to discuss scanning there are millions of digital sites they can go to. There is only one APUG. quote:
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Pfft, a real pro just tapes their negatives to their monitor 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Wow some people on APUG are reaaaally anal about using a scanner to, well, scan photos. Really tempted to make an "all photography is analog" troll thread over there. But it probably won't be as fun as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:18
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Wow some people on APUG are reaaaally anal about using a scanner to, well, scan photos. This is why I quit going to APUG - analog absolutism and no tolerance for hybrid processes or even any mention of digital anything. Why can't we use the best of both worlds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This is why I quit going to APUG - analog absolutism and no tolerance for hybrid processes or even any mention of digital anything. Why can't we use the best of both worlds? autism
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
How the hell do they even share their final products? "Guys, I know there's no analogue way to show you this, but I just made the most amazing print. You'll have to take my word for it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:46
|
|
|
Exactly. If I was registered I'd troll them by asking how come they're using a DIGITAL forum to talk about analog photography - it's blasphemy! Go talk in person about it and stop having fun!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Exactly. If I was registered I'd troll them by asking how come they're using a DIGITAL forum to talk about analog photography - it's blasphemy! Go talk in person about it and stop having fun! Post everyday via telegram somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Exactly. If I was registered I'd troll them by asking how come they're using a DIGITAL forum to talk about analog photography - it's blasphemy! Go talk in person about it and stop having fun! I have a purely analogue discussion forum and no one else ever posts on it. It's my Moleskine and I keep it over there on the desk in case any of you would like to respond to this post on it. QPZIL posted:Post everyday via telegram somehow. Has wires = digital. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Has wires = digital. If you're going to be that crazy just point out the fact that due to quantized energy nothing is truly analog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:If you're going to be that crazy just point out the fact that due to quantized energy nothing is truly analog. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:How the hell do they even share their final products? "Hey I'd really love some input on how to improve this print of mine. I obviously can't post it here since it's ANALOGUE and too great for this medium, but if you want to help me improve it please mail me a cheque to cover printing another copy and mailing it to you, only $20."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:If it has the same pushability then I'll be happy Rollei made a special developer and allegedly the pushability is excellent: http://www.macodirect.de/rollei-250ml-p-2301.html?language=en e/ Rollei RPX 400 = Kentmere 400
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
APUG people made DPUG for discussing scanning. It's almost empty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
internetdrink posted:Rollei made a special developer and allegedly the pushability is excellent: Definitely going to import this at some point in the future
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Definitely going to import this at some point in the future If you want something cheap to push get some Fomapan 400 and a bottle of Rodinal, 18min at 1:25 and you've got a nice 3200 negative
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Spedman posted:If you want something cheap to push get some Fomapan 400 and a bottle of Rodinal, 18min at 1:25 and you've got a nice 3200 negative Kentmere's paper was poo poo the one time I tried it, and their reputation is about as sterling as Foma's. Is $2.79 per roll for Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) or $2.99 for Ultrafine Extreme 400 (HP5+) really breaking your guys' budgets?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:APUG people made DPUG for discussing scanning. It's almost empty. The jihad against anything remotely digital on APUG is really annoying and counterproductive. You'd think a bunch of film shooters would embrace anything that would keep the film industry alive these days. Hybrid workflow still uses film and if the supply of film dwindles to a trickle it's going to get awfully expensive for all of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Is $2.79 per roll for Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) or $2.99 for Ultrafine Extreme 400 (HP5+) really breaking your guys' budgets? Macodirect.de will ship liquids to Canada, and doesn't stock Arista; their cheap film is Rollei and Foma. Shipping is still brutally expensive, but at least with Ze Germans I don't feel like some schlub who doesn't have a passport is confusing "Canada" with "Another planet".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Kentmere's paper was poo poo the one time I tried it, and their reputation is about as sterling as Foma's. Is $2.79 per roll for Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) or $2.99 for Ultrafine Extreme 400 (HP5+) really breaking your guys' budgets? None of these films are 2.69 for me locally. I bought 100ft of AP400 so I wouldn't have to order small rolls, and I picked up the Kentmere because I was curious. For me bulk loading has less to do with money and more to do with the convenience of being able to make up 10 shot rolls as opposed to having to go through 36 shots before I can change film. I have no doubt that I'll waste a lot of film, but seeing as how I don't shoot a lot anyway, this 100ft should last me a few months and will let me shoot and develop more to my taste.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Kentmere's paper was poo poo the one time I tried it, and their reputation is about as sterling as Foma's. Is $2.79 per roll for Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X) or $2.99 for Ultrafine Extreme 400 (HP5+) really breaking your guys' budgets? You're more than welcome to pay for the excessive shipping costs to Australia for me, or pay the $9 for a roll of Tri-X locally. And I've been asked to pay near $20 for a 120 roll of Ilford film, nothing is cheap down here. The large format Fomapan 400 has been fantastic for me, and at 80c a sheet (including shipping) I can shoot as much as I want with out worrying. You should try pushing the 35mm version too, I've been really impressed by it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Look you other countries have healthcare and we have cheap film. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
One of these two things should be a universal right. And also people should have healthcare too, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:58
|
|