expired film anyone use??

mbphoto said:
god that sounds like me lol
ive set off with dslr and no lenses, again left battery at home and yesterday left tripod attachment for bottom of camera while going for slow speed water shots
took every other item i own except that :LOL: not the 1st and wont be the last
yes good idea will do that
Click to expand...

My nearest Asda's dev machine has been out of action for 10 days so far...must be something serious or they can't get the parts, a bit worrying as if it's not economical to repair they might close the film section down :(
 
That would be a shame hopefully they will fix it
Shame they don't dev 120
 
mbphoto said:
That would be a shame hopefully they will fix it
Shame they don't dev 120
Click to expand...

Their Fuji machines can do 120 if set up, but if they have the same problem as one friendly photo shop, who used a Konica dev machine.....well he stopped doing 120 for me as he said it was too inconvenient cleaning the drive mechanism (rollers or whatever) that was used normally for 35mm as it they weren't cleaned would put a streak down a 120 neg...well I don't think the Asda girls would like doing that so could be a reason why 120 is not done.
 
You know, I fully accept that I have neither time nor inclination (and my wife would say space) to have a go at developing my own fillum. I've brewed my own beer, I load my own rifle ammunition and I load my own 35mm B&W but I'd rather do a hundred and one things and inject another variable into film photography!

So I chin up and pay over the counter for developing to CD in 35mm and to develop 120 roll film.

I've tried out of date film. I won't say that I've tried enough to become wise in the nuances of what'll work and what'll not but when I've stumped up a tenner (say) to get some 120 roll developed to CD and the results are diabolical and not worth at least £9.95 is when for it it's time to stop.

35mm B&W? Yes I'll take a chance. 35mm colou or slide? Only if it's not very old.
120 roll? I'm not taking the risk.

That's my journey - we're all different!
,
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
You know, I fully accept that I have neither time nor inclination (and my wife would say space) to have a go at developing my own fillum. I've brewed my own beer, I load my own rifle ammunition and I load my own 35mm B&W but I'd rather do a hundred and one things and inject another variable into film photography!

So I chin up and pay over the counter for developing to CD in 35mm and to develop 120 roll film.

I've tried out of date film. I won't say that I've tried enough to become wise in the nuances of what'll work and what'll not but when I've stumped up a tenner (say) to get some 120 roll developed to CD and the results are diabolical and not worth at least £9.95 is when for it it's time to stop.

35mm B&W? Yes I'll take a chance. 35mm colou or slide? Only if it's not very old.
120 roll? I'm not taking the risk.

That's my journey - we're all different!
,
Click to expand...

Why would you be willing to chance 135 B&W, but not colour negative 120? At most labs it's more expensive to develop 135 B&W than it is 120 colour negative, I've found. :thinking:

At any rate, I shoot expired negative film all the time—both B&W and colour—and it's perfectly fine. I just don't recommend it when you're starting out with film or for very important occasions, if you haven't had a chance to test other films from the same batch yet.
 
I read your reply... then I read my post. Then I re-read your reply and then I re-read my post. I mentioned 35mm and you've converted it to 135mm. And at that point I'd take your word for it.

There is also an operator factor involved: I'm a lot more confident with 35mm than I am with 120 roll simply down to quantity I've used: I need to redress the imbalance or it'll only get worse.

In practical terms my "local" lab is geared up to process 35mm on the roll though he says that 36 exposures can "drag on the floor" and can be scanned on the roll whereas 120 needs to be chopped into lengths of 4 exposures and scanned frame by frame taking up staff time.
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
I read your reply... then I read my post. Then I re-read your reply and then I re-read my post. I mentioned 35mm and you've converted it to 135mm. And at that point I'd take your word for it.
Click to expand...

35mm film and 135 (no mm) are the same thing. 135 refers to the format number of the film, which coincidentally also happens to have a width of approximately 35mm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

I generally prefer to say 135, as that keeps it consistent with 120, which also is a format number : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

tikkathreebarrel said:
There is also an operator factor involved: I'm a lot more confident with 35mm than I am with 120 roll simply down to quantity I've used: I need to redress the imbalance or it'll only get worse.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean you're just more comfortable with 135 equipment?

Film is film, so there shouldn't really be any differences in exposure between Kodak Portra 400 in 135 than there would be exposing Kodak Portra 400 in 120, for instance.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
35mm film and 135 (no mm) are the same thing. 135 refers to the format number of the film, which coincidentally also happens to have a width of approximately 35mm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_film

I generally prefer to say 135, as that keeps it consistent with 120, which also is a format number : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format



I'm guessing you mean you're just more comfortable with 135 equipment?

Film is film, so there shouldn't really be any differences in exposure between Kodak Portra 400 in 135 than there would be exposing Kodak Portra 400 in 120, for instance.
Click to expand...

Oh I still think the bottom line issue for me is that when a local scan to cd of 120 roll/medium format/645 costs me a tenner of my hard-earned money I think twice about increasing the number of variables which are within my control which is why I choose to take a step back from out of date fillum.

I'm always happy to learn... otherwise it'd all be digital point and shoot. Am I more comfortable with the equipment in one format over another? More familiar certainly:naughty:
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
Oh I still think the bottom line issue for me is that when a local scan to cd of 120 roll/medium format/645 costs me a tenner of my hard-earned money I think twice about increasing the number of variables which are within my control which is why I choose to take a step back from out of date fillum.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with controlling variables; it's something I encourage, especially when learning. At the same time, once you develop just one roll from a batch of expired films, there aren't any more variables than when using fresh film, all other things being equal.
 
