Ektachrome 100 vs costs 14 dollars , plus 6 dollars development and 4 dollars scan here. And I have to mile 70 kms 3 times and invest 15 hours total at the traffic. I think in US everything is cheaper but distances are larger and life is faster and time is more limited to a person who works.
So there is no way to rescue Kodak from here or there , I guess .
Other way , Panasonic new camera costs 40 dollars and offer couple of ten thousands picture that you can print at home. No home consumer is dumb enough to spend his her life and money to save Kodak , except me , I will always use tri x but at 8 mm format after all. When the winter spending cuts , I will buy a 8mm camera with single shot option and 4600 APUG photograps per 11 dollars. I will pyro and palladium tone the positives and fill my gallery with scans.
threads like this are quite depressing ...
if there is a huge push to get people to buy film and shoot film
it will fall flat on its face because most of infrastructure
to have film processed has been dismantled. not everyone wants
to process film themselves. mom+pops are boarded up, and fuji+kodak
have stopped "send out / pick up " services at most places.
it seems the niche/boutique market is for people who process themselves
or have the means to have a custom lab process+print their film.
E6 film is ultra expensive and my photolab said there are two persons per month to come and negative film got developed. His main business is weddings and printing ugly red cheeked , margarine look skinned new married digital recorded couples pictures for chinese made thick albums.
I think no digital people goes and orders prints from their machines also. And lcd screens are excellent and hated the prints myself also. I had been bought a Sony for 70 dollars with Tessar zoom lens with 5 aspheric Zeiss lens elements !!
I would recommend a 16mm camera over an 8mm or super 8 if you are looking to do stills, unless you are into an incredibly grainy look. 16mm is still cheaper than 35mm, and you still get a massive amount of frames per roll, but you have approximately 4x the image size.
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
"Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler
I would never buy this kind of camera until there is the Leica one. I love grain , especially at Leica and I dont think that it would be unusuabally grainy cos they cast it to the big screen. I will not print anything with it but scan and put to the APUG. I did not go more than 300 meters from my home 5 times in 2 years and I have no one to photograph or show the prints except here.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes, I see this as a pretty discouraging factor. I shot a roll of 35 mm Provia around the end of December and took it to what passes for my nearest pro oriented store. They send it to another store location and apparently now hold work until they get enough to justify running the machine -- took me two and half weeks to get the film back. I've also shot some 120 color in various forms to get the thrill of seeing it, but I have to admit for most stuff where I want color, I go with "other" technology.
Originally Posted by jnanian
B&W I do here -- it's my "art" medium -- and hey, it's fun!
Maybe half frame would be thrifty enough? Before going this 8mm route I would suggest picking up a home movie shot in this format and test out scanning a few frames. They are crazy small!
Develop it yourself to be thrifty! People say they don't want to but it is so easy and cheap, cents per roll for B&W (HC-110) and under $1/roll for C-41. You can see it in minutes, not weeks and it will be done properly.
Kodak makes some good film but they really need to think about what they're doing. Living off patents, some sensors in cameras, the cut throat inkjet market and business to business just isn't unique these days; you can't swing a dead cat without hitting companies doing the same thing. Portra, that's hard to compete with! Don't they realize this? No, obviously not.
I watched Leicina at youtube and I did not more smooth , rounded , three dimensional face than it. Its like a balloon filled with full pressure and ready to explode. I learned that it is possible to take single shots with it , why ? Because Leica feeled its feasible. Small scans are ok for me. And it is possible to make your Eisenstein like movie with it. I hope nothing goes wrong and I could invest in it. I have a Rollei 35S and it doesnt mean I will not use it but unable to take whatever I see and want to see later and investing 15 dollars per roll , making me nervous.
while it is possible to use a 8mm camera to make stills it is probably
less time consuming to buy a thousand feet of movie film ( 5222 ) and just
use that ... in a half frame ..
can you get 8mm movie film processed in turkey ?
there aren't many places left that process the b/w film. whenever i shot it
on my bolex i was shipping it to switzerland via fujilabs.
its about 1/4 the frame size of 110
enlarging, well you need an enlarger that can accept
a recessed lensboard a 12.5 mm lens ( "normal" ) internegative and print
or use a longer lens and enlarge a handful of frames onto a sheet of paper or film (
then print or enlarge those frames ( they will be the size of a 35mm frame ) ...
even with the leica, each step degrades the image..