OT: Film cameras and photography comeback?

[rwsaunders]

Originally Posted by Alistair

I think he’s talking specifically about the film that’s been repurposed from motion picture to 35mm still (which is what I was asking about).

Is anyone old enough to remember Seattle Film Works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

[avalonracing]

Originally Posted by rwsaunders

Is anyone old enough to remember Seattle Film Works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_FilmWorks

Ha, I forgot all about them. I worked in a little camera story in the mid-80s and people used to bring that film in looking for us to process it and we let them know that it had to be sent back to Seattle. No one was pleased about that.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by Alistair

I think he’s talking specifically about the film that’s been repurposed from motion picture to 35mm still (which is what I was asking about).

oh right.

I have been looking at the Kodak Vision film to try out - https://www.atlantafilmco.com/

FWIW, the ramjet on that has not been removed and there's only a handful of labs that will process it. It looks like most of the cinestill stuff is also variants of Kodak motion picture film and re-housed in traditional 35mm film cartridges too. I think Kodak is making nearly all the film out there - its largely rumored that Fuji 200 & 400 films are rebranded Kodak Gold & Ultramax. I sure cant tell the difference between them.

[Alistair]

Why would you shoot it with the rem-jet layer in place? I guess less risk of halo, but then you have to send it to a different lab?

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Why would you shoot it with the rem-jet layer in place? I guess less risk of halo, but then you have to send it to a different lab?

Its different so it must be good I guess. I do think it can produce some unique images but is that worth it over all the other options out there... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[jkbrwn]

Originally Posted by Alistair

Why would you shoot it with the rem-jet layer in place? I guess less risk of halo, but then you have to send it to a different lab?

Cause you can buy 100ft of Vision3 250D for $160. Which is very similar to the nowadays outrageously expensive Portra 400. If you want to shoot Portra, but want to save an absolute boat load of money, Vision3 is a good choice.

Still quite a few labs out there that develop ECN-II for no up charge over C41.

[weisan]

All these talks... this thread is incomplete without any pictures.

[jkbrwn]

Originally Posted by weisan

All these talks... this thread is incomplete without any pictures.

All Portra 400. Probably. And I think Pentax MX w/ f1.4 50mm. In and around the Picos de Europa in Cantabria, just west of the Basque Country.

[weisan]

Thank you brown pal, that was a feast for my eyes.

[Alistair]

Originally Posted by weisan

All these talks... this thread is incomplete without any pictures.

Expired Fuji Arcos 100II shot on my Olympus 35DC.

Shot of my backyard* on my walk home from work.

* My house backs a golf course.

[jkbrwn]

Ugh. Miss Acros a lot. Screw you fujifilm.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by weisan

All these talks... this thread is incomplete without any pictures.

Here's some stuff I've shot this year on my Konica SLR

Ilford XP2



Portra 400



Tri-X






Very expired Kodak something



Portra 160



Lomo 100



Kodak Gold 200

[.RJ]

And some older stuff

Kodak E100









Fuji 200







Kodak Gold 200





Fuji 400 (I think)

[weisan]

Now we are talking!

Thank you for posting, RJ pal!

[jkbrwn]

Lovely photos. This is what I meant way earlier in the thread. Digital just can’t compare to film IMO.