Last edited:
well got one roll back of the expired film and i find images to be lacking in detail will this be down to the asda low res scan? nothing i can do in lightroom seems to improve it ? il add a image to show you one min ...
 
Matt I was pretty sure the fuzziness is not down to the Asda scan (but could be wrong, I'm no expert... and on reflection I'm less sure!). There are some weird artefacts around the leaves, top left and top centre; maybe these are from over sharpening? But overall it looks like everything is a bit out of focus. I looked at the comments in your Grassington thread, and there were comments there about oof as well. You didn't say what camera/lens you used for these, but if it's an autofocus camera, could there be a problem there?

On the shot itself, the main problem is that large oof area front and left. Out of focus areas in front are often distracting if large, though they can be a useful framing device in some circumstances.
 
It definitely looks like the reflections bottom right are sharper than the actual railings. Is it possible you've got a shallow(ish) depth of field and have missed the focus in front of the bridge?

Edit: Also, Photobucket is notorious for oversharpening. Try uploading it directly to your TP gallery.
 
Aha, you've added some more. Can I suggest you upload an un-modified ASDA scan to your TP gallery, so we can see a baseline? I'm wondering if ASDA oversharpened (they do that), then you sharpened, then Photobucket sharpened . . .
 
thanks all will do now
shot on f90 with 28-80 nikon lens think shot most at f3.5
 
these are straight off the disc
 
Last edited:
still not great though imo
just a thaught am i using too low f stop ?
 
Looks like the low res scan has been pushed a bit too far in your editing along with Photobucket doing its usual job or murdering uploads.
 
To be honest, the ASDA original is the best one. It's very easy to go overboard in Lightroom - I know, just look at everything I shot in the first 6 months I had it :D
 
yea i think i went over board like you say easily done but feel the expired film handled well i think the person holding the camera let it down :(
also maybe up my f stop ??
 
looks like you've dumped loads of detail with that edit, the Asda scan doesn't look too bad yet you're edit has lost all the definition and sharp in the railings, stone work and....well pretty much everythings gone all mushy
 
Its not the camera settings, its not the camera, the film or the scan, they're all fine, its either your edit or hosting, which is a refreshingly simple fix for a change..:)
 
mbphoto said:
yea i think i went over board like you say easily done but feel the expired film handled well i think the person holding the camera let it down :(
also maybe up my f stop ??
Click to expand...

The hardest lesson I've learned in photography is "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear". The shot of the bridge is perfectly nice. (It'd look better still if it wasn't on Photobucket) If you want it to look REALLY nice, you'll have to go back when the light is better. You can't fake it (easily) and in trying to, you've softened it.
 
thanks guys yea its local well untill i move in a month i go every morning with dog so will take the shot on a better day and try again
is flikr better for uploading images?
 
mbphoto said:
thanks guys yea its local well untill i move in a month i go every morning with dog so will take the shot on a better day and try again
is flikr better for uploading images?
Click to expand...
Knowing where it is, I gotta ask, where are you moving to ??
 
moving to stanley
live opposit nostel priary at min
 
mbphoto said:
thanks guys yea its local well untill i move in a month i go every morning with dog so will take the shot on a better day and try again
is flikr better for uploading images?
Click to expand...

Yeah, try it in all sorts of light - overcast, sunny, golden hour. You'll soon see the difference. (It's quite likely that ASDA scans will need a bit of tweaking by the way - but a little bit. +10 contrast in LR, not +50, etc)

Flickr is usually better yes, but for this - showing examples on the forums - then you can just upload directly, as long as the photo is less than 1024px on the long edge and less than 350kb
 
thanks again
well dropped 4 rolls in today nothing special just fired few rolls off to get used to camera and settings
awaiting 120 to arrive when i get the hang of it
 
the more i look the more i agree the origal un touched images are best
 
mbphoto said:
quite like this but again not sharp at all
Click to expand...

Matt once again there are those odd artefacts above the trees, that seem to be the result of post processing?
 
Artifacts aside, I still think the fundamental pig in the poke here is how we can get from here -


20tmi3c.jpg



to here -

2e4vjtx.jpg



after a bit of fine tuning in post

Those railings are virtually gone, there isn't a modicum of sharp in the entire picture


not wanting to make any suggestions about PP skill levels or anything, heck we all gotta start somewhere but it seems like an awful long jump for a person likely to be used to doing even basic edits ??
 
yea like i said not sure what happened hense the post but i guess going from editing alot of digital to my 1st attempt at a film edit went tit$ up
still tweeking as i type but there seems to be not a great deal of tweeks can be done as apose to a raw file but it is a diffrent game all together im willing to learn
 
Even the most skilled PPist can't do much with the file sizes that come from low res Asda scans, you can only work with what you are given.
That said, if we're just talking about the bridge picture, what would you want to do with it, I mean, the sky is blown nothins gonna change that, maybe it needs a straighten and if you have to, a bit of colour livening, apart from that....where else is there to go....I dunno
 
I've just had a quick play of the bridge shot (straight from CD) in Photoshop and basically there is nothing wrong with it...and to me that's the shot you get with no sunshine to liven it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top