Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,579   Posts: 1,545,751   Online: 1009
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    One thing about Chinese film is when you shoot a roll you'll want to shoot another roll and an hour later.
    LOL. And after shooting that first roll, you feel tired from all the MSG.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    In such transitional times, one should be grateful for ANY film on the market.
    Personally, I haven't shot Lucky or Shanghai, whatever .. but I have started decades ago with very cheap films think ORWO, Svema, Tasma etc, so, I would say that there is no bad film. Good cameras and good films and papers etc doesn't help create outstanding art. In fact, the facts are that the more advanced and technological the tools are, the more crappiest the art is.

    If most photographers are as good as cheap films.., there might have been a lot more sense for film popularity.
    So, the question is:
    How good are You under pressure?
    How good are You when Your favorite Kodak and such are threatened?

    What is more important for You?
    mediocre dumb, B&W shot on Kodak film
    or
    soul uplifting, spectacular shot on Lucky or else film?
    A good view....expensive equipment and top quality materials don't make a great photograph, and owning them does not make one into a great photographer.

    It's as if someone had complimented Turner on his command of art, then asked what make of brushes and paint he used!

    I've used one or two Lucky C-41 films just out of curiosity, and with good processing and printing they are quite acceptable. (I'm convinced that there are no bad films, but, over the years I have seen a lot of very bad processing, right across the spectrum from minilabs to even some so-called "professional" labs!)

  3. #33
    tjaded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,018
    Images
    75
    That is probably the single most accurate thing I have read in years!

    Quote Originally Posted by Thingy View Post
    What intrigues me is that people will happily part with thousands for the best lenses but quibble at the price of quality film.
    --------------------
    "Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it." -Paul Strand

    www.glasskeyphoto.com

  4. #34
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    I would never pay thousands for a lens. That's just ridiculous.

  5. #35
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,535
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Thingy View Post
    What intrigues me is that people will happily part with thousands for the best lenses but quibble at the price of quality film.
    I'd continue to use Shanghai film regardless if it was priced the same as other brands.



    As for Lucky, they used to have an E-6 line at one point, discontinued some time ago.. don't know when, never got to try it.


    Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.

  6. #36
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    I'd continue to use Shanghai film regardless if it was priced the same as other brands.



    As for Lucky, they used to have an E-6 line at one point, discontinued some time ago.. don't know when, never got to try it.


    Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.
    This is a bit of an aside but I've asked elsewhere without, so far, an answer, so I'll ask you: How does Shanghai compare for reciprocity failure, delicateness of the emulsion and quality control with Foma? The prices are about the same and those seem the main problems with Foma.

    And no, I don't really care about cheaper. I can afford to shoot as much Kodak or Fuji or Ilford black and white film as my available time permits as it's my time that's more limited. But it's nice to have choices.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Harrisburg Metroplex, PA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    It's just I don't understand why people buy this junk. Is a roll of Kodak film really so expensive? Is it really worth saving a few dollars on things like this? I don't get it.
    you must not be broke . sometimes i hesitate to spend $5 on bacon.
    f3hp, passport polaroid, holga, 600, 67
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    retrospective in progress

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    A little while ago I came across this brief article in Shutterbug about a new RA4 product that Lucky have developed: a double-sided colour paper. The main purpose seems to be to facilitate the printing of pages for photo books and albums:

    http://www.shutterbug.com/content/fi...als-too-page-2

    Like most folk here I am delighted to see any new analogue product being developed. I'm intrigued as to how you would expose the reverse-side image on this paper. While it would easy using an enlarger, the paper is no doubt designed for digital exposure rather than by projecting light through a negative. I'd expect double-sided exposure to be near impossible on existing automatic printers like Noritsus and Fujis. Also roller processors, which all of these machines employ, don't generally do a great job if the paper is fed in upsidedown so there would be doubts about development quality on the reverse side.
    There must be a new type of printer required to produce these prints in volume.

    For the stated aim of producing book pages, one wonders about the viability of such a product given that the market for photo books is pretty much owned by a few companies like HP. Perhaps the growing affluence and huge population of China alone will ensure success. OzJohn

  9. #39
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,617
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.
    They did produce aero films. Actually they once produced the full range of halide materials. As Kodak, as Agfa-Gevaert.

  10. #40
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,617
    Quote Originally Posted by OzJohn View Post
    A little while ago I came across this brief article in Shutterbug about a new RA4 product that Lucky have developed: a double-sided colour paper. The main purpose seems to be to facilitate the printing of pages for photo books and albums:

    http://www.shutterbug.com/content/fi...als-too-page-2

    Like most folk here I am delighted to see any new analogue product being developed. I'm intrigued as to how you would expose the reverse-side image on this paper. While it would easy using an enlarger, the paper is no doubt designed for digital exposure rather than by projecting light through a negative. I'd expect double-sided exposure to be near impossible on existing automatic printers like Noritsus and Fujis. Also roller processors, which all of these machines employ, don't generally do a great job if the paper is fed in upsidedown so there would be doubts about development quality on the reverse side.
    There must be a new type of printer required to produce these prints in volume.

    For the stated aim of producing book pages, one wonders about the viability of such a product given that the market for photo books is pretty much owned by a few companies like HP. Perhaps the growing affluence and huge population of China alone will ensure success. OzJohn

    That was the RA-4 innovation (about 1 1/2 years ago) I referred to above.
    The most ignored innovation by the way at last Photokina.

    There is a special minilab printer for that paper.

    By that they try to gain the photobook market for halide paper.

    However, they seem not to get hold within the large industrial photobook market, as there the step-over into large-volume inkjet machinery and out of chemical processing has already taken place.
    Last edited by AgX; 10-06-2011 at 07:43 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin