Good news from Kodak for film fans

[alfredo]

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2296502/new-kodak-company-to-continue-selling-film

Yes!

[sir pball]

1. Damn. I thought "Tech Pan" and got REALLY excited for a minute

I'm happy with Fuji color stuff but nothing has or will ever beat TP for B&W. Alas..

[alfredo]

2. I liked Panatonic Pan X ISO 32 for portraits.

TriX was the go to for other uses.

Agfachrome was a favorite for slides, but Ektachrome slides were big news for me because I could develop them. I'd push it to ISO800

I will be posting some slides I photographed last night.

[sir pball]

3. I pretty much use Delta across the board these days.

100 most of the time, pushed to 400 for portraits/street/basically anything with people (it has a great "vintage" look without too much tonal loss), and 3200 when I'm feeling the 80s-punk super grainy, contrasty, dark-backstage handheld style. It's actually quite interesting to use with a 35/1.8 DX lens, the wider angle with heavy vignetting makes for a very punchy composition.

Nothing but straight Velvia 50 for color since the demise of Kodachrome, though. Any other film's look is easy enough to bang out digitally.

[alfredo]

4. I would use Ilford all the time, but nobody develops BW around here.

I do have a tank and reel, and running water...

[sir pball]

5. That's how I do it

I'm sure somebody in NYC develops, but it's hardly a chore to DIY. I actually find it immensely pleasurable; it's a much more satisfying feeling pulling the roll out of the tank and seeing the images for the first time as opposed to sticking a card in a slot. That, and there's no trouble at all with trickiness like push/pulling or alternate chemistry. I wouldn't do it any other way.

[alfredo]

8. I find photographing negatives then inverting doesn't work as desired. Any suggestions beyond

buying a negative scanner?

[sir pball]

9. I have an Epson V750, but I've successfully photographed films before

I had a completely jury-rigged setup made from a piece of frosted glass and a desk lamp; I just upended the lamp and put the glass across it, then put the film under clear glass on top of that. I think the key to it all is a really good perfectly flat-field lens; I use an ancient (pre-AI) Micro-Nikkor P 55/3.5 - manual focus and no metering whatsoever but at f8 on a DX camera it's utterly evenly lit with a board-flat focus plane and so sharp that there's no visible benefit, even at the edges, from software sharpening. Set the lamp on the table, adjust to level with a bubble, put the camera on a tripod facing straight down by the bubble, set the ratio to 1:1.5 (for DX, FX would be 1:1 obviously) and crank the tripod up or down to focus. Or use rails if you're rich.

In terms of fixing them, IIRC just doing an Invert and then Auto Color in PS worked like a charm; I'm sure there's detailed guides out there though. I'd still say go for the scanner though, mine is a quite passable "prosumer" level film scanner, it's not as good as a dedicated film unit or a PMT-based drum scanner, but it's also an all-purpose flatbed that will handle reflective stuff too. Great for those old prints in the albums, and doing business as well.

[alfredo]

10. My setup is an old negative scanner from an Epson flatbed.

I took the glass out of the negative scanner attachment and attached it to the negative holder. I put that n top of an inverted lamp. I use extension tubes and an Industar 50-2 lens on my Micro 4/3.

Slides work well using this setup, but negative film is not as distinct as I'd want. The contrast isn't that good, and colors are way off. I guess I need more work on the processing side.

[RAAVAN]

6. AGREED

I am totally agreed that it is good news for film users. Films are still in use. Kodak is the best suppliers of films through out the last century.

[alfredo]

7. I want some slide film. I used to do ektachrome, I can do it again. Digitizing slide is a snap.