BE QUICK

Delivery date has changed there Kevin, it was originally 18/10.

Would it be 220 if 24 exposures, i cannot think of any MF film camera that can take 24 shots unless 45x45
 
I'm pretty new to MF this year, but I didn't think 220 existed anymore?

With 120, I get 12 shots at 6x6 on the 124G

My Voigtlander Bessa folder gets 16 shots with the 6x4.5 mask, 8 shots at 9x6.
 
LeeRatters said:
I'm pretty new to MF this year, but I didn't think 220 existed anymore?

With 120, I get 12 shots at 6x6 on the 124G

My Voigtlander Bessa folder gets 16 shots with the 6x4.5 mask, 8 shots at 9x6.
Click to expand...
I have seen some 220 about but never Kodak
 
220 film is 120 film without backing paper (except at the two ends). This means that it's possible to wind a longer length onto the same size (diameter) spool.

This means that the camera has to be aware of what is happening; either by a 120/220 switch or separate film backs specifically for 220 film. And obviously, you can't use a camera with a red window...

There were concerns about the film bring less protected on its passage through the camera eithout the backing paper.
 
Last edited:
My MF 6 x 4.5 back takes 120 or 220 film at the press of a button; I also have a 220 6 x 6 back :) (Smug git reply! :cool:)

full
 
Last edited:
Just below the advert is Portra 400 (120) for 5 rolls @ £81.99 o_O .....erm so using a Rollei and inc dev and postage works out about £2 per shot for one roll. I wonder how many newbies are put off trying film because of the cost.
 
excalibur2 said:
Just below the advert is Portra 400 (120) for 5 rolls @ £81.99 o_O .....erm so using a Rollei and inc dev and postage works out about £2 per shot for one roll. I wonder how many newbies are put off trying film because of the cost.
Click to expand...
Film has always been expensive but it was the only game in town.

Digital came along and was effectively free to use, once you had the camera.

Thus we progress.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Film has always been expensive but it was the only game in town.
Click to expand...
Nah..in the old days you used to get a free film back after you posted your shots off for prints, anyway Portra, about 5 years ago, was about £20 for 5 rolls so it's up 400%......and I remember a report years ago that said the packaging cost more than the film (probably inc the cassette as well?).
 
excalibur2 said:
Nah..in the old days you used to get a free film back after you posted your shots off for prints, anyway Portra, about 5 years ago, was about £20 for 5 rolls so it's up 400%......and I remember a report years ago that said the packaging cost more than the film (probably inc the cassette as well?).
Click to expand...
It may well have been cheap 5 years ago but if you go back to 1965, when I started using a camera seriously, a 36 shot cassette of HP3 cost 7 shillings and 5 pence, which, according to the bank of England inflation calculator, is roughly £5.50. Retail Price Maintenance had only just been abolished and there were few or no discounts from shops. Indeed, when the abolition of RPM began to bite, the manufacturers simply increased their wholesale prices which, coupled with the inflation that started to take off almost concurrently, increased the price of film and other photographic items, rather than reducing them.

The practice of providing a "free" film with colour prints started, if I recall correctly, sometime in the 1980s, when colour processing in-store began to bite into the profits of the bigger processing companies and their high street outlets, such as Boots. I vaguely remember that one mail order company, I think it was "Gratispool", set up in the 1970s using "free" films as a bait but I do recall that their products were not highly regarded.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Film has always been expensive but it was the only game in town.

Digital came along and was effectively free to use, once you had the camera.

Thus we progress.
Click to expand...

Yes, ‘effectively free’, however don’t forget the hardware and software for processing the images. File get bigger, software more complex and the computer slows. So a bigger and faster computer is needed. Plus, unfortunately, cameras become obsolete very quickly.
 
angelpaaul said:
Yes, ‘effectively free’, however don’t forget the hardware and software for processing the images.
Click to expand...
I think that, for the vast majority of people who record images, all the costs are shared out with other uses for the same equipment. The cameras that so many use now are part of their mobile data device, which does many other things.
angelpaaul said:
File get bigger, software more complex and the computer slows. So a bigger and faster computer is needed.
Click to expand...
True for those people who worship at the altar of technology and therefor sacrifice themselves thereon. For the rest of us, we sometimes upgrade but only when we chose to.
angelpaaul said:
Plus, unfortunately, cameras become obsolete very quickly.
Click to expand...
Cameras do, for a very small minority.

Even then, the canny wait for the prices to drop before buying - often secondhand.
 
Love the description:


About this item​

  • High quality: Designed for both analogue and digital cameras, this film delivers exceptional results every time you shoot.
  • Light Sensitivity: The 35mm film is light sensitive, capturing subtle nuances and details even in low light conditions.
  • Unlimited Creativity: Perfect for artistic and creative photography, this film allows you to explore your creativity and capture unique, memorable images with vintage style.
  • EASY TO USE - This film is easy to load and use in all 35mm cameras, providing a smooth user experience for both beginners and professionals.

I wish I could work out how to put it in my Z9? Anybody help? Don't you just hate light sensitive film; it's a real b****r you know!
 
Last edited:
AI descriptions are taking over E-Bay also.

I had a look at some sample images for this film and the colour rendition is right up my street although some shots have the dreaded pink colour cast.

So it must be Kodak.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
AI descriptions are taking over E-Bay also.

I had a look at some sample images for this film and the colour rendition is right up my street although some shots have the dreaded pink colour cast.

So it must be Kodak.
Click to expand...
Looks like respooled expired cine film. Personally, I’d pay a few pound more per roll and buy Kodak Gold 36 exposures so you know what you’re getting.
 
Flighter said:
I think I was wrong re remjet. The label on the cannister refers to C-41 process so I'm now thinking Orwo NC400.
Click to expand...
is that good or bad?
 
Appears to be marketed by GT Company (no idea) who have a license to use the AgfaPhoto name. No idea what their delivery charge is but their web site lists it for €17.99 or £15.00 … but does say it is 'buy one, get one free'.
 
Flighter said:
I think I was wrong re remjet. The label on the cannister refers to C-41 process so I'm now thinking Orwo NC400.
Click to expand...
I was about to say the same thing after reading a few threads elsewhere about it.

The colours look very green tinted, and the grain is pretty strong even for a 400 iso colour film.

I still think it’s overpriced for 24 frames.
 
Barney said:
is that good or bad?
Click to expand...
Well, it’s good in as much as any film processing shop can deal with it as it just goes through the normal C-41 line and no problems with having to remove the remjet coating first.

On the (possibly) bad side, it's a newish film so probably not as polished as ColorPlus or Gold, reviews have been mixed. I don’t have any personal experience though.

As far as I know, Orwo don't have their own coating facility and they used Inoviscoat. I haven’t been keeping up with developments so don't know the current state of play with Inoviscoat but they have had, to say the least, a bumpy ride for the last few years including bankruptcy.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I still think it’s overpriced for 24 frames.
Click to expand...
Yes, respooled Vision3 is available on the Bay for a similar price for either 30 or 36 exposures, although there is the extra hassle of removing the remjet and if C-41 process is used instead of ECN-2 there are issues with colour crossover, etc. I find C-41 does have the benefit of having a longer shelf life than ECN-2 though.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I was about to say the same thing after reading a few threads elsewhere about it.

The colours look very green tinted, and the grain is pretty strong even for a 400 iso colour film.

I still think it’s overpriced for 24 frames.
Click to expand...
On this occasion 24 frames suited me, i would usually shirk at 24 and go for 36.
RE the cost and perceived value, this is my hobby, and regarding my other hobbies, I regularly lose golf balls(big hitter), throw pounds and pounds worth of stuff in a pond when fishing and lose lots of lead and terminal equipment also. A roll of film is here nor there. And if it is a new coating from a new supplier I am even more happy to support it.
 
gramps said:
No, no, no!
Click to expand...
dont panic,
my bad
lead substitute,

I am that old I still call swan shot lead. I don't think lead has been available for years in the coarse fishing world,

Sea fishing may still be using some lead bit is being phased out there I think.
 
Barney said:
On this occasion 24 frames suited me, i would usually shirk at 24 and go for 36.
RE the cost and perceived value, this is my hobby, and regarding my other hobbies, I regularly lose golf balls(big hitter), throw pounds and pounds worth of stuff in a pond when fishing and lose lots of lead and terminal equipment also. A roll of film is here nor there. And if it is a new coating from a new supplier I am even more happy to support it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more that, as a newcomer to film, you may be better off with a more established emulsion that delivers consistent results with decent colours, but I also understand the hobby element.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I was thinking more that, as a newcomer to film, you may be better off with a more established emulsion that delivers consistent results with decent colours, but I also understand the hobby element.
Click to expand...
Thanks Steve for trying to help,

but there is a fair bit of mad professor in me and I don't mind the unusual or trying new things. It would be a boring world if everything looked the same- we may as well shoot digital. :)
 
Barney said:
dont panic,
my bad
lead substitute,

I am that old I still call swan shot lead. I don't think lead has been available for years in the coarse fishing world,

Sea fishing may still be using some lead bit is being phased out there I think.
Click to expand...
My dad was a plumber so often had bits of lead pipe. As teenagers me and my brothers would melt down the lead in the back yard and pour it into moulds to make fishing weights. No thought of health and safety seems to have occurred.
 
Kevin Allan said:
My dad was a plumber so often had bits of lead pipe. As teenagers me and my brothers would melt down the lead in the back yard and pour it into moulds to make fishing weights. No thought of health and safety seems to have occurred.
Click to expand...
Love that Kevin, Kids don't play anymore,

We poured the molten lead into bricks we used as the mould, a particular brick had the letters AW embossed into it, it always gave a super shiny result that lasted a day or two before fading. We turned lead into gold, we were so proud of those.
 
I can remember playing with liquid mercury as a kid, holding it in my hands. There were always globules of mercury in the gaps in the tongue and groove floor boards in the science labs at school. Changed days! I wonder if I'm now a walking health hazard :thinking:

We also had good fun with sulphur, salt petre and charcoal, following in the footsteps of the ancient Chinese.
 
shezzams.

he he
 
Film arrived safe and sound, Its C41. But don't understand the remjet layer categorization.

I will blast a roll off tomorrow.

Of course with thoughtfulness, care and precision. :D
 
My T-MAX just arrived, hope that some of you managed to snaffle a bit, your in for a nice surprise.

TMAX.jpg
 
Expected to be delivered 29th October according to Amazon. I'm guessing the order won't be fulfilled with such a long lead time.
 
Kalsarikännit said:
Expected to be delivered 29th October according to Amazon. I'm guessing the order won't be fulfilled with such a long lead time.
Click to expand...
Judging by my experience you should get it this week.
My order just suddenly changed to "dispatched" then out for delivery next day. Originally scheduled for 18th October

I have reached the conclusion that most of the verbiage is to deter shops from buying all the stock and then marking it up to normal prices. If they are buying it at less then a fiver a roll and charging a tenner then they are taking the p***. My appreciation of Kodaks regard for the film user has gone through the roof. Just need some FX 39 now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top