Like some above, I simply spool mine off in a darkroom by feel. My rolls are slightly inconsistent in length, but they're close enough. As a bonus, I can shoot to the very end without fogging.
I develop mine in HC-110 B... I intend to experiment with PMK.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?
Unless there is a good reason for buying a 1,000ft can, I would advise getting a couple of 400ft cans, the size is more manageable. I use a similar rig as bdilgard. ORWO also make two nice MP films. Oh yes, I have "Winogrand Syndrome."
Originally Posted by georgegrosu
Why do you prefer DOUBLE-X over Plus-X? Grain size? Tonality? Availability in your area? Personal taste?
I'm going to be a bit contrary here, as usual; and ask what is it about Eastman Double-X that you like so much. I've used a bit of the stuff, and while I don't think it's bad film by any means, it's not the greatest for still camera work. Compared to still camera films, it's a bit flat; and it's grainy as hell for what it is. Unless you're getting a very good deal on short ends (hard to come by these days), 1000 ft. will cost you $380. Ten 100 ft. rolls of Tri-X (arguably a much better film for still photography, it's far easier to print conventionally and isn't half bad for scanning either) sold as Arista Premium 400 from Freestyle will set you back $350. I believe that Freestyle has a promotion going on and will throw in a bunch of reloadable cassettes with orders of 500 ft. of film or more. Call in your order and ask.
I don't know. The Arista Premium is already cut to 100 ft. lengths, costs less, and to my eye at least, delivers a better end result. It's a no-brainer choice.
LegacyPro 400 is even cheaper, and has finer grain that Tri-X.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
You're right about that. It is less expensive, but it falls just short of that Tri-X look which I really do like. As far as grain goes, it's really a toss up. Tri-X and Neopan 400 are both very fine for their speed. The difference is really negligible.
I bought a heap of LegacyPro 100 and 400 bulk rolls only to find out that they don't fit into my daylight loader. The Fuji bulk rolls are too wide having flanks on both sides of the roll and get jammed.
Look for a cheap bulk loader on that auction thief site.
Originally Posted by mablo
Setting aside the question posed about how to spool off usable lengths (and without having the vaguest idea who "Winogrand" is!) I'd have to question this approach to photography, which to me smacks rather too much of the d*****l way of doing things. Shooting lots and hoping for the best may or may not produce some good images, but is the generation of a good image by little more than a happy accident now and then really what photography is about?
Originally Posted by blind_sparks
Perhaps I'm just far too traditional in my approach, but something about this method sets my teeth on edge. However, looking on the bright side, it will tend to keep those film plants churning rather more than my comparatively meagre film consumption will !
Well, since Winogrand preceded digital, I'd have to say this isn't "the digital way" at all. I dare say that shooting lots is a learning tool, since if you have to develop all of it pretty soon you'll start to hone in on things you want to keep.
Originally Posted by Steve Roberts
I understand all of the arguments for and against the digital folks, but I don't buy most of it. I shoot film, and I do not shoot digital. Why? Because I like film. In my mind at least, there's no better reason that can exist.
In the realm of "image making" (verses stricter definitions of photographs) there are a lot of technologies, most of which have successively brought the imaging techniques closer to the masses. Frankly, without this march of technology most of us here would NOT be shooting any film at all. Without Eastman trying to bring film photography to the masses we wouldn't have any film, and don't kid yourself that we'd all be making glass plates. Without Eastman "photography" would be relegated to the world of lab coats. And without digital imaging I sure wouldn't have two spare 4x5 enlargers in the garage that were gifts to get them out of someone's way.
Snapshots, both film and digital, are what you are talking about in my understanding: images that are made without significant forethought about composition and staging. At the other extreme would be studio portraiture: tremendous effort to control lighting, posing, and every other aspect of the image. Most of us fall somewhere between these two extremes, including the OP's street shooting suggestion.
To answer you directly, yes, digital does make snapshots much simpler and less costly. But I don't think that means voluminous image making is necessarily unskilled.
I expect that after some time the OP will begin to get a significant portion of keepers in the endeavor. As the project continues s/he is bound to learn and improve technique, so the critical eye is bound to develop as part of the package. After all, we're talking about a person, not a street camera mindlessly taking pictures.
Last edited by michaelbsc; 08-24-2010 at 02:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.