ShortScale.org

Nice! That's the stuff I used to get from jessops for free everytime I got a roll developed. Probably the cheapest color film you can get but I really like it. Never actually bothered to try anything else, all my color film photos are shot with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danheron/s ... 968355961/





I might have to go buy some more... only got 2 rolls left.

DanHeron wrote:

There's something incredibly comforting about that picture.

yeah that picture is great, I have been tempted to rip off the idea every time I walk by an ice cream truck with a camera.

I still have to try some of the fuji 200 stuff. I have found this out about kodak gold though.

the latest make of kodak gold 100 and 200 are based off of the old kodak pro foto xl aka kodak pro image xl. the 100 is very sharp, the 200 is ok. they both have very subtle colors that may work for some things and maybe not for others.

kodak gold 400 and 800 are totally different than 100 and 200. they seem a lot more vibrant to me. they stopped making 800 now.

kodak also makes other consumer grade films.

kodak color plus 200. this film is great. really bold colors. you can get it from adorama for $2 a roll.

kodak VR 100 plus. this film is only sold overseas or for private label stuff. lomography color negative 100 is most likely this.

shot a roll of medium format film the other day with baby. Used a yashica tlr...=awkward as fuck for taking pictures on the floor

got some nice ones

BacchusPaul wrote:Nationwide! Also it was Kodak gold that ended up not being up to much. This stuff is fine and is my go to cheap colour film.

I don't know why I never thought of this.

Hurb wrote:

mezzio13 wrote:http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge

Lower the score the better. I got 16.

250! I knew I was colour blind but fuck!

to anyone wondering why I like shooting black and white and not colour

Having said that here is a picture in my kitchen from my first roll of c-41 processed at home. I had tried a week before hand but in my haste got the developer and blix the wrong way round and borked the film.

usually not a fan of kid's photos but these are are so nice that I take my hat off. Whit a crazy cool lookin wee guy!

looks great hurb. as I'm sure you've figured out now, blix is the stuff that smells like it's really caustic. the developer is kind of a pink color but becomes more brown each time you use it.

The colors in that are PERFECT.

Cheers guys!

I had a good old sniff of all of them and they didn't smell that bad..the blix just smelt a bit like the fixer I use in B&W...maybe my nostrils are borked? I marked up the bottles they are in but just panicked a bit about keeping the temperature and then picked up the wrong bottle and realized after I had already poured it in!

Dan I am pleased you say the colours are OK..being as colour blind as I am, I'm not confident with colour at all! I just let the scanner do the automatic exposure and white balance and just adjusted the contrast in Lightroom.

Some recent photos. None all that good or interesting.


Agfa! by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Towers by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr


Untitled by P Rodgers, on Flickr

That looks like a really cool place!

Because of the car it looks pretty ageless too, nice.

Heh, I know quite a few people who would pay a pretty penny for the wheels on that car. Those are rare. I love those last three shots, anyhow.

The shutter stopped working on my Canon A-1 last weekend only about 8 frames into a roll I advanced the film lever and it felt like it wouldn't cock all the way, although I can't push it any further. And the shutter won't fire. It could be something simple, but likely not. It's sad, the camera is in really good shape, but if it's something expensive, I could probably just buy another one that works fine.

Except, if it truly is busted, I think I may pick up a Nikon body instead. I like that many of their early AF bodies retained the classic styling, yet have modern features like a max shutter speed beyond 1/1000 and better flash integration. (Whereas the only manual focus canon body with those features is the T90, which looks just like a modern DSLR.) But WTF, Nikon bodies are 2-3x the price of similar Canon bodies. Anyone here shoot MF or early AF Nikon bodies?

I suppose my nikkormat is a manual nikon. It's brilliant. An FM2n would probably be my dream camera but I look at it and there's not so much that it can do that my nikkormat can't that I'd pay for. Loads of good lenses available because they've used the f-mount for the million years.

FM2n does look nice. I think I would miss having a dedicated ASA and/or exposure compensation dial, though, so perhaps an F3 would be better for me. (Mostly, I just want something newer / more reliable than my Canon A-series bodies, that's easy to use and still good for manual focus. The T70 I have is a good camera, but awkward to use.) I do like that the FM2n has a mechanical shutter, which will probably never break.

Let me get this straight, though...even modern AF lenses can mount on the old Nikon bodies? (Though modern lenses aren't exactly the nicest for manual focus, it would be nice having lenses that can mount to both old and new bodies.) I've shot Canon for so long that pretty much everything in the world of Nikon confuses me

The FM2n can take pretty much everything made since 1977 except the g-series I think. Ken Rockwell has good info on this.

The older ones like my nikkormat can take more or less anything I think. Or at least I certainly can't afford anything that doesn't fit it.

Dillon wrote:FM2n does look nice. I think I would miss having a dedicated ASA and/or exposure compensation dial, though, so perhaps an F3 would be better for me.

I have no idea what this stuff means. The FM2n looks crazily hi tech to me!

Heh, some days I really think I should focus more on compensation and less on having fancy camera features. Although pretty much any SLR post-1985 or so has some form of exposure compensation that you can use with automatic (programmed) modes). The A-1 has dials for both

I don't really understand exposure compensation our how or why it would be automated. Surely if you don't trust what the meter is saying then you compensate for it yourself? I sort of don't really understand the difference between doing that yourself or telling the camera to automatically do it.

Or is the point that it lets you do it by half or third stops?