Transpacolor and Peak Imaging are worth a try for processing.
Also, Tudorcolor film is thought to be Fujifilm.
Originally Posted by Ricardo Miranda
Choice of film
I read recently in a newsletter from Firstcall-photographic, that Fuji are ending deals to manufacture film for other suppliers. So when existing stocks run out, the only way to buy a Fuji film will be to buy a roll that actually says Fuji on the label.
The way I use the cheaper films is just to use them when first testing out a new-to-me old camera. Once I can be sure there are no light leaks and the shutter, aperture, and wind-on mechanisms are working, better quality film will be used. I don't use film cameras to save money and increasingly believe that if an image is not worth using a first-tier film on, it probably isn't worth pressing the shutter.
I stand corrected.
Still manufactured, not end-of-line and sold in various retailers
I totally agree.
I don't use film cameras to save money and increasingly believe that if an image is not worth using a first-tier film on, it probably isn't worth pressing the shutter
@mr rusty: Yeah, the first two rolls I shot with the XA were great, I really like that little camera. And I always thought there's no depth of field at all with compact cameras but I took this shot with it and thought maybe, with some practice, it is possible to some extent:
(I actually wanted the flowers in the front to be sharp, that didn't work out haha, but on the top right you can see some blossoms that are nearly sharp. That is what you ment by playing with the depth of field, isn't it?)
I do have a Minolta X-700 as well which was my dad's old camera! My boyfriend has used that one before and shot some awesome pictures with it. I tried it as well but firstly somehow managed to shoot on ISO800 which I think is the reason they were so awfully grainy... A bit embarrassing really, haha. Secondly I brought that film to Boots to develop and their machine broke down during the developing process so they only developed half of my pictures and their colours looked quite awful as well (I used the same film as my boyfriend did when he shot his ones that looked fine so it shouldn't have been the film).
Thanks again for all the help! I'm definitely going to buy some proper film and see how that goes.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
There is always a "depth of field", but the smaller the camera the bigger it becomes for a given aperture - hence the reason why single use cameras can get away with no focussing system at all - at a small aperture on a very small camera the DOF is from a few feet to infinity.
And I always thought there's no depth of field at all with compact cameras
If you have an X700 you're good to go for any eventuality.
If you shot 200 film on an 800 setting, the film lab would have still tried to get an image even though the negs were significantly underexposed. Flat, grainy images would definitely be the result!
managed to shoot on ISO800 which I think is the reason they were so awfully grainy
Lots of recommendations here for other labs. Not saying boots or whatever are bad, but I think you have more chance of consistent quality using one of the mail order companies. It does seem that high street labs are getting a bit variable depending on who is operating and how well they are maintaining the kit.
It seems so!
Also, Tudorcolor film is thought to be Fujifilm.
Thanks for the info! I'll have a look at what actually Fuji Japan is saying.
I read recently in a newsletter from Firstcall-photographic, that Fuji are ending deals to manufacture film for other suppliers.
BTW, Fuji just announce new packaging design for its Pro products, or at least some of them!
True! But, as I said, the old distinction between first-class and second-class films is getting blurry. We never had such good films and with the ongoing shrinking of the film choice, I am glad we still have that choice. Remember, different brushes, different strokes. And to get a particular effect, you might want to use a budget film. As an example, I use Lucky Colour 100 (discontinued last Sept.) as it has soft colours and a 60's feel. Others have found out that Rollei CN200 creates a look reminiscent of the Technicolor films of the 40s.
I don't use film cameras to save money and increasingly believe that if an image is not worth using a first-tier film on, it probably isn't worth pressing the shutter.
Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F50, F55, F60, 2xF601, F65, 3xF75, F801, 2x F801S, F80, F90, 4xF90X, EL2, FE, FM, 2xFG, FG-20, 3xEM
Here I go again... That X-700 is part of one of the best camera systems ever made. With a little more knowledge and practice, you could have used the manual controls, through-the-lens focusing and depth of field preview to get that shot just the way you wanted. The XA is one of the best pullitoutofyourpurseforaquickshot cameras ever, a forerunner to today's digisnappers, but if you're serious about getting real high-quality photos, start using that X-700. I have 3 X-xxx bodies and they are much better cameras than I am a photographer.
Originally Posted by rookie
A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it.
I would check that the camera lens is clean - the first thing that came to my mind when viewing your example was 'fingerprint'. The design of the XA makes it very hard to keep fingers off the lens.
The next cause of blah color prints is underexposed negatives. Compare the negatives from the blah roll to the good roll - if the blah negatives are thin then the camera may have been set for 400 speed while loaded with 100.
Low contrast can be a result of the camera (or film) sitting in the hot sun or a car glove compartment.
The very, very, very, very last things I would expect to be the cause are that the manufacturer can't produce film or that Kodak can't develop it. Switching labs or films won't fix the problem